Roseanne and Male Oppression
The TV show Roseanne was a popular sitcom during the 80’s and 90’s. The show featured a blue-collar family, the Connors, living in a small town in Illinois. This particular analysis will focus on the relationships of the following couples: Roseanne and Dan, Becky and Mark, and Jackie and Fred. For the purpose of this paper, I have chosen to focus on the episode entitled “Girl Talk” from season seven in which Becky and Mark experience sexual problems. Feminists believe that sex and gender are two completely separate things and that one’s sex should not define one’s gender and how he or she acts in society. In the episode, the men acknowledge the fact that there are definite gender roles. They attempt to blur these roles by talking about their emotions and relationships as their wives had previously suggested in the episode. However, they eventually realize that this makes them feel uncomfortable and that they are better off in the comfort zones of masculinity. While the sitcom Roseanne portrays characters that are content fulfilling traditional gender roles, this paper will argue that Roseanne is actually an example of society’s emphasis on the need for men to display masculinity and that this is ultimately oppressive. In society, we punish or reward a human being based on how well he or she performs his or her gender role. The biggest assumption the show makes is that gender roles, particularly those of men, are necessary. We see this through their traditional occupations, their differing ideas of sex, and most of all, their unlike ways of communication.
The first assumption we see, not only in this particular episode, is that men and women fulfill different occupations based on their sex roles. “Most dangerous workplaces conflate stereotypical masculine traits (being brave, tough, and strong, for example) and competence,” says Gilbert in her article on “Manly Men, Oil Platforms, and Breaking Stereotypes” (Gilbert). The women on the show perform traditionally female oriented jobs involving cooking and cleaning, while the men perform more dangerous male oriented jobs involving hard labor and getting their hands dirty. While Becky is still a student in this episode, both Jackie and Roseanne work as waitresses at a local diner called The Lunch Box. All three of their husbands work for the city of Lanford as mechanics on school busses. The only other fellow employee we see at The Lunch Box is a homosexual man named Leon. The gender roles are so defined that the only man not performing a macho job is homosexual. Though the men are certainly no less capable than their wives of performing these “feminine” jobs, the men feel they must put themselves into a position that they feel confirms their manhood. This is ultimately oppressive.
Another assumption we see is that real men want sex more than women. Josey Vogels, a sex columnist and author of several books says “given our culture's belief that men want it anytime, all the time, I suspect it would be much harder for a man to admit he didn't want it. Men [and women] are conditioned to think that any way a guy can get laid is a score -- the old 'she can seduce me anytime' bravado” (Hanes). When Jackie first tells Roseanne about how Becky and Mark are having sex issues, she responds by automatically assuming Becky is the “shutting Mark down.” Once she finds out that Mark is actually the one uninterested in sex, she responds “Poor Becky! Now she is going to have to teach him to talk!” (“Girl Talk”). Though she was probably trying to be humorous, she implies that if Mark cannot perform to society’s standards sexually, than he cannot perform to any of society’s standards of manliness, even the ability to talk. When he finds out that everyone, especially his male friends, knows about the issue, he immediately becomes angry and resorts to the manly act of “punching a truck.” Mark’s entire sense of self comes from his sexual performance, and we can see how the stereotype that men are always up for sex is actually oppressive to him. Another example we see is between Roseanne and Dan. After Roseanne tells her girlfriends about something personal that happened between them in the bedroom, he tries to come up with something to make her understand why this bothers him. “What if I told everybody that you’re not interested in sex lately?” he asks. She says: “Well yeah why don’t you go tell everybody that your wife turns you down for sex all the time, that really embarrasses ME.” Dan responds with a defeated “this sucks” (“Girl Talk”). He is in a situation where he is either unmanly because he is the one who does not want sex, or he is unmanly because his wife is refusing him sex. This double bind is certainly oppressive.
The third and most obvious assumption seen in this episode of Roseanne is that it is considered “un-manly” to have discussions of the same depth that women do. In his report “Silent and Sick” Germain Dulac says Despite our post-feminist era, the majority of men are still taught to bottle up their feelings and maintain an illusion of strength…Women have far fewer reservations about relating how they feel”(Desjardins) and in her article on “Manly Men, Oil Platforms, and Breaking Stereotypes” Sarah Jane Gilbert says “presenting oneself as emotionally detached, unshakable, and fearless was crucial for demonstrating both masculinity and competence” (Gilbert). When Roseanne asks Dan to talk to Mark about his problems in the bedroom he says: “Men don’t talk to each other about this kind of stuff!” She responds with, “I thought you and Mark were good friends! You men, you say you have all these friendships but all you have is just another hairy person to eat chips and itch with!” (“Girl Talk). Later, Fred asks the men “do you ever think we spend too much time talking about sports and stuff? We never talk about our relationships.” The rest of the men try to avoid the subject awkwardly by cracking jokes. He continues to say, “I’m serious. Maybe we should open up a little. It wouldn’t hurt us to talk about personal things that really matter… we’ve all got marital issues like love, money, and sex… maybe we should talk more about this kind of stuff.” Dan responds with “WRONG! We’re guys! When we talk about sex there should be bragging, dirty jokes, and the occasional limerick, that’s it!” (“Girl Talk”). As feminists, we must look into the reasons men feel this way. A huge reason they are bothered when they attempt to communicate on the level their wives do is because of the pressure society places upon them to “be a man.” The act of discussing their feelings is clearly feminine, and doing anything feminine clearly makes them “gay”. For this very reason, men feel they cannot openly discuss things of importance, especially involving their feelings for one another. “The gay liberation movement clarified men's sexual concepts, bringing into question men's inability to displace affection openly and also pointing out fallacies in relevant stereotypes of male homosexuality,” says Karen Taylor in her book Transcending Boundaries. (Taylor).
Through this analysis I have found that Roseanne does indeed contain anti-feminist principles. The occupations, sexual ideals, and ways of communication among characters show us that the need to fulfill stereotypical gender roles is indeed oppressive to everyone, particularly me. This show presents the assumption that these gender roles are necessary to keep peace and order in the every day life of the Connors. However, from a feminist point of view, we now know that these gender roles are the very things oppressing them.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Doyle:Media Analysis
Kelly doyle
Nip/Tuck: Carving with an Anti-Feminist Agenda?
“Fix your skin, they seem to say, and you'll fix your spirit” (Gilbert). Nip/Tuck, a popular television series about plastic surgeons, managed to raise ratings as well as eyebrows over the ongoing three season series. While some critics praise the edgy promiscuous nature of the show, many others condemn it for the mixed messages that young audiences might receive. One of the major criticisms is that the show fails to explicitly declare the dangers of casual plastic surgery and that America’s youth might begin to believe that plastic surgery is the only way to achieve popularity and happiness. Despite its weak satirical attempts to suggest that plastic surgery may not always be the way to go, it enforces the anti-feminist ideal that outward beauty is the only way to happiness. The show enforces this idea in two ways: that these surgeons force their notions about beauty onto their girlfriends, lovers, or wives, and secondly, they use their idea of beauty as a weapon against woman they are intimate with, which creates a fervent desire for plastic surgery. The main characters Sean McNamara and Christian Troy center their lives around their careers and the idea that beauty and youth bring wealth and happiness. In order to ensure their air of accomplishment and perfection, Troy and McNamara attempt to surround themselves with attractive women. Christian habitually has intercourse with younger women in order to emphasize his affixation with youth and beauty. “ ‘I don’t want to be pretty,’ the aspiring model whom Christian lured from bed to the operating room whispers pleadingly, ‘I want to be perfect.’ He dumps her before the stitches come out” (Stanley). Christian repeatedly lures women into bed with him by complimenting their looks. In season three, Christian tells a woman buying mascara in a drug store, “sweetie, don’t give into Covergirl. Your natural beauty can only be damaged with that overpriced goop” (Nip/Tuck). These types of comments give these women a false sense of security while feeling especially gorgeous because a plastic surgeon believes that they are naturally beautiful. Another example surfaces when Sean McNamara’s wife “contemplates breast implants to rekindle their marriage” (Stanley). Throughout the series, Sean’s wife (Julia) sporadically becomes insecure with their marriage blaming her old age as the reason why her husband is cheating on her and losing sexual interest. The fact that Sean is a plastic surgeon most certainly plays into why she feels the need to constantly reinvent and improve her physical appearance. However while she spends her time exercising and attempting to perfect her body, Sean is out cheating on Julia with a younger chiropractor. This leads to Julia becoming more devastated and loses more and more self esteem. Another episode in season three shows Christian and Sean prepping for surgery when Sean declares, “God. Sometimes I wish I were single” (Nip/Tuck). Christian replies, “Remember for every beautiful girl, there’s a man who is tired of screwing her” (Nip/Tuck). This selfish and shallow statement proves that these men force their idea of beauty upon their partners in order to pressure their significant other into pursuing perfection. However, this goal immediately backfires on these women because the surgeons are never satisfied with their efforts. This agenda is most certainly anti-feminist because it reinforces the idea that women are only valuable if they are attractive according to society’s standards. Furthermore, it pressures women to believe that their worth is determined by whether or not the opposite sex finds them to be attractive. These methods are how Dr. McNamara and Dr. Troy successfully manipulate women into thinking that they are below average and always feel the need for self-improvement. Another anti-feminist aspect to Nip/Tuck is that the surgeons try to recruit patients by hitting on them and slyly telling them insignificant flaws they have on their bodies. “[Christian] preys upon beautiful women, sleeping with them and then convincing them to get expensive and unnecessary surgery” (Menon). After intimacy in bed together, he attacks them at their most vulnerable moment. There are several instances where Christian will seduce a woman solely for the purpose of attracting more clientele and bringing profits to the office. He feeds on their insecurities to make them believe in his accusations of their imperfections. They are blinded by the subconscious desire to be accepted especially by a male. This fuels the patriarchal system and encourages women to berate themselves to the point of going under the knife. They desire to feel accepted and society defines this acceptance for females as having external, artificial beauty. One example in season two is when Christian tells an older female that is lying in bed with him, “You have an amazing body for a woman your age. But if I may offer my professional advice, your ass could look half your age with my help” (Nip/Tuck). Later that morning, she followed Christian to the operating room. Stanley criticizes this show saying, “Most of their patients are beautiful, neurotically insecure women who need hobbies, not larger breasts or smaller noses”.
Similarly, this aspect of the program proves to be anti-feminist as well because it goes against feminist ideals that men are not the key to success, happiness, or fulfillment. This relates back Naomi Wolf’s “The Beauty Myth” which defines and criticizes society’s impossible standards for beauty. Wolf writes, “In assigning value to women in a vertical hierarchy according to a culturally imposed physical standard, it is an expression of power relations in which women must unnaturally compete for resources that men have appropriated for themselves” (121). This idea suggests that women are generally conditioned by a patriarchal society that approval of men is necessary for accomplishment and happiness, and it encourages them to actively pursue men because age will catch up to them and there are only so many good men out there to choose from. Christian and Sean play a part of this patriarchal system by creating an illusion of trust and ensuring false security in women they interact with in order to nudge them into the operating room. Every consultation begins with either doctor asking the patient, “Tell me what you don’t like about yourself” (Nip/Tuck). This immediately triggers insecurities in their patients which ultimately leads to more money for the office.
Sean and Christian’s characters both participate in a television series that degrade women and devalue beauty by defining it solely on outward appearance. Although the producers claim to integrate satire on society’s harsh standards of beauty in the series, the show fails to blatantly criticize these “norms” and instead embeds “the beauty myth” deeper into the minds of America’s youth.
I believe a critical analysis of this television series is important because so many young women are coerced into thinking that plastic surgery can boost self esteem and make them happy. The theme song to the series features the lyrics, “Make me beautiful. A perfect face… A perfect life” (Nip/Tuck) which suggest that plastic surgery leads to perfection and fulfillment. Seeing these gorgeous women on television may inspire them to invest in having work done which may only lead to a skewed perception of confidence and beauty. I believe that young women need realistic images of average women so they are not seduced into ideas of perfection that are unattainable.
Nip/Tuck: Carving with an Anti-Feminist Agenda?
“Fix your skin, they seem to say, and you'll fix your spirit” (Gilbert). Nip/Tuck, a popular television series about plastic surgeons, managed to raise ratings as well as eyebrows over the ongoing three season series. While some critics praise the edgy promiscuous nature of the show, many others condemn it for the mixed messages that young audiences might receive. One of the major criticisms is that the show fails to explicitly declare the dangers of casual plastic surgery and that America’s youth might begin to believe that plastic surgery is the only way to achieve popularity and happiness. Despite its weak satirical attempts to suggest that plastic surgery may not always be the way to go, it enforces the anti-feminist ideal that outward beauty is the only way to happiness. The show enforces this idea in two ways: that these surgeons force their notions about beauty onto their girlfriends, lovers, or wives, and secondly, they use their idea of beauty as a weapon against woman they are intimate with, which creates a fervent desire for plastic surgery. The main characters Sean McNamara and Christian Troy center their lives around their careers and the idea that beauty and youth bring wealth and happiness. In order to ensure their air of accomplishment and perfection, Troy and McNamara attempt to surround themselves with attractive women. Christian habitually has intercourse with younger women in order to emphasize his affixation with youth and beauty. “ ‘I don’t want to be pretty,’ the aspiring model whom Christian lured from bed to the operating room whispers pleadingly, ‘I want to be perfect.’ He dumps her before the stitches come out” (Stanley). Christian repeatedly lures women into bed with him by complimenting their looks. In season three, Christian tells a woman buying mascara in a drug store, “sweetie, don’t give into Covergirl. Your natural beauty can only be damaged with that overpriced goop” (Nip/Tuck). These types of comments give these women a false sense of security while feeling especially gorgeous because a plastic surgeon believes that they are naturally beautiful. Another example surfaces when Sean McNamara’s wife “contemplates breast implants to rekindle their marriage” (Stanley). Throughout the series, Sean’s wife (Julia) sporadically becomes insecure with their marriage blaming her old age as the reason why her husband is cheating on her and losing sexual interest. The fact that Sean is a plastic surgeon most certainly plays into why she feels the need to constantly reinvent and improve her physical appearance. However while she spends her time exercising and attempting to perfect her body, Sean is out cheating on Julia with a younger chiropractor. This leads to Julia becoming more devastated and loses more and more self esteem. Another episode in season three shows Christian and Sean prepping for surgery when Sean declares, “God. Sometimes I wish I were single” (Nip/Tuck). Christian replies, “Remember for every beautiful girl, there’s a man who is tired of screwing her” (Nip/Tuck). This selfish and shallow statement proves that these men force their idea of beauty upon their partners in order to pressure their significant other into pursuing perfection. However, this goal immediately backfires on these women because the surgeons are never satisfied with their efforts. This agenda is most certainly anti-feminist because it reinforces the idea that women are only valuable if they are attractive according to society’s standards. Furthermore, it pressures women to believe that their worth is determined by whether or not the opposite sex finds them to be attractive. These methods are how Dr. McNamara and Dr. Troy successfully manipulate women into thinking that they are below average and always feel the need for self-improvement. Another anti-feminist aspect to Nip/Tuck is that the surgeons try to recruit patients by hitting on them and slyly telling them insignificant flaws they have on their bodies. “[Christian] preys upon beautiful women, sleeping with them and then convincing them to get expensive and unnecessary surgery” (Menon). After intimacy in bed together, he attacks them at their most vulnerable moment. There are several instances where Christian will seduce a woman solely for the purpose of attracting more clientele and bringing profits to the office. He feeds on their insecurities to make them believe in his accusations of their imperfections. They are blinded by the subconscious desire to be accepted especially by a male. This fuels the patriarchal system and encourages women to berate themselves to the point of going under the knife. They desire to feel accepted and society defines this acceptance for females as having external, artificial beauty. One example in season two is when Christian tells an older female that is lying in bed with him, “You have an amazing body for a woman your age. But if I may offer my professional advice, your ass could look half your age with my help” (Nip/Tuck). Later that morning, she followed Christian to the operating room. Stanley criticizes this show saying, “Most of their patients are beautiful, neurotically insecure women who need hobbies, not larger breasts or smaller noses”.
Similarly, this aspect of the program proves to be anti-feminist as well because it goes against feminist ideals that men are not the key to success, happiness, or fulfillment. This relates back Naomi Wolf’s “The Beauty Myth” which defines and criticizes society’s impossible standards for beauty. Wolf writes, “In assigning value to women in a vertical hierarchy according to a culturally imposed physical standard, it is an expression of power relations in which women must unnaturally compete for resources that men have appropriated for themselves” (121). This idea suggests that women are generally conditioned by a patriarchal society that approval of men is necessary for accomplishment and happiness, and it encourages them to actively pursue men because age will catch up to them and there are only so many good men out there to choose from. Christian and Sean play a part of this patriarchal system by creating an illusion of trust and ensuring false security in women they interact with in order to nudge them into the operating room. Every consultation begins with either doctor asking the patient, “Tell me what you don’t like about yourself” (Nip/Tuck). This immediately triggers insecurities in their patients which ultimately leads to more money for the office.
Sean and Christian’s characters both participate in a television series that degrade women and devalue beauty by defining it solely on outward appearance. Although the producers claim to integrate satire on society’s harsh standards of beauty in the series, the show fails to blatantly criticize these “norms” and instead embeds “the beauty myth” deeper into the minds of America’s youth.
I believe a critical analysis of this television series is important because so many young women are coerced into thinking that plastic surgery can boost self esteem and make them happy. The theme song to the series features the lyrics, “Make me beautiful. A perfect face… A perfect life” (Nip/Tuck) which suggest that plastic surgery leads to perfection and fulfillment. Seeing these gorgeous women on television may inspire them to invest in having work done which may only lead to a skewed perception of confidence and beauty. I believe that young women need realistic images of average women so they are not seduced into ideas of perfection that are unattainable.
A Feminist Prospective on Command & Conquer: Red Alert
Viewed with contention by feminists since their widespread popularity of the late 80s, video games have gained a reputation as a bastion of sexism and patriarchal values for the greater part of two decades. Thanks to games such as Grand Theft Auto and Tomb Raider, women have consistently been devalued and sexualized by video game designers. Feminists take great offense to the constant sexualization of women and the misrepresentation and lack of female characters with in the world of video games. Although there is a veritable sea of anti-feminist games on the market today, some games have portrayed women as professional, highly capable, strong women. In this essay, I will argue that Command & Conquer: Red Alert portrays women in a largely feminist manner, whether it was the overt intent of the designers or not.
Command & Conquer: Red Alert is a real time strategy game that was released in 1996. Although the game is nearly twelve years old, its legacy lives on as arguably the most popular RTS ever created. Red Alert was the prequel to the original Command & Conquer, a game in which one builds bases and commands armies to destroy their enemies. Red Alert follows this prerogative and the entire game is played from the perspective of a gender-ambiguous commander of either the Allies or the Soviets in a view above the battlefield. Feminists should note that there is only one female unit in actual game-play; all other units have masculine voices.
Female characters are central to the game’s storyline, which is presented through two different campaigns (Allied and Soviet) as short films interspersed between actual game-play. The game takes place in an alternate 1950s timeline accidentally created when Albert Einstein tries to prevent the Second World War by eliminating Adolph Hitler from the timeline. This causes unseen consequences which result in an aggressive Soviet Union invading 
positions of power. During the Soviet campaign, Nadia, the Chief of Stalin’s NKVD is the player’s direct superior and the most cunning of all the Soviets portrayed in the game. She is personally responsible for the deaths of her rival in the game, General Gridenko. The mere fact that Nadia is head of the Secret Police is a statement on her competence and the fact that she is Stalin’s most trusted advisor makes her one of the most powerful players in the Soviet hierarchy. She is also Stalin’s mistress, and although this relationship is not played on in-game, it is hinted that she is his mistress out of fear as she kills Stalin in the final cutscene. Although she is thought to be Stalin’s mistress, she is never represented in a way that could be interpreted as sexual; she is always seen in uniform and never seems to have the red, pouting lips of contemporary feminine heroes such as Lara Croft. She openly breaches the gender divide because she is a strong feminist female character in a traditionally male genre. By creating this character, the developers have created a strong character who is both attractive to male and female players (Cassell 29).
Tanya Adams is the only other woman in Red Alert, and although she is portrayed as a commando, her appearance can be likened more to Lara Croft rather than Nadia. Like Lara, Tanya, although a “Special Forces Commando,” wears a form fitting tee-shirt and carries dual pistols. Unlike Lara, however, Tanya wears combat boots and combat fatigues, yet it still could be argued that she represents the sexual fetish of “Chicks with Guns.” However, despite Tanya’s sexualized appearance, she is the Allies’ best commando and is spoken highly of by her male counterparts. A strong woman, Tanya is even seen overcoming her Soviet interrogator when she is captured (and subsequently rescued by the player). However, despite the obvious assumption that Tanya is a strong woman, it is interesting to note that when she can be commanded on the field not only is she the only unit with a female voice but she shouts “Shake it, Baby!”, a quote and homage to Duke Nukem, one of the most well known anti-feminist titles. Duke Nukem says the line himself when he enters a strip-club to one of the dancers (Richard 283).
Red Alert cannot itself be considered a feminist media because of the nature of the game itself as a wargame that rewards violence. Some have even claimed that it encourages a disregard for life because of its very nature (Dill 123). Its role as a wargame places it as a masculine game: part of the “norm” in gaming. Its nature of exploring the map and destroying the enemy places it within the typical boy’s play; Henry Jenkins in his essay on gender calls this part of the essential parts of masculine play. He asserts that masculinity, since the 19th Century has consistently placed an emphasis on violence and the nature of exploring (Jenkins 189). It is so deeply entrenched in a male gendered role that when a player encounters a female player online, he is often surprised. This could be because public leisure spaces (such as the internet and online game lobbies) have traditionally been claimed to be highly gendered as masculine, placing constraints on any female players (Bryce 195).
Although Command & Conquer: Red Alert was definitely not designed to be a gender neutral game or meant to appease the feminists, one can still find feminist strengths throughout the women portrayed in this game. The fact that women were featured in this game is unusual for the time period when it was rare for women to be included at all. Because it places women in positions of power, and portrays them as powerful, strong women who are able to hold their own against their male counterparts, Red Alert shows it’s relatively few women in a mostly positive, feminist light. Although Tanya can be seen as sexualized, she is still the most able unit in the game and a strong woman throughout the cutscenes. The Soviet Nadia definitely embodies feminist ideals as she ascends up the power structure in Red Alert. Although the game is without doubt constructed for the masculine mindset, the feminist characters in this game change the storyline from a standard masculine driven story to a more progressive incorporating powerful women.
Cook: Media Analysis
Katie Cook
Women Studies
Kristen McCaullif
April 28, 2008
A Shot at the Sex Positive with Tila Tequila: A New Third Wave Development
Today’s media outlets are full of reality dating shows of people hoping to find love. Every show appeared the same with a man choosing between many women or a women searching for the perfect man. It was not until VH1 aired “A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila” that this homogeneous trend was broken. Tila Tequila, a stripper and former Playboy model, was looking for love outside of these heterosexual expectations. On national television, Tila announced that she was bisexual and would be looking for love in a group of sixteen straight men and sixteen lesbian women. In this paper, I will argue that “A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila” offers to media consumers the theory of sex-positive feminism and an optimistic outlook on the third wave. I will also analyze the homophobia and intolerance that is felt toward the people living outside of the heterosexual “norm.” In particular, I will use the reactions of the men on the show toward the women to demonstrate this blatant homophobia.
The third wave of feminism is completely unique from the first two waves. Beginning in the 1980s and gaining its name in the 1990s, the third wave works to address issues related to racism, economic classes, and gender binaries. “A Shot at Love” addresses the issue of gender binaries. Women are no longer forced to hide their sexuality, but it can be used as a tool for feminism (Bronstein 784). “A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila” depicts women that are flaunting every aspect of their bodies. Not only are these women acting in an explicit sexual manner, they are all lesbians or bisexuals. These women are bringing the idea of sex-positive feminism to the forefront of the media whether it is by dancing on poles or dressing extremely provocatively. Sex-positive feminism can be defined as “a simple but radical affirmation that we each grow our own passions on a different medium, that instead of having two or three or even half a dozen sexual orientations, we should be thinking in terms of millions” (Queen XVII). In a society that is attempting to eliminate sexual deviances, it is refreshing to see these women openly displaying their sexual orientation. The key to understanding the sex-positive is accepting the differences while attempting to stop destroying them (Queen XVIII). In my eyes, sex positive feminism is being in control of every aspect of oneself. It is being able to choose a partner, or multiple partners, of any sex without being judged. It all comes down to being the master of one’s own body.
In “A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila,” spotting the pro-sexuality activity is quite simple. Throughout the show, Tila often held competitions between the men and the women. The winner gained a reward while the loser was “punished.” In episode four of the series, appropriately titled Heaven and Hell, the women won the competition; when asked if they wanted to join Tila in Heaven or Hell, they chose Heaven. The boys, as their punishment, were sent to Hell. Scantily clad Tila greeted the boys and proceeded to lead them to Hell. In the room titled Hell was stripper poles, cages, sex toys, and handcuffs. Tila took control of the boys and made them do whatever she wanted. Locking some of them in cages and whipping others, she made her dominion over them and her immense sexuality quite obvious. Tila is displaying the different approach that third wavers have on issues of sexuality and bodily aesthetics that can be considered feminist resistance. In the Guardian, a newspaper centered in London, Kira Cochrane wrote, “The wider third wave project of reclaiming and embracing female sexuality, after generations in which women weren’t allowed to admit to any sexual feelings or interest at all, has been a genuinely positive progression” (3). She is defying the “man-hating” view of the second wave and indulging in empowering activities supported by the third wave. These empowering deeds are considered “frivolous activities that make you feel good” (Bronstein 795). In Jane Sexes It Up, Jane writes about bringing sexuality and feminism together. She believes that women should not have to give up feminism to feel good about sex; and sex should not be forsaken in order to be called a feminist. Tila is showing women through her show that it is not necessary to forgo sexual activity. Women should understand that the third wave is all encompassing. Third wavers are more likely to identify as lesbians, bisexuals, transgender, or regular women that are empowered by their sexual actions. Participants in the third wave relinquish the need to see things in a distinct light; their thoughts reside outside of binaries (Bronstein 784). In an interview with the Toronto Sun, a newspaper that branches from Sun Media, Tila Tequila stated, “It’s kind of refreshing to go back and forth” (Ward 1). In essence, this “refreshing” feeling can be what the third wave is working toward.
Seemingly trivial at first glance, I would argue that Tila Tequila’s fashion in the show sets a trend for third wave feminism. Third wavers are seen as being more concerned with appearances; and it has been said that they are more approachable than those women of the second wave. These women are more open to being beautiful and can talk about a feminist agenda while still wearing make up and high heels. In fact, this concept of beauty makes feminism more acceptable in media outlets. One certain case study analyzes the depiction of second wave feminist versus third wave feminist in the media. Second wavers were often depicted as “social deviants and axe-carrying man haters” while the third wavers were referred to as “cutting edge, diverse, and media-friendly.” With the media on the side of feminists, it is simpler to relay an agenda to the masses. People are more likely to listen to the words of a “powerful” woman rather than a “loony” (Bronstein 790). In Shot of Love, the media carefully notes the way Tila dresses. Her risqué and revealing outfits convey her sexuality before she even speaks. Throughout the show, her clothes were constantly referred to by her potential “lovers”, and the camera often focused on them. It was a regularity to see Tila walking down the mansions seemingly endless staircase in stilettos and an animal print outfit while the focus was directly on Tila or the men and women gazing at her in awe. Due to the fact that “A Shot at Love” is yet another reality dating show (with a slight twist), many viewers did not tune in for the plot line. Tila’s witty personality and sexy persona inevitably attracted much attention.
Although I feel that Shot at Love is a progressive show as it is helping the acceptance of alternatives to the gender binary, it also shows the homophobia that is still existent in the world today. To say that post-feminism has arrived is not accurate due to the third wave fight for a more diverse group than women. When VH1 first approached Tila with the idea of “A Shot at Love,” Tila was torn. The Toronto Sun reported that even though Tila had known she was bisexual from a very young age, exhibiting her sexual preferences on television was not something that sounded appealing. She only agreed to do the show after she realized that it was a first (Ward 1). If homophobia no longer existed and people were not judged based on their personal choices, the decision to do the show would have been less complex.
The homophobia was also clearly visible from the men on “A Shot at Love.” When Tila first announced that she was a bisexual to the men and women, a shocked look was embedded on every man’s face. The men constantly made remarks about how Tila was not truly a bisexual; she just had not been with a “real” man. They also made what they thought were brilliant comments analyzing how the lesbian women were just suffering from “penis envy.” Even past this show, being referred to as a lesbian carries negative connotations. When said in this negative fashion, lesbian is a title that can make a person feel completely outside of societal acceptance. Because these women choose not to be intimate with men, they must hate all men. A woman choosing to try to survive without a man must have something wrong with her, or so it seems from a homophobic perspective (Pharr 416). Unfortunately, as Pharr points out in her book, the label lesbian affects all women, not just those who identify as lesbian. It can be used to describe women who are independent and living fully without necessarily needing a man to support them. Making women conform to a traditional role is something that the title lesbian attempts to do. Tila’s decision to admit her bisexuality and the other women’s choices to show they were lesbians could have a negative impact on their life. Society, because of homophobia, punishes these women in many different realms. Some have fear of finding a job or are ostracized from their family (Pharr 418). Even though Tila did not suffer from this, she addressed this fear of losing her family by saying, “I’ve always been very open, but I didn’t tell my parents until recently. They ended up being very supportive” (Ward 1). The bottom line is that no societal structures foster the idea of homosexuality. Instead they do the opposite and promote homophobia. There is no where these women can go to be free from negative comments. Those identifying as lesbian lose credibility and respect. They are rejected by the very community in which they reside (Pharr 419). It was a bold move for Tila Tequila and the sixteen lesbian women to reveal their true selves on “A Shot at Love.” They risked everything, as they do every day of their life, when they admit they are lesbian.
Overall, “A Shot at Love” is just another reality dating show for a women looking in the wrong place to find someone to love. I do not believe that this show was intended to have third wave themes, but it thoroughly depicts third wave ideals of sex positive feminism and the deliberate homophobia affecting America. With “A Shot at Love” heading into a second season, it is possible that culture is beginning to accept the concept of sexual orientation being fluid. It does not have to be a static feeling, and Tila Tequila shows this. She was looking for love in both men and women; however, she began to see them not as men and women, but just as people, free from the defining characteristic of sex. If the world could see people without identifying them as women or men, an extreme progression would be made. Although it seems we are far from this goal right now, Tila
Tequila is proof that it can be done. Society’s acceptance of “A Shot at Love” shows that they can accept this fluidity. Positive steps forward in the media with shows such as “A Shot at Love” are just what America needs to break through homophobia and continue living in the sphere of sex positive, third wave feminism. After this is achieved, we will be closer to saying that the world is in a state of post-feminism.
Women Studies
Kristen McCaullif
April 28, 2008
A Shot at the Sex Positive with Tila Tequila: A New Third Wave Development
Today’s media outlets are full of reality dating shows of people hoping to find love. Every show appeared the same with a man choosing between many women or a women searching for the perfect man. It was not until VH1 aired “A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila” that this homogeneous trend was broken. Tila Tequila, a stripper and former Playboy model, was looking for love outside of these heterosexual expectations. On national television, Tila announced that she was bisexual and would be looking for love in a group of sixteen straight men and sixteen lesbian women. In this paper, I will argue that “A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila” offers to media consumers the theory of sex-positive feminism and an optimistic outlook on the third wave. I will also analyze the homophobia and intolerance that is felt toward the people living outside of the heterosexual “norm.” In particular, I will use the reactions of the men on the show toward the women to demonstrate this blatant homophobia.
The third wave of feminism is completely unique from the first two waves. Beginning in the 1980s and gaining its name in the 1990s, the third wave works to address issues related to racism, economic classes, and gender binaries. “A Shot at Love” addresses the issue of gender binaries. Women are no longer forced to hide their sexuality, but it can be used as a tool for feminism (Bronstein 784). “A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila” depicts women that are flaunting every aspect of their bodies. Not only are these women acting in an explicit sexual manner, they are all lesbians or bisexuals. These women are bringing the idea of sex-positive feminism to the forefront of the media whether it is by dancing on poles or dressing extremely provocatively. Sex-positive feminism can be defined as “a simple but radical affirmation that we each grow our own passions on a different medium, that instead of having two or three or even half a dozen sexual orientations, we should be thinking in terms of millions” (Queen XVII). In a society that is attempting to eliminate sexual deviances, it is refreshing to see these women openly displaying their sexual orientation. The key to understanding the sex-positive is accepting the differences while attempting to stop destroying them (Queen XVIII). In my eyes, sex positive feminism is being in control of every aspect of oneself. It is being able to choose a partner, or multiple partners, of any sex without being judged. It all comes down to being the master of one’s own body.
In “A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila,” spotting the pro-sexuality activity is quite simple. Throughout the show, Tila often held competitions between the men and the women. The winner gained a reward while the loser was “punished.” In episode four of the series, appropriately titled Heaven and Hell, the women won the competition; when asked if they wanted to join Tila in Heaven or Hell, they chose Heaven. The boys, as their punishment, were sent to Hell. Scantily clad Tila greeted the boys and proceeded to lead them to Hell. In the room titled Hell was stripper poles, cages, sex toys, and handcuffs. Tila took control of the boys and made them do whatever she wanted. Locking some of them in cages and whipping others, she made her dominion over them and her immense sexuality quite obvious. Tila is displaying the different approach that third wavers have on issues of sexuality and bodily aesthetics that can be considered feminist resistance. In the Guardian, a newspaper centered in London, Kira Cochrane wrote, “The wider third wave project of reclaiming and embracing female sexuality, after generations in which women weren’t allowed to admit to any sexual feelings or interest at all, has been a genuinely positive progression” (3). She is defying the “man-hating” view of the second wave and indulging in empowering activities supported by the third wave. These empowering deeds are considered “frivolous activities that make you feel good” (Bronstein 795). In Jane Sexes It Up, Jane writes about bringing sexuality and feminism together. She believes that women should not have to give up feminism to feel good about sex; and sex should not be forsaken in order to be called a feminist. Tila is showing women through her show that it is not necessary to forgo sexual activity. Women should understand that the third wave is all encompassing. Third wavers are more likely to identify as lesbians, bisexuals, transgender, or regular women that are empowered by their sexual actions. Participants in the third wave relinquish the need to see things in a distinct light; their thoughts reside outside of binaries (Bronstein 784). In an interview with the Toronto Sun, a newspaper that branches from Sun Media, Tila Tequila stated, “It’s kind of refreshing to go back and forth” (Ward 1). In essence, this “refreshing” feeling can be what the third wave is working toward.
Seemingly trivial at first glance, I would argue that Tila Tequila’s fashion in the show sets a trend for third wave feminism. Third wavers are seen as being more concerned with appearances; and it has been said that they are more approachable than those women of the second wave. These women are more open to being beautiful and can talk about a feminist agenda while still wearing make up and high heels. In fact, this concept of beauty makes feminism more acceptable in media outlets. One certain case study analyzes the depiction of second wave feminist versus third wave feminist in the media. Second wavers were often depicted as “social deviants and axe-carrying man haters” while the third wavers were referred to as “cutting edge, diverse, and media-friendly.” With the media on the side of feminists, it is simpler to relay an agenda to the masses. People are more likely to listen to the words of a “powerful” woman rather than a “loony” (Bronstein 790). In Shot of Love, the media carefully notes the way Tila dresses. Her risqué and revealing outfits convey her sexuality before she even speaks. Throughout the show, her clothes were constantly referred to by her potential “lovers”, and the camera often focused on them. It was a regularity to see Tila walking down the mansions seemingly endless staircase in stilettos and an animal print outfit while the focus was directly on Tila or the men and women gazing at her in awe. Due to the fact that “A Shot at Love” is yet another reality dating show (with a slight twist), many viewers did not tune in for the plot line. Tila’s witty personality and sexy persona inevitably attracted much attention.
Although I feel that Shot at Love is a progressive show as it is helping the acceptance of alternatives to the gender binary, it also shows the homophobia that is still existent in the world today. To say that post-feminism has arrived is not accurate due to the third wave fight for a more diverse group than women. When VH1 first approached Tila with the idea of “A Shot at Love,” Tila was torn. The Toronto Sun reported that even though Tila had known she was bisexual from a very young age, exhibiting her sexual preferences on television was not something that sounded appealing. She only agreed to do the show after she realized that it was a first (Ward 1). If homophobia no longer existed and people were not judged based on their personal choices, the decision to do the show would have been less complex.
The homophobia was also clearly visible from the men on “A Shot at Love.” When Tila first announced that she was a bisexual to the men and women, a shocked look was embedded on every man’s face. The men constantly made remarks about how Tila was not truly a bisexual; she just had not been with a “real” man. They also made what they thought were brilliant comments analyzing how the lesbian women were just suffering from “penis envy.” Even past this show, being referred to as a lesbian carries negative connotations. When said in this negative fashion, lesbian is a title that can make a person feel completely outside of societal acceptance. Because these women choose not to be intimate with men, they must hate all men. A woman choosing to try to survive without a man must have something wrong with her, or so it seems from a homophobic perspective (Pharr 416). Unfortunately, as Pharr points out in her book, the label lesbian affects all women, not just those who identify as lesbian. It can be used to describe women who are independent and living fully without necessarily needing a man to support them. Making women conform to a traditional role is something that the title lesbian attempts to do. Tila’s decision to admit her bisexuality and the other women’s choices to show they were lesbians could have a negative impact on their life. Society, because of homophobia, punishes these women in many different realms. Some have fear of finding a job or are ostracized from their family (Pharr 418). Even though Tila did not suffer from this, she addressed this fear of losing her family by saying, “I’ve always been very open, but I didn’t tell my parents until recently. They ended up being very supportive” (Ward 1). The bottom line is that no societal structures foster the idea of homosexuality. Instead they do the opposite and promote homophobia. There is no where these women can go to be free from negative comments. Those identifying as lesbian lose credibility and respect. They are rejected by the very community in which they reside (Pharr 419). It was a bold move for Tila Tequila and the sixteen lesbian women to reveal their true selves on “A Shot at Love.” They risked everything, as they do every day of their life, when they admit they are lesbian.
Overall, “A Shot at Love” is just another reality dating show for a women looking in the wrong place to find someone to love. I do not believe that this show was intended to have third wave themes, but it thoroughly depicts third wave ideals of sex positive feminism and the deliberate homophobia affecting America. With “A Shot at Love” heading into a second season, it is possible that culture is beginning to accept the concept of sexual orientation being fluid. It does not have to be a static feeling, and Tila Tequila shows this. She was looking for love in both men and women; however, she began to see them not as men and women, but just as people, free from the defining characteristic of sex. If the world could see people without identifying them as women or men, an extreme progression would be made. Although it seems we are far from this goal right now, Tila
Tequila is proof that it can be done. Society’s acceptance of “A Shot at Love” shows that they can accept this fluidity. Positive steps forward in the media with shows such as “A Shot at Love” are just what America needs to break through homophobia and continue living in the sphere of sex positive, third wave feminism. After this is achieved, we will be closer to saying that the world is in a state of post-feminism.
Ashley Dupre': Media Analysis
Ashley Dupre'
Kristen McCauliff
Women's Studies 2010
April 20, 2008
Rock of Love?
Today's media is consumed with gossip, pointless reality shows, and distorted stereo types. Unfortunately, most of America is guilty of indulging in this type of entertainment. Society has made it acceptable and almost a priority to have television shows, especially reality shows, portray women as promiscuous, wild, party girls. However, throughout history women have endeavored to create a society that accepts a sexually positive woman, who is not afraid or ashamed to claim sexual pleasure, to drink in public, or stand up for themselves. But has the media gone too far? Has the world of entertainment created a stereotype that destroys instead of build up their character? I consider the VH1 hit reality show Rock of Love, to be a perfect example of this argument. Though the sex positive ideas in Rock of Love may present the idea that it represents feminist qualities. This paper will argue that Rock of Love is indeed navigating away from what feminist are striving for by objectifying women, making women fit a stereotypical idea of dependence on a man, and supporting the world's distortion of beauty.
Today's feminist and I have similar views on current media. Women's morals, dignity and pride have been harshly altered over the last century. Women's attempt to be confident, equal to man, and sexually free and shameless has punished their sex. Men have taken advantage of this movement; turning it into a show to please their sexual desires and allowing them to continue to tower over women. Anti-feminist ideals and sexism can be seen in practically every sitcom or reality show in the business; “The media love to trot out the idea that feminism is dead, and every so often it will be the cover story in Time or somewhere else. But feminism is as alive as ever”(Pop Goes the Feminist). Most directors would probably deny anti-feminist intentions, but that is the current problem.
Anti-feminism is usually not intentional, because sadly, it is the way society runs. Women in the Feminism movement are usually expressed through the media as psychotic crazies trying to rid the world of the male sex. However, the women that may feel that it is necessary to find a partner, have kids, and a nice house are ridiculed as well at times. Also, any form of sexual liberation or desire in regards to women is taken advantage of. “Somehow I don't think this is what our feminist foremothers had in mind when they set about to liberate women from the patriarchy. Nothing much has changed when women are reduced to sex objects in exchange for T-shirts and trinkets, while men walk away with the cash”(). Beauty and love in entertainment is misleading and quite frankly, mostly fake. We live in a world so entirely consumed with outer appearance and I blame the media, because“our media's stylized construction and portrayal of female beauty [is] problematic. It's bad enough that unattractive people don't appear in movies, on TV or in magazines unless the narrative expressly requires someone unattractive, and sometimes even that isn't enough. I mean, the star of Ugly Betty isn't really ugly”(). Not only does television give the impression that happiness is only found in beauty, but it has created an expected character for women. Women agree to supporting this bold, sexual, attractive persona, because they have been led to believe that it produces happiness and a stable self-esteem. However, this has proven untrue to many intelligent and accomplished women. Not to mention, men do not really respect women for this persona, even though they gravitate towards those qualities. “It's difficult to make the case that women are gaining ground by exercising sexual autonomy when they're essentially being ridiculed by men”(). This idea is exemplified by many aspects of the media, especially youth-oriented television.
VH1's newest hit “reality” series, “Rock of Love” is a mass media catastrophe. A television series centers around a famous rock icon, Brett Michaels, who is the frontman of the well known band “Poison”. According to a tv guide website, Rock of Love with Bret Michaels is now one of VH1's top rated shows. The reality dating series has just topped Sunday night's ratings chart as the number 1 program on all cable shows.”
(http://www.buddytv.com/articles/rock-of-love/rock-of-love-soared-in-ratings-11333.aspx). He is attempting to find “love” through an elimination based competition that encourages the exploitation of women in order to “win his heart”. The challenges the girls must go through in order to “win” this love centers around the standards he has for the women. Michaels' personal relationships with these women are based on sexuality rather than emotional connection. These challenges are based on sexual openness and emotional detachment that the women possess. His challenges are meant to show him whether or not the women will be able to handle his rock star lifestyle and sexual hunger. For example, the girls participate in a mud wrestling match practically naked as Brett watches he comments,“I hope these girls are willing to take a beating for their man” (http://youtube.com/watch?v=EgbqTYjmKts).Michaels and VH1 are proficient in providing everything that the women will need in order to objectify themselves and increase the shows ratings. To stimulate the expected behavior, there is an exponential amount of alcohol, a stripper pole, and the encouragement from Brett. Very quickly, the girls begin to realize that in order to keep Brett interested, they must advertise themselves as promiscuous showcases. One example of this activity is when the girls first arrive at the house. Heather in particular, catches the rock star's attention by taking off her shirt during the photo shoot that is being conducted. Because of this action, Brett then says that he knows that Heather will be one of the women who makes it to the end.(http://www.vh1.com/video/play.jhtml?id=1564511&vid=162073).
Another degrading instance in the house could be during one of the many nights of partying, one night in particular Sam, one of the shyer contestants, begins to pole dance. Brett, who was earlier covered in girls, is immediately drawn to her side (http://www.vh1.com/video/play.jhtml?id=1567161&vid=169058). Throughout the series, Brett continuously bases his attention upon the women's sexual qualities and aspects.
Rock of Love represents the idea that women depend on men. The women in the show ridiculously fight over Brett and humiliate themselves so they can be a rock star's girlfriend. It's mind boggling to me how the women in the show continue to shovel out their emotions to Brett even after he sleeps with several of the girls and physically relates to almost all the girls openly. Whenever a girl is eliminated she is interviewed with tears streaming down her face, as she tries to figure out what she did wrong. She was not sexy enough. Most of the women there eventually do fall in love with Brett, it may not be true love, but emotional attachment is clearly formed. However, I believe that Brett is not on the same level. I think he just needs a new girl to parade around with him as he tours the world and someone to sexually enhance his life. Simone de Beauvoir explains that “for him she is sex-absolute sex, no less. She is defined and differentiated with reference to man and not he with reference to her; she is the incidental as opposed to the essential. He is the subject, he is the absolute- she is the other”(Beauvoir).
Rock of Love almost perfectly represents the media's opinion and qualifications of beauty. To Brett beauty is being thin, wearing as little clothing as possible, and having an open mentality regarding to sex. Just like most television shows this idea of beauty is disfigured. In season one, during the first two episodes, Brett began sending girls home before he had a chance to get to know them, he based to decision on looks alone. Only hours after they arrived, women were eliminated due to not participating in the drinking, dancing, or sleazy attempts to seduce Brett (http://www.vh1.com/video/play.jhtml?id=1564530&vid=162096, http://www.vh1.com/video/play.jhtml?id=1564511&vid=162069).
Although I am claiming that Rock of Love is a sexist, anti-feminist, degrading show, regarding women I know that counter arguments can be represented, but also defended. Yes, the women on the show chose to be there, but women should be able to express their desire for love without being labeled as desperate, loose women. If men are profiting from women demeaning themselves, are the women still in charge? “For starters, it may not be you that needs the extreme makeover. It may be your TV”(Lexis Nexus).
Lowman: Media Analysis
Written and directed by Gary Ross, the renowned 1998 film “Pleasantville” tells a multifaceted story of a television series about a 1950s town that seems content having foundations built on perfection and consistency; however, when two siblings from the nineties embody characters on the show by transportation via a special remote control, they introduce Pleasantville to modern day principles of equality between sexes. The town discovers its unhappiness and its need for change. David, an avid fan of the television series, tries his best to maintain the false sense of contentment during his embodiment of Bud Parker. His sister Jennifer holds a different agenda during her embodiment of Mary Sue Parker. Realizing the repressive nature of the town, Jennifer stirs the winds of change and becomes the catalyst for the transformation of the modest, patriarchic society of Pleasantville into a dynamic, equal-opportunity seeking town. In the process, Jennifer discovers her own strength as a woman and finds she no longer needs a man to define who she is. In this paper, I will address concepts of gender roles and norms, limitations established by a patriarchic society, and female empowerment through “the transformation of women’s roles” in the movie (Taylor 58). Ultimately, “Pleasantville” contains a feminist agenda and portrays the evolution of the female struggle for equality against an oppressive patriarchic society. In this paper, I will illustrate how the use of masculinity represses both women and men in the film, and how the film shows the need for the feminist fight. My argument stresses the need for the continuation of feminist efforts in order to subvert forces of the patriarchic system that desire to confine women and men to pre-determined and socially constructed identities.
To begin, the movie establishes the societal tradition of establishing gender roles and the activities and behaviors appropriate in fulfilling that gender role. The movie opens in the colorful setting of the nineties. The two siblings use a mysterious television remote control that transports them into the conservative 1950s town of Pleasantville, creating juxtaposition between the colorful, free decade of the nineties and the strict, constraining black and white decade of the 1950s. The socially progressive nineties contains color to symbolize the social acceptance of change; thus, the decade transcends the gender roles established by society by identifying more than just black and white binaries. Pleasantville, however, leaves no room for colorful interpretations, progressive interpretations and establishes black and white limitations for the sexes. Betty Parker, the mother of the Bud and Mary Sue, lives within her gender role as wife, mother, child caretaker, and domestic housewife. Society’s black and white rules as to how she should perform her femaleness is clearly defined and overseen by the patriarchic system that governs the town. Her husband George Parker is as much confined as Betty. He is expected to work and earn money to support his family. The patriarch separates him from any association with female designated activities such as cooking and cleaning because “the historical characteristics of manhood [forces] men into participating in the replication of the system constraining them” (Taylor 58). Essentially, Pleasantville remains under this constraining patriarch due to its unwillingness to change or the town’s incapability of recognizing a need for change. The patriarchic society created a definition of what normal is: the nuclear family. Under this family model, the father reigns supreme, establishing his masculine dominance over his wife and children. Again, Pleasantville constrains its people into a false notion of what all families should be, represented by the black and white appearance of Pleasantville. The town leaves no room for any deviation from the decided ideal and through the patriarchic system makes abiding by the nuclear family a moral issue. In doing so, Pleasantville give full power to the patriarchic system: “Morality is an invention of the powerful which the powerful use to maintain their position of power and control” (Konkl).
Soon after arriving to Pleasantville, Jennifer injects the progressive views of the nineties into this black and white world, and for Betty as well as Pleasantville progressives, she represents the straw that broke the camel’s back, the beginning of the feminist revolution. Jennifer introduces sex into Pleasantville, a previously unheard of activity, and young people within the town catch hold of this change in society quickly. Jennifer represents a third wave feminist activist, embracing her sexuality to gain equality within a male-dominant society. Sexual exploration alters the way many people in Pleasantville think and brings color into their black and white world. It represents full assumption of the female voice, and the feeling that they no longer need to submit themselves to men. Jennifer teaches Betty how to masturbate, symbolically representing Betty’s freedom from repression in her marriage to George, her release from masculine oppression. Betty transitions from black and white to color, an indication of her identity’s ability to change and evolve. Within the film, “the use of color [demonstrates] change, diversity, the [loss] of identity and resistance to change” (Parker). Women now believe they have a control over at least one aspect of their lives by choosing who they want to give their affection to. For example, in the original version of “Pleasantville” a girl named Margaret bakes cookies for Whitey; however, after David and Jennifer introduce the idea of change, Margaret chooses to bake cookies for Bud and insists that she baked the cookies for Bud, though David attempts to maintain the original plan. David confronts Jennifer about introducing sex into Pleasantville, stressing that they should not cause change in the town; Jennifer replies, “Maybe it needs to be messed with” (Pleasantville). Indeed Jennifer is correct. Without her spark, men and women would continue to live repressed. The people of Pleasantville respond receptively to the change in society because they do not want to remain confined by a system of living and pre-established identities.
Though being taught that nothing exists beyond Pleasantville, the townspeople question Pleasantville’s boundaries despite as if to ask what lies outside of patriarchy. Women and men feel confined by their expected roles and desire to know change. Leaders of the patriarchy begin to feel threatened by the growing strength of the feminist fight. Similarly, modern society fears the idea of female choice and our ability to think and evaluate, resulting in sexual harassment and unequal pay within the work force. In Pleasantville, the patriarchy attempts to subvert “their women” by concentrating their masculinity into one giant oppressive force; eventually they resort to sexual harassment to degrade women as a means of control. Betty faces a battle of harassment but is protected by a positive masculine force—David. After fighting against the symbolic patriarchy, David gains his own color. He accepts a new identity as a colored person, expressing the fluidity of identity and, more importantly, that change is necessary and inevitable.
At the end of the film, David returns to his real life in the nineties only to find his real mother crying at the kitchen table. She believes she has not lived the normal life, the life with the right car and the right house and in a marriage that does not end in divorce. David comforts his mother, stating, “Mom, there is no way it’s supposed to be” (Pleasantville). His mother fell prey to the assumption of the nuclear family, the family that is essentially false. David clearly destabilizes the notion of any norms established by society’s standards.
Ultimately, we all must ask ourselves “what is normal?” Certainly not a world where identity is controlled by a force beyond the individual, and especially not by one that intends to hinder the growth of individuals throughout their lives. Summarily, the film “Pleasantville” provides an effective case study of power placed in full male control. Such power creates an imbalance and must be counter-acted with a continuous effort by feminists to maintain equality. Further, we must remember that change is an evolution and an inevitable process; therefore, as our identities change, society must be willing to accept the transition from one identification to the next.
In the following clip, Betty refuses to submit to her husband, thus she refuses to deny her evolution.
To begin, the movie establishes the societal tradition of establishing gender roles and the activities and behaviors appropriate in fulfilling that gender role. The movie opens in the colorful setting of the nineties. The two siblings use a mysterious television remote control that transports them into the conservative 1950s town of Pleasantville, creating juxtaposition between the colorful, free decade of the nineties and the strict, constraining black and white decade of the 1950s. The socially progressive nineties contains color to symbolize the social acceptance of change; thus, the decade transcends the gender roles established by society by identifying more than just black and white binaries. Pleasantville, however, leaves no room for colorful interpretations, progressive interpretations and establishes black and white limitations for the sexes. Betty Parker, the mother of the Bud and Mary Sue, lives within her gender role as wife, mother, child caretaker, and domestic housewife. Society’s black and white rules as to how she should perform her femaleness is clearly defined and overseen by the patriarchic system that governs the town. Her husband George Parker is as much confined as Betty. He is expected to work and earn money to support his family. The patriarch separates him from any association with female designated activities such as cooking and cleaning because “the historical characteristics of manhood [forces] men into participating in the replication of the system constraining them” (Taylor 58). Essentially, Pleasantville remains under this constraining patriarch due to its unwillingness to change or the town’s incapability of recognizing a need for change. The patriarchic society created a definition of what normal is: the nuclear family. Under this family model, the father reigns supreme, establishing his masculine dominance over his wife and children. Again, Pleasantville constrains its people into a false notion of what all families should be, represented by the black and white appearance of Pleasantville. The town leaves no room for any deviation from the decided ideal and through the patriarchic system makes abiding by the nuclear family a moral issue. In doing so, Pleasantville give full power to the patriarchic system: “Morality is an invention of the powerful which the powerful use to maintain their position of power and control” (Konkl).
Soon after arriving to Pleasantville, Jennifer injects the progressive views of the nineties into this black and white world, and for Betty as well as Pleasantville progressives, she represents the straw that broke the camel’s back, the beginning of the feminist revolution. Jennifer introduces sex into Pleasantville, a previously unheard of activity, and young people within the town catch hold of this change in society quickly. Jennifer represents a third wave feminist activist, embracing her sexuality to gain equality within a male-dominant society. Sexual exploration alters the way many people in Pleasantville think and brings color into their black and white world. It represents full assumption of the female voice, and the feeling that they no longer need to submit themselves to men. Jennifer teaches Betty how to masturbate, symbolically representing Betty’s freedom from repression in her marriage to George, her release from masculine oppression. Betty transitions from black and white to color, an indication of her identity’s ability to change and evolve. Within the film, “the use of color [demonstrates] change, diversity, the [loss] of identity and resistance to change” (Parker). Women now believe they have a control over at least one aspect of their lives by choosing who they want to give their affection to. For example, in the original version of “Pleasantville” a girl named Margaret bakes cookies for Whitey; however, after David and Jennifer introduce the idea of change, Margaret chooses to bake cookies for Bud and insists that she baked the cookies for Bud, though David attempts to maintain the original plan. David confronts Jennifer about introducing sex into Pleasantville, stressing that they should not cause change in the town; Jennifer replies, “Maybe it needs to be messed with” (Pleasantville). Indeed Jennifer is correct. Without her spark, men and women would continue to live repressed. The people of Pleasantville respond receptively to the change in society because they do not want to remain confined by a system of living and pre-established identities.
Though being taught that nothing exists beyond Pleasantville, the townspeople question Pleasantville’s boundaries despite as if to ask what lies outside of patriarchy. Women and men feel confined by their expected roles and desire to know change. Leaders of the patriarchy begin to feel threatened by the growing strength of the feminist fight. Similarly, modern society fears the idea of female choice and our ability to think and evaluate, resulting in sexual harassment and unequal pay within the work force. In Pleasantville, the patriarchy attempts to subvert “their women” by concentrating their masculinity into one giant oppressive force; eventually they resort to sexual harassment to degrade women as a means of control. Betty faces a battle of harassment but is protected by a positive masculine force—David. After fighting against the symbolic patriarchy, David gains his own color. He accepts a new identity as a colored person, expressing the fluidity of identity and, more importantly, that change is necessary and inevitable.
At the end of the film, David returns to his real life in the nineties only to find his real mother crying at the kitchen table. She believes she has not lived the normal life, the life with the right car and the right house and in a marriage that does not end in divorce. David comforts his mother, stating, “Mom, there is no way it’s supposed to be” (Pleasantville). His mother fell prey to the assumption of the nuclear family, the family that is essentially false. David clearly destabilizes the notion of any norms established by society’s standards.
Ultimately, we all must ask ourselves “what is normal?” Certainly not a world where identity is controlled by a force beyond the individual, and especially not by one that intends to hinder the growth of individuals throughout their lives. Summarily, the film “Pleasantville” provides an effective case study of power placed in full male control. Such power creates an imbalance and must be counter-acted with a continuous effort by feminists to maintain equality. Further, we must remember that change is an evolution and an inevitable process; therefore, as our identities change, society must be willing to accept the transition from one identification to the next.
In the following clip, Betty refuses to submit to her husband, thus she refuses to deny her evolution.
Chasing Amy: An Admirable Disregard for Societal Norm
You know, I didn't just heed what I was taught, men and women should be together, it's the natural way, that kind of thing. I'm not with you because of what family, society, life tried to instill in me from day one. The way the world is, how seldom it is that you meet that one person who just gets you - it's so rare. My parents didn't really have it. There were no examples set for me in the world of male-female relationships. And to cut oneself off from finding that person, to immediately halve your options by eliminating the possibility of finding that one person within your own gender, that just seemed stupid to me.
Alyssa Jones, the heroine of Chasing Amy, calmly explains this in order to reaffirm her love for her boyfriend, Holden. In this quote, Alyssa exudes that she has always felt that individuals mustn’t falter to societal heteronormativity. In society, there is an accepted standard, and that standard is heterosexuality; anything that falls outside of that social norm is seen as wrong. Alyssa was adamant about not allowing herself to fall under the ideal that a male partner was the only acceptable end goal in life. The particular agenda that Alyssa set for herself, along with other characters dealing with promiscuity, homosexuality, and homophobia are the reason that I have chosen to analyze Kevin Smith’s film, Chasing Amy. In this essay, I aim to establish that Chasing Amy serves as a positive stride for gays and lesbians within a heteronormative culture.
Chasing Amy centers around two freelance comic book writers/best friends, Holden and Banky. A homosexual acquaintance, Hooper, introduces Holden to a fellow comic book writer, Alyssa. Holden immediately falls for Alyssa and strikes up a close relationship with her, only to find out that she is gay. The two eventually begin to date, to Banky’s dismay. Turmoil evolves between Holden and Banky throughout Holden’s relationship with Alyssa. In order to rid his life of Alyssa, Banky warns Holden of Alyssa’s promiscuous past, which eventually leads to their break up. Holden soon realizes what he’s lost, and must learn how to cope with his terrible mistake.
The previous synopsis of the film may serve as a commendable plot outline on the back of a DVD rental box, however the intriguing aspects of Chasing Amy lie much deeper within; and although the main billing for the film may be for that of Holden and Banky, Alyssa serves as the potential catalyst for social change. She has disregarded the standards by which she was raised to abide by. Heterosexuality is right, homosexuality is wrong, women need men, economic stability is achieved through hetero relationships, obtaining a decent man should be considered an accomplishment, and so on. She refused to cater to the idea of compulsory heterosexuality. Alyssa decided that these principles were not all encompassing of her as an individual. Suzanne Pharr states that, “… the two most condemning accusations against a woman meant to ostracize and disempower her were whore and lesbian.” Due to Alyssa’s ideals, from teen-hood to adulthood would bring about these derogatory words against her. However, her devout beliefs in opposing all the “acceptable” societal standards are why Alyssa and Chasing Amy should be revered as a positive influence for strong, empowered women.
The main male protagonist in the film is admirably written as a somewhat open minded, intelligent, liberal character. As Holden falls for Alyssa, knowing that she’s a lesbian, he attempts to gather insight into her philosophies. A scene in which the two discuss Alyssa’s sexuality on a playground immediately displays that although Holden isn’t completely knowledgeable, he’s willing to learn. He makes the mistake of inferring that a lesbian is not able to lose her virginity due to a lack of penile penetration. As Alyssa explains her side of the argument, it is seen that Holden does not view her as an inanimate object, a possession, or even idealized girl who has decided to wage war on societal routine. He merely sees her as a strong, intelligent, funny, talented, empowered female who compliments him as a person and has her own worldly views. Towards the end of the picture, Holden is made aware that, despite being told otherwise, Alyssa has a heterosexual past. She not only had sex with men, but also, at one point, took on multiple partners at time. Holden cannot bare this. Although society deems homosexuality as the “other” and heterosexuality as the “mean”, it is the hetero aspects of Alyssa’s past that he finds to be “queer”. He could do nothing more than to refer to her as “used” and ends their relationship. He comes to realize that it was not specifically the fact that Alyssa had a past, but rather that he had none at all. The incidents were something that he could not understand, and due to that, he couldn’t cope with it. This is a major issue with society as well. When individuals aren’t accustomed to something, such as homosexuality, they deem it as different, and different generally tends to be bad by societal standards. If one were to veer off the path that was set out for them, then that individual would be scrutinized.
A major subplot to the film is the relationship between Banky and Holden. The two grew up together, live together and work together. When Holden strikes up his relationship with Alyssa, tension mounts. Before the relationship between Holden and Alyssa begins, there is a scene in the first half of the film in which Banky and Alyssa swap personal cunnilingus stories that they find to be humorous. It isn’t until after the relationship becomes serious, that Banky begins to “gay bash” Alyssa. It becomes quite clear by the end of the picture that Banky is merely doing this to cope with his own latent homosexuality. “Heterosexism is the set of values and structures that assumes heterosexuality to be the only natural form of sexual and emotional expression, ‘the perceptual screen provided by our patriarchal cultural conditioning’.” (Zimmerman 179) Banky’s homophobic tendencies arise from his own personal issues of dealing with something in which he does not understand and choosing to sustain the “natural form”.
Hooper, the character who introduces Holden and Alyssa, is an African American homosexual. At one point in the film he refers to himself as, “a minority in a minority of a minority.” As a comic book writer attempting to make it in the world of graphic novels, he must present a strong, manly, Black Panther type of visage in order to be accepted as well as succeed in the business world. This is just one of the many societal issues that Chasing Amy calls into check. The idea of portraying yourself as something that you’re not in order to feel as though you could succeed is rarely studied or looked at, just as Alyssa’s particular station is often misinterpreted.
In Monica Kehoe’s forward for Historical, Literary, and Erotic Aspects of Lesbianism, she states, “Women’s sexuality has many facets, that it can be its own source of gratification apart from men, and that, like men’s sexuality, it can be intricately woven into the fabric of their lives and relationships, particularly with other women.” Alyssa never intended to become a “lesbian”. Although the title was not something in which she was embarrassed about, she initially opened the door to women because she felt as though she shouldn’t eliminate all options for love solely because the idea of “man and woman” had been pounded into her head. Paula C. Rodriguez Rust touches on the idea that bisexuality is often misunderstood and not studied because many feel that:
There are only two authentic forms of sexual orientation, that is, heterosexuality and homosexuality. This belief in a sexual dichotomy leads to the conclusion that bisexuality either does not exist at all, or exists only as an unstable hybrid combination of heterosexuality and homosexuality, an intermediate sexual variation, or as a watered down version of homosexuality. (1)
Alyssa initially regarded herself as neither homosexual nor heterosexual. She was merely open. Open to anything that came her way and felt correct. However, the overt pressure and abundance of change that she felt as she ventured into the “gay” world, placed her on the other side of the fence. There was straight and there was gay, there was no gray area, and she either had to belong to one or the other. This idea become blatantly absurd and she eventually was able to place herself back into said gray area.
“The real money is in the dick and fart jokes.” Holden explains as his career motto to Alyssa. Chasing Amy manages to abide by this principle as well, however, it also touches on a great deal of societal issues that needed to be addressed all while being aesthetically pleasing as well as entertaining. This film can alter someone’s perception of society subconsciously. Banky was a homophobe, he couldn’t deal with it, and he lost his best friend. Holden couldn’t deal with Alyssa’s promiscuity, and eventually lost her. These are the lessons that, when seen on film, could deter viewers from making the same sort of mistakes. Chasing Amy serves as a milestone for all those who choose to work against what they are taught as being socially acceptable and opens the door to social change.
WORKS CITED
¨ Pharr, Suzanne. "Homophobia and Sexism." The Differences Among Us: Division and Connections (1988): 416.
¨ Ochs, Robyn. "Bisexuality, Feminism, Men and Me." Sexuality and Relationships (1992): 165.
¨ Zimmerman, Bonnie. "What Has Never Been: An Overview of Lesbian Feminist." Making a Difference: Feminist Literary Criticism 179.
¨ Kehoe, Monica. "Historical, Literary, and Erotic Aspects of Lesbianism." Journals of Homosexuality 1.
¨ Rust, Paula C. Rodriguez, Paula C. Rust, and "Bisexuality in the United States: A Social Science Reader." Criticisms of the Scholarly Literature on Sexuality for its Neglects of Bisexuality 1.
Alyssa Jones, the heroine of Chasing Amy, calmly explains this in order to reaffirm her love for her boyfriend, Holden. In this quote, Alyssa exudes that she has always felt that individuals mustn’t falter to societal heteronormativity. In society, there is an accepted standard, and that standard is heterosexuality; anything that falls outside of that social norm is seen as wrong. Alyssa was adamant about not allowing herself to fall under the ideal that a male partner was the only acceptable end goal in life. The particular agenda that Alyssa set for herself, along with other characters dealing with promiscuity, homosexuality, and homophobia are the reason that I have chosen to analyze Kevin Smith’s film, Chasing Amy. In this essay, I aim to establish that Chasing Amy serves as a positive stride for gays and lesbians within a heteronormative culture.
Chasing Amy centers around two freelance comic book writers/best friends, Holden and Banky. A homosexual acquaintance, Hooper, introduces Holden to a fellow comic book writer, Alyssa. Holden immediately falls for Alyssa and strikes up a close relationship with her, only to find out that she is gay. The two eventually begin to date, to Banky’s dismay. Turmoil evolves between Holden and Banky throughout Holden’s relationship with Alyssa. In order to rid his life of Alyssa, Banky warns Holden of Alyssa’s promiscuous past, which eventually leads to their break up. Holden soon realizes what he’s lost, and must learn how to cope with his terrible mistake.
The previous synopsis of the film may serve as a commendable plot outline on the back of a DVD rental box, however the intriguing aspects of Chasing Amy lie much deeper within; and although the main billing for the film may be for that of Holden and Banky, Alyssa serves as the potential catalyst for social change. She has disregarded the standards by which she was raised to abide by. Heterosexuality is right, homosexuality is wrong, women need men, economic stability is achieved through hetero relationships, obtaining a decent man should be considered an accomplishment, and so on. She refused to cater to the idea of compulsory heterosexuality. Alyssa decided that these principles were not all encompassing of her as an individual. Suzanne Pharr states that, “… the two most condemning accusations against a woman meant to ostracize and disempower her were whore and lesbian.” Due to Alyssa’s ideals, from teen-hood to adulthood would bring about these derogatory words against her. However, her devout beliefs in opposing all the “acceptable” societal standards are why Alyssa and Chasing Amy should be revered as a positive influence for strong, empowered women.
The main male protagonist in the film is admirably written as a somewhat open minded, intelligent, liberal character. As Holden falls for Alyssa, knowing that she’s a lesbian, he attempts to gather insight into her philosophies. A scene in which the two discuss Alyssa’s sexuality on a playground immediately displays that although Holden isn’t completely knowledgeable, he’s willing to learn. He makes the mistake of inferring that a lesbian is not able to lose her virginity due to a lack of penile penetration. As Alyssa explains her side of the argument, it is seen that Holden does not view her as an inanimate object, a possession, or even idealized girl who has decided to wage war on societal routine. He merely sees her as a strong, intelligent, funny, talented, empowered female who compliments him as a person and has her own worldly views. Towards the end of the picture, Holden is made aware that, despite being told otherwise, Alyssa has a heterosexual past. She not only had sex with men, but also, at one point, took on multiple partners at time. Holden cannot bare this. Although society deems homosexuality as the “other” and heterosexuality as the “mean”, it is the hetero aspects of Alyssa’s past that he finds to be “queer”. He could do nothing more than to refer to her as “used” and ends their relationship. He comes to realize that it was not specifically the fact that Alyssa had a past, but rather that he had none at all. The incidents were something that he could not understand, and due to that, he couldn’t cope with it. This is a major issue with society as well. When individuals aren’t accustomed to something, such as homosexuality, they deem it as different, and different generally tends to be bad by societal standards. If one were to veer off the path that was set out for them, then that individual would be scrutinized.
A major subplot to the film is the relationship between Banky and Holden. The two grew up together, live together and work together. When Holden strikes up his relationship with Alyssa, tension mounts. Before the relationship between Holden and Alyssa begins, there is a scene in the first half of the film in which Banky and Alyssa swap personal cunnilingus stories that they find to be humorous. It isn’t until after the relationship becomes serious, that Banky begins to “gay bash” Alyssa. It becomes quite clear by the end of the picture that Banky is merely doing this to cope with his own latent homosexuality. “Heterosexism is the set of values and structures that assumes heterosexuality to be the only natural form of sexual and emotional expression, ‘the perceptual screen provided by our patriarchal cultural conditioning’.” (Zimmerman 179) Banky’s homophobic tendencies arise from his own personal issues of dealing with something in which he does not understand and choosing to sustain the “natural form”.
Hooper, the character who introduces Holden and Alyssa, is an African American homosexual. At one point in the film he refers to himself as, “a minority in a minority of a minority.” As a comic book writer attempting to make it in the world of graphic novels, he must present a strong, manly, Black Panther type of visage in order to be accepted as well as succeed in the business world. This is just one of the many societal issues that Chasing Amy calls into check. The idea of portraying yourself as something that you’re not in order to feel as though you could succeed is rarely studied or looked at, just as Alyssa’s particular station is often misinterpreted.
In Monica Kehoe’s forward for Historical, Literary, and Erotic Aspects of Lesbianism, she states, “Women’s sexuality has many facets, that it can be its own source of gratification apart from men, and that, like men’s sexuality, it can be intricately woven into the fabric of their lives and relationships, particularly with other women.” Alyssa never intended to become a “lesbian”. Although the title was not something in which she was embarrassed about, she initially opened the door to women because she felt as though she shouldn’t eliminate all options for love solely because the idea of “man and woman” had been pounded into her head. Paula C. Rodriguez Rust touches on the idea that bisexuality is often misunderstood and not studied because many feel that:
There are only two authentic forms of sexual orientation, that is, heterosexuality and homosexuality. This belief in a sexual dichotomy leads to the conclusion that bisexuality either does not exist at all, or exists only as an unstable hybrid combination of heterosexuality and homosexuality, an intermediate sexual variation, or as a watered down version of homosexuality. (1)
Alyssa initially regarded herself as neither homosexual nor heterosexual. She was merely open. Open to anything that came her way and felt correct. However, the overt pressure and abundance of change that she felt as she ventured into the “gay” world, placed her on the other side of the fence. There was straight and there was gay, there was no gray area, and she either had to belong to one or the other. This idea become blatantly absurd and she eventually was able to place herself back into said gray area.
“The real money is in the dick and fart jokes.” Holden explains as his career motto to Alyssa. Chasing Amy manages to abide by this principle as well, however, it also touches on a great deal of societal issues that needed to be addressed all while being aesthetically pleasing as well as entertaining. This film can alter someone’s perception of society subconsciously. Banky was a homophobe, he couldn’t deal with it, and he lost his best friend. Holden couldn’t deal with Alyssa’s promiscuity, and eventually lost her. These are the lessons that, when seen on film, could deter viewers from making the same sort of mistakes. Chasing Amy serves as a milestone for all those who choose to work against what they are taught as being socially acceptable and opens the door to social change.
WORKS CITED
¨ Pharr, Suzanne. "Homophobia and Sexism." The Differences Among Us: Division and Connections (1988): 416.
¨ Ochs, Robyn. "Bisexuality, Feminism, Men and Me." Sexuality and Relationships (1992): 165.
¨ Zimmerman, Bonnie. "What Has Never Been: An Overview of Lesbian Feminist." Making a Difference: Feminist Literary Criticism 179.
¨ Kehoe, Monica. "Historical, Literary, and Erotic Aspects of Lesbianism." Journals of Homosexuality 1.
¨ Rust, Paula C. Rodriguez, Paula C. Rust, and "Bisexuality in the United States: A Social Science Reader." Criticisms of the Scholarly Literature on Sexuality for its Neglects of Bisexuality 1.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Ross Gould- Media Analysis
A Diamond in the Rough
The Dove brand has been a major player in the beauty world for years now, and yet its latest media campaign warns against that very industry. “Campaign for real beauty,” as this promotional movement is called, aims to be, or masquerades as—depending on whom you ask, a self-esteem booster for women, worldwide. Approaching their audience through a viral media operation, they have released several short commercials that have garnered millions of hits on YouTube over the course of the last couple of years. Each clip has a slightly different message, but the general theme of the campaign is that women should not subject themselves to the illusionary standards of the beauty industry. One of these commercials, entitled “Onslaught,” has been the subject of mixed feelings and reviews due to the fact that Dove’s parent company, Unilever, also markets Axe products, for example, whose ads can hardly be said to paint women in an empowering feminist manner. “Onslaught” begins with a close-up shot of an innocent looking little girl before zooming through a video-collage of media depictions of “everything from low self-esteem to plastic surgery to bulimia” (Neff). It then cuts back to the innocent little girl, but not before flashing the line “Talk to your daughter before the beauty industry does” across the screen. Sure, the idea of a self-esteem movement is a good one, but does a company that exhibits such hypocrisies have the ethos to be its champion? This is no simple question, with no simple answer, but this paper will argue that in spite of the obvious corporate hypocrisy, Dove’s “Onslaught” is a sizable step in the right direction for an industry that has increasingly moved towards the wrong.
The beauty industry is notorious for its unhealthy and unrealistic portrayal of women’s beauty. For years, people have been both disgusted, and simultaneously intoxicated by the images of tall, thin women with shapely figures, perfect hair, and flawless complexions. As author Anastasia Higginbotham says about teen fashion magazines, which market these images to females, they “make millions off of girls by assuming that girls need improving, and then telling girls how to make themselves prettier, cooler, and better” (Higginbotham). It’s not just the magazines that impose this ideal on women, young and old, but rather the entire industry can be characterized by its promoted notion that females need to fit a constructed standard in order to be considered beautiful. “Modern institutions of advertising, retailing, and entertainment now produce vivid notions of beauty that change from year to year, placing stress upon women to conform to the body image currently in vogue,” claimed Allan Mazur in The Journal of Sex Research, echoing this sentiment (Mazur). Clearly, if we’re debating industrial morality, one that preys on the perceptual insecurities of women can be aptly characterized as shallow and manipulative. That being said, people are getting overly engulfed in the debate over the hypocrisy of the source of “Onslaught’s” message, and not paying enough attention to the message itself.
I would be remiss in not acknowledging the duality that Unilever exhibits when simultaneously promoting self-esteem and hyper-sexualized, overly constructed beauty. It is hypocritical in no uncertain terms. A comparison could be drawn to a government preaching freedom and liberty while implementing surveillance and detention practices that border on totalitarian. The problem with focusing on that aspect of the campaign, however, is that it robs a worthy message of deserved attention. Not only that, but in a business sense, the contradicting marketing strategies of companies within a company is by no means a new occurrence. So what if Unilever owns Dove and Axe? Microsoft owns apple. Countless restaurant chains are owned by the same umbrella companies. In fact, many of our information outlets, be it television networks, internet sources, print media, etc. are owned and controlled by the same huge corporations. Competing ideas and strategies are what have driven capitalism in this country for a long time, and the corporate world has taken full advantage of this approach. “Each of Unilever’s brands has a unique personality and target,” after all (Neff ). Dove may be owned by the same company as Axe, but they are mutually exclusive brands with mutually exclusive target markets, and hence, marketing campaigns. To miss this point is to miss the point.
The point, when push comes to shove, is that “Onslaught” sends a message that is well overdue from the beauty industry. Most companies in the industry focus their ads around subliminal tactics that convince the customer that they aren’t good enough. I have seen countless women of all ages become helpless victims to beauty standards and the materialism that comes with them. It really makes me sick to witness it in people close to me. You can almost see the emptiness in their eyes as they drool over this product or that. In response, Dove has changed the rules. The image of beauty that they’re portraying now is closer to what people see in the mirror, and that is a good thing. “Onslaught,” in particular, goes a step further in aiming for the root of the problem: young women. Like most beliefs, habits, attitudes, and behaviors, beauty standards are often acquired at a young age. Children and adolescents are exposed to much of the same advertising barrage as adults due to the pervasiveness of media in today’s information age, and like tobacco companies, the beauty companies try to hook them in their developmental stages. These are the stages during which behaviors and ideals are more easily learned and accepted. That is why “Onslaught” is so righteous in its pitch. It not only markets the idea of natural beauty to its more mature audience, but it tells them to pass the idea on to their children, as well.
There is no doubt that Unilever’s perceived duplicity has consumers uneasy about accepting “Onslaught’s” message for what it is. Public controversy has already arisen and spread wildly. I have to believe, however, that the average consumer is not interested in, nor focused on, that aspect of the Dove campaign. If the public were so astute in their analysis of advertising rhetoric, then the industry itself would be far less successful than it is. Rather, I like to think that the casual observer appreciates the affirming messages they’ve seen. If a few women here and there feel better about themselves for seeing something positively human come from the beauty industry, then let the rest of us sit around and argue about the merits of corporate capitalism. What Dove has produced with “Onslaught” and the rest of their “campaign for real beauty” is a diamond in the rough, and in an industry that causes darkness in the lives of so many people, let us allow this diamond to shine.
The Dove brand has been a major player in the beauty world for years now, and yet its latest media campaign warns against that very industry. “Campaign for real beauty,” as this promotional movement is called, aims to be, or masquerades as—depending on whom you ask, a self-esteem booster for women, worldwide. Approaching their audience through a viral media operation, they have released several short commercials that have garnered millions of hits on YouTube over the course of the last couple of years. Each clip has a slightly different message, but the general theme of the campaign is that women should not subject themselves to the illusionary standards of the beauty industry. One of these commercials, entitled “Onslaught,” has been the subject of mixed feelings and reviews due to the fact that Dove’s parent company, Unilever, also markets Axe products, for example, whose ads can hardly be said to paint women in an empowering feminist manner. “Onslaught” begins with a close-up shot of an innocent looking little girl before zooming through a video-collage of media depictions of “everything from low self-esteem to plastic surgery to bulimia” (Neff). It then cuts back to the innocent little girl, but not before flashing the line “Talk to your daughter before the beauty industry does” across the screen. Sure, the idea of a self-esteem movement is a good one, but does a company that exhibits such hypocrisies have the ethos to be its champion? This is no simple question, with no simple answer, but this paper will argue that in spite of the obvious corporate hypocrisy, Dove’s “Onslaught” is a sizable step in the right direction for an industry that has increasingly moved towards the wrong.
The beauty industry is notorious for its unhealthy and unrealistic portrayal of women’s beauty. For years, people have been both disgusted, and simultaneously intoxicated by the images of tall, thin women with shapely figures, perfect hair, and flawless complexions. As author Anastasia Higginbotham says about teen fashion magazines, which market these images to females, they “make millions off of girls by assuming that girls need improving, and then telling girls how to make themselves prettier, cooler, and better” (Higginbotham). It’s not just the magazines that impose this ideal on women, young and old, but rather the entire industry can be characterized by its promoted notion that females need to fit a constructed standard in order to be considered beautiful. “Modern institutions of advertising, retailing, and entertainment now produce vivid notions of beauty that change from year to year, placing stress upon women to conform to the body image currently in vogue,” claimed Allan Mazur in The Journal of Sex Research, echoing this sentiment (Mazur). Clearly, if we’re debating industrial morality, one that preys on the perceptual insecurities of women can be aptly characterized as shallow and manipulative. That being said, people are getting overly engulfed in the debate over the hypocrisy of the source of “Onslaught’s” message, and not paying enough attention to the message itself.
I would be remiss in not acknowledging the duality that Unilever exhibits when simultaneously promoting self-esteem and hyper-sexualized, overly constructed beauty. It is hypocritical in no uncertain terms. A comparison could be drawn to a government preaching freedom and liberty while implementing surveillance and detention practices that border on totalitarian. The problem with focusing on that aspect of the campaign, however, is that it robs a worthy message of deserved attention. Not only that, but in a business sense, the contradicting marketing strategies of companies within a company is by no means a new occurrence. So what if Unilever owns Dove and Axe? Microsoft owns apple. Countless restaurant chains are owned by the same umbrella companies. In fact, many of our information outlets, be it television networks, internet sources, print media, etc. are owned and controlled by the same huge corporations. Competing ideas and strategies are what have driven capitalism in this country for a long time, and the corporate world has taken full advantage of this approach. “Each of Unilever’s brands has a unique personality and target,” after all (Neff ). Dove may be owned by the same company as Axe, but they are mutually exclusive brands with mutually exclusive target markets, and hence, marketing campaigns. To miss this point is to miss the point.
The point, when push comes to shove, is that “Onslaught” sends a message that is well overdue from the beauty industry. Most companies in the industry focus their ads around subliminal tactics that convince the customer that they aren’t good enough. I have seen countless women of all ages become helpless victims to beauty standards and the materialism that comes with them. It really makes me sick to witness it in people close to me. You can almost see the emptiness in their eyes as they drool over this product or that. In response, Dove has changed the rules. The image of beauty that they’re portraying now is closer to what people see in the mirror, and that is a good thing. “Onslaught,” in particular, goes a step further in aiming for the root of the problem: young women. Like most beliefs, habits, attitudes, and behaviors, beauty standards are often acquired at a young age. Children and adolescents are exposed to much of the same advertising barrage as adults due to the pervasiveness of media in today’s information age, and like tobacco companies, the beauty companies try to hook them in their developmental stages. These are the stages during which behaviors and ideals are more easily learned and accepted. That is why “Onslaught” is so righteous in its pitch. It not only markets the idea of natural beauty to its more mature audience, but it tells them to pass the idea on to their children, as well.
There is no doubt that Unilever’s perceived duplicity has consumers uneasy about accepting “Onslaught’s” message for what it is. Public controversy has already arisen and spread wildly. I have to believe, however, that the average consumer is not interested in, nor focused on, that aspect of the Dove campaign. If the public were so astute in their analysis of advertising rhetoric, then the industry itself would be far less successful than it is. Rather, I like to think that the casual observer appreciates the affirming messages they’ve seen. If a few women here and there feel better about themselves for seeing something positively human come from the beauty industry, then let the rest of us sit around and argue about the merits of corporate capitalism. What Dove has produced with “Onslaught” and the rest of their “campaign for real beauty” is a diamond in the rough, and in an industry that causes darkness in the lives of so many people, let us allow this diamond to shine.
Media Analysis
Lipstick Jungle and an Empowering Message
While Lipstick Jungle will be hard pressed to avoid comparisons to the late Sex and the City, the creators and actors say the comparisons are few and far between (Cutler 1). Yes, the show centers around female best friends and the struggles they face with relationships and their professional lives, but the woman in Lipstick Jungle attempt to juggle careers, motherhood, marriage and friendship—issues that replaces the “carefree, cocktail-sipping” lives of Carrie Bradshaw and her girlfriends (Harris 1). The show is not necessarily applauded by critics for entertainment value, but the idea behind the show is empowering for women. Lipstick Jungle centers on the lives of three best friends who are among
Wendy Heely might be a top movie executive but her relationship with husband Shane has become a shaky one (Cutler 1). Shane struggles with the fact that he is not the bread-winner of the family and fills the role of Mr. Wendy in their household (Cutler 1). I can see a few traditional feminist issues arise with these specific aspects of the series. There is evidence just from watching the show that Wendy feels guilty about “signing the tuition checks” for their son’s private school, along with bills and bank statements. As a successful woman, who obviously works hard for the money she earns to support her family, she should not feel any guilt about the fact that she is above her husband financially. In addition, Shane’s career as a struggling musician is not enough to keep their family afloat in
Aside from the financial issues I find it quite evident that Shane feels that his role should not be a “stay at home dad,” just because of societal norms. He feels his masculinity and credibility are tarnished by the fact that his wife is more successful than he—like he deserves or “should” be the one achieving success because he is a male. The show depicts this problem with Shane’s attempt to start a restaurant. While at a meeting discussing plans for the restaurant, the investor and property owner are skeptical to begin without Wendy there to prove financial stability and credibility. As a male and already tussling with the fact that he is under his wife professionally, he is pretty offended, replying with “this is my thing guys.” This same issue comes up again when Shane is vying for a composing job at Wendy’s movie studio. Wendy attempts to submit Shane’s composition under a pseudonym to avoid favoritism or an automatic decision by one of her employees, but reveals the truth causing Shane to get the job because the producer feels it would “make Wendy happy.” The idea of Shane’s wife being more successful professionally and the main source of income is hard for Shane—a male—to grasp, allowing this aspect of the show to correspond with second and third wave feminist issues about male and female gender roles and stereotypes, such as women are inferior and men should be the ones working and making the most money, etc.
Another feminist issue Wendy’s character has to deal with is the balance between a successful career and a family. As if Wendy is not having a hard enough time walking the balance beam with her husband tugging at her heels, the creators throw a five and eleven-year old into the mix. I think this is helpful to the show’s audience because Sex and the City—Shields calls the “pedigree” of Lipstick Jungle—did not really deal too much with the balance of careers and motherhood, adding a long-established feminist issue to the show (Cutler 1). A few episodes focus on a book that could potentially be published by Wendy’s former nanny. The book mentions several fights Wendy and Shane had in front of the kids and other anecdotes that should be kept out of the lime-light, although perfectly healthy in a normal household. If released the book could tarnish Wendy’s status as a businesswoman and prove that a woman cannot balance work and motherhood in a healthy way. Wendy, who stands to lose her reputation, adds preventing the release of this book at the top of her to-do list. As a working mother she knows she “gets by through making constant adjustments to the jostling needs of her children, work and partner,” but the public will just stereotype her as a bad mother who cannot find the perfect balance (Horin 1). But what society does not understand is “the antiseptic talk of work/family balance and the small advances on flexibility hide a core truth: there is no perfect balance, no perfect arrangement” (Horin 1). Wendy is doing what any woman would: the best she can.
The next issue I feel the show successfully addresses is female advancement in the workplace. Nico Riley, the editor and chief of Bonfire fashion magazine, constantly clashes with her boss and male coworkers. She is a no nonsense woman of instinct, but continuously fights to receive the credit she deserves. This is evident in an episode in which Nico helps her boss Hector with a tip for the magazine. A male coworker, we’ll call him John for the sake of clarity, takes credit for giving the information to Hector and proceeds to mock her saying she “threw a fit” about the whole situation. Nico replies with “when a woman expresses her concern that an important business matter be dealt with correctly, she’s not ‘throwing a fit,’ she’s just doing her job.” I feel that scene especially addresses the need for women in the workplace to speak out when they are being taken advantage of. Nico obviously found the information for the magazine issue and should therefore receive credit. Also she should not be characterized as “throwing a fit” just because she is a woman and spoke out about it—yet another stereotype of women addressed by the show.
Lastly, the show on several occasions brings up the issue of women starting a family and working. Nico meets her boss Hector and John for lunch to confront them about the magazine tip-off incident. Nico asks Hector if he is preparing John for a promotion to the Creative Director position and Hector replies with, “Nico, you are a woman of a certain age, and your decision to start a family,” implying that Nico’s potential to start a family in the future is a hindrance to her professional advancement. Her boss goes on to say, “The last woman I promoted to top post went off and had a child and lost her drive.” One study published in the journal of Royal Economic Society gives evidence to women moving down the career ladder after having children: a third of female corporate managers moved down the career ladder, two-thirds took clerical positions, one and ten nurses or teachers quit for lower skilled jobs, but there is no mention of these women losing their motivation (Ward 1). In actuality, “Becoming a parent can make you a better worker—more focused, clearer and more driven to prove yourself” and inspired to provide for your family (Horin 1). One the other hand, “children of working mothers seem to thrive” (Horin 2). Preventing mothers who deserve the top position from achieving it is one feminist issue this show exemplifies through Nico Riley.
Nico is being overlooked for a promotion because she could “possibly” have a child in the future and “loose her drive.” This is an issue in feminist communities because she is being restricted from climbing the corporate ladder because she is not a male. Hector makes no comparison between Nico and John’s situation, “its like chalk and cheese. Women are hard-wired differently” and therefore Nico is out of the running for Creative Director. Her boss does say that she can prove him wrong although there should be no “proving” necessary. John’s performance in the workplace is obviously inferior to Nico’s but because she is a woman she is perceived as the inferior employee and is judged underneath a microscope. This aspect of the series exemplifies the idea that the “glass ceiling” still exists. According to a survey that polled 2,200 executives and managers in North America, Europe and
The number of female centered dramas jumped from fourteen in the years 1985 to 1994 (Growth of Cable TV 1). This number rose even higher to thirty-seven from 1995 to 2005, so it is no wonder the NBC network picked up the Lipstick Jungle pilot (Growth of Cable TV 1). After just six episodes in the season so far Wendy, Nico and Victory have already encountered realistic battles between finding a family and home balance, issues with gender roles and marriage, and the hindrances of being a woman in the professional world. Many critics have given the “thumbs-down” to Lipstick Jungle as an entertaining television show but give kudos to the fact that they are addressing feminist issues. There are a few awkward overly-feminist statements throughout the show that can discredit the writers and dialogue but the message is still being put out there—women can be successful, married or single, with children or no children. While I feel this show is not an outright feminist text—it’s mainly out there for entertainment—I think what the producers are attempting to create is a positive thing.
Works Cited
Harris, Paul. "IT'S A LIPSTICK JUNGLE OUT THERE AFTER SEX AND THE CITY." The Sunday Independent 08 Apr 2007 April 25 2008
Cutler, Jacqueline. "Killer makeup in
Horin, Adele. "Fingers crossed for the new wave." Sydney Morning Herald 29 Jul 2006 April 25 2008
Immen, Wallace. "Despite breakthroughs, glass ceiling still perplexes women; More confident of reaching corner office though gender still an issue, a poll finds." The Globe and Mail 09 Mar 2007 April 25 2008
Ward, Lucy . "News: The baby blues: Study finds a third of mothers slip down career ladder: Professional women pay the price of starting family: Talents and qualifications wasted in lesser roles." The Guardian 27 Feb 2008 April 25 2008
Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company, "More Television Dramas, and Growth Of Cable TV, Redefine Women's Roles." Media Report to Women Volume 35; Issue 11 Jan 2007 April 25 2008
Goldin: Media Analysis
The One With The Feminist Critique: A Closer Look At Rachel Green’s Character
The popular sitcom Friends aired in 1994 for ten full seasons. Its final episode had an estimated 51.1 million viewers in the United States alone (Foxnews.com). The television series won 56 awards including a number of Emmy’s, but the show is influential in more than just the entertainment world (The Internet Movie Database). The sitcom has an impact on American culture between its popular catch phrases, “The Rachel” haircut and the local hang out depicted in almost every episode. Although the writers of the sitcom conform to some traditional gender roles, the series as a whole has proven to reduce the notion of a “normal” woman that has been used to oppress women in this patriarchal society. After analyzing the sitcom Friends through a feminist lens, I realized that the overall show is written in opposition to the gender binaries that are traditionally used to oppress women. The television series is about six friends- three male and three female. They are “all in their mid-twenties as the series begins, living in Manhattan and struggling to establish and maintain satisfying careers and romantic relationships” (Spangler, p 217-218). Each character has his or her own distinctive qualities that make them interesting and unique, but I will focus on only one of these characters- Rachel Green. Rachel changes drastically from the first episode to the last, but she starts out as a snobby rich girl who uses “Daddy’s credit card” and abandons her fiancée at the altar. Rachel has an on and off relationship with her best friend’s brother, Ross, throughout the show. By the 9th season, Ross and Rachel end up having a baby together, Emma. The writers of Friends successfully avoid portraying traditional gender roles in Rachel’s character. This paper argues that the television series Friends represents an improvement in the portrayal of women on television, especially through the character of Rachel.
Feminists and researchers have criticized television for advancing the notion of a “normal” woman by portraying male characters as extremely masculine and female characters as the opposite. This depiction of traditional gender roles on television has further promoted the idea of being a “normal” woman or a “normal” man to viewers. This fallacy in our culture has been a significant source of oppression of women. In 1974, a woman named Sandra Bem created a “measurement scale to rate stereotypical traits associated with character depictions” (Glascock p 174). The scale called the Bem’s Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI), allows people to classify others in terms of their masculinity or femininity. The most hopeful and healthy rank is androgynous, or having high levels of both (Glascock p 174). In 1979 Hollands Preevers conducted a study using the BSRI scale. He discovered that “lead male characters… were perceived as ‘supermasculine’ while females were rated similar to those in Bem’s normative sample” and that “it was females who were typically stereotyped by the media” (Glascock p 174). However, Rachel Green defies these statistics as she refutes the stereotypical gender roles of women. Rachel, as Lynn Spangler states, is, “obsess[ed] with sex” (Spangler p 220). She exemplifies actions of a Third Wave feminist in her sex life. She has many sexual partners, one of which, Paolo, she sleeps with the same day they meet. She expresses her relationship with Paolo as simply “just about raw, animal sex” (The One With the Cat). Her sexual freedom exhibits a liberated woman, free from the oppression of “slut-bashing” and the stereotypes that often come with women who sleep around. The writer’s never include scenes where Rachel is called names or looked down upon because of her sexual freedom. One episode (The One with Rachel’s Big Kiss) even included Rachel describing a time she kissed her female friend at a party in college,. This indicates that experimentation is acceptable; it exemplifies that Rachel’s character does not depict the stereotypes that other sitcoms portray to oppress women.
Women have always been oppressed in the workforce. According to Ellen Bravo, Gloria Santa Anna, and Linda Meric, “women in this country still earn less than men for equivalent jobs.” (Bravo p 180). These issues are addressed and challenged in the show Friends. When Rachel first appears on the show, she is unemployed. She depended on her father’s money, and was not planning on changing her lifestyle. After conversing with her friends, she is convinced that she has to start working. She had always dreamed of a job in fashion, but she had to start somewhere, so Rachel works as a waitress at the local coffeehouse. She soon meets a man named Mark, who gets her a job at Bloomingdales. After much hard work, she finally lands a job at Ralph Lauren, and by the 7th season she is promoted. She receives her own office and personal assistant. The success Rachel achieves in her career is an inspiration to all women. It is an improvement in the portrayal of women in the workforce on television. In 1974, studies were conducted about the portrayal of women on television. “Tedesco found that prime time television portrayed a higher proportion of unemployed women then unemployed men” (Brain, p 21). The same researcher also found that in professional roles male were over represented by 43%, “with 58% of men in daytime television having professional roles, compared with 15% in the general population”. At the same time, women were only over represented by 19.4% (Brain, p 21). Rachel is successful, she has a high-powered job, and she is able to work her way up and earn this success. The writer’s defied all stereotypes that women cannot work and cannot be successful through Rachel’s character.
The writer’s of Friends also address feminist issues when Rachel goes on maternity leave. According to the article An Overview of Women and Work, “many women today lose their job’s when they give birth”. In the show (The One Where Rachel Goes Back To Work), after Rachel has a baby, she comes back to her office two weeks early to pick up something from her desk. She finds that a man is in her office. He completely redecorated and taken over her job while she was gone. She is forced to come back to work earlier than she planned because she felt threatened by this new employee. Rachel brought her new born baby into work with her because it was too short of notice to find a babysitter. Her boss insisted that she give a presentation immediately, even though Ross was planning on picking Emma up in less than two hours. Rachel could not leave her daughter alone, so the boss suggested that someone else present in place of Rachel. Rachel’s job was threatened because of her new born child. Still, Rachel pushes through and manages to keep her job and take care of her baby. Rachel’s character is portrayed as a strong woman who does not need a man to fulfill her. She is able to rise to the challenge of balancing work and motherhood, which is commonly seen as unacceptable in our society. People judge working mothers because they doubt that women can handle the task. However, the television show Friends normalizes the idea of mothers in the wrokforce. This demonstrates an improvement of all mothers in the workforce by addressing this issue of job loss and maternity leave.
Rachel is a single mother who expresses freedom of sexuality, and who maintains a high status job. These three qualities in Rachel make her character a feminist figure and a role model. According to Lynn Spangler, “television and other media are important parts of our culture, both reflecting and influencing our personal and public lives” (Spangler p xiv). The sitcom Friends is able to influence our lives in a positive way, rather than reflecting the gender stereotypes that oppress women every day. Friends effects the veiwpoints of both men and women. Women are given hope because of Rachels character, and men are able to respect women because of the way Rachel is portrayed on the show. The character Rachel, represents the improvement of the portrayal of all women on television.
Below I included the scenes from the episode 'The One Where Rachel Goes Back To Work'. The writer's address feminist issues in maternity leave. Notice that Rachel is very determined and does whatever she can to keep her job. The writer's end up including the last scene where she is able to do her presentation, and is able to represent woman in the work force afterall.
The popular sitcom Friends aired in 1994 for ten full seasons. Its final episode had an estimated 51.1 million viewers in the United States alone (Foxnews.com). The television series won 56 awards including a number of Emmy’s, but the show is influential in more than just the entertainment world (The Internet Movie Database). The sitcom has an impact on American culture between its popular catch phrases, “The Rachel” haircut and the local hang out depicted in almost every episode. Although the writers of the sitcom conform to some traditional gender roles, the series as a whole has proven to reduce the notion of a “normal” woman that has been used to oppress women in this patriarchal society. After analyzing the sitcom Friends through a feminist lens, I realized that the overall show is written in opposition to the gender binaries that are traditionally used to oppress women. The television series is about six friends- three male and three female. They are “all in their mid-twenties as the series begins, living in Manhattan and struggling to establish and maintain satisfying careers and romantic relationships” (Spangler, p 217-218). Each character has his or her own distinctive qualities that make them interesting and unique, but I will focus on only one of these characters- Rachel Green. Rachel changes drastically from the first episode to the last, but she starts out as a snobby rich girl who uses “Daddy’s credit card” and abandons her fiancée at the altar. Rachel has an on and off relationship with her best friend’s brother, Ross, throughout the show. By the 9th season, Ross and Rachel end up having a baby together, Emma. The writers of Friends successfully avoid portraying traditional gender roles in Rachel’s character. This paper argues that the television series Friends represents an improvement in the portrayal of women on television, especially through the character of Rachel.
Feminists and researchers have criticized television for advancing the notion of a “normal” woman by portraying male characters as extremely masculine and female characters as the opposite. This depiction of traditional gender roles on television has further promoted the idea of being a “normal” woman or a “normal” man to viewers. This fallacy in our culture has been a significant source of oppression of women. In 1974, a woman named Sandra Bem created a “measurement scale to rate stereotypical traits associated with character depictions” (Glascock p 174). The scale called the Bem’s Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI), allows people to classify others in terms of their masculinity or femininity. The most hopeful and healthy rank is androgynous, or having high levels of both (Glascock p 174). In 1979 Hollands Preevers conducted a study using the BSRI scale. He discovered that “lead male characters… were perceived as ‘supermasculine’ while females were rated similar to those in Bem’s normative sample” and that “it was females who were typically stereotyped by the media” (Glascock p 174). However, Rachel Green defies these statistics as she refutes the stereotypical gender roles of women. Rachel, as Lynn Spangler states, is, “obsess[ed] with sex” (Spangler p 220). She exemplifies actions of a Third Wave feminist in her sex life. She has many sexual partners, one of which, Paolo, she sleeps with the same day they meet. She expresses her relationship with Paolo as simply “just about raw, animal sex” (The One With the Cat). Her sexual freedom exhibits a liberated woman, free from the oppression of “slut-bashing” and the stereotypes that often come with women who sleep around. The writer’s never include scenes where Rachel is called names or looked down upon because of her sexual freedom. One episode (The One with Rachel’s Big Kiss) even included Rachel describing a time she kissed her female friend at a party in college,. This indicates that experimentation is acceptable; it exemplifies that Rachel’s character does not depict the stereotypes that other sitcoms portray to oppress women.
Women have always been oppressed in the workforce. According to Ellen Bravo, Gloria Santa Anna, and Linda Meric, “women in this country still earn less than men for equivalent jobs.” (Bravo p 180). These issues are addressed and challenged in the show Friends. When Rachel first appears on the show, she is unemployed. She depended on her father’s money, and was not planning on changing her lifestyle. After conversing with her friends, she is convinced that she has to start working. She had always dreamed of a job in fashion, but she had to start somewhere, so Rachel works as a waitress at the local coffeehouse. She soon meets a man named Mark, who gets her a job at Bloomingdales. After much hard work, she finally lands a job at Ralph Lauren, and by the 7th season she is promoted. She receives her own office and personal assistant. The success Rachel achieves in her career is an inspiration to all women. It is an improvement in the portrayal of women in the workforce on television. In 1974, studies were conducted about the portrayal of women on television. “Tedesco found that prime time television portrayed a higher proportion of unemployed women then unemployed men” (Brain, p 21). The same researcher also found that in professional roles male were over represented by 43%, “with 58% of men in daytime television having professional roles, compared with 15% in the general population”. At the same time, women were only over represented by 19.4% (Brain, p 21). Rachel is successful, she has a high-powered job, and she is able to work her way up and earn this success. The writer’s defied all stereotypes that women cannot work and cannot be successful through Rachel’s character.
The writer’s of Friends also address feminist issues when Rachel goes on maternity leave. According to the article An Overview of Women and Work, “many women today lose their job’s when they give birth”. In the show (The One Where Rachel Goes Back To Work), after Rachel has a baby, she comes back to her office two weeks early to pick up something from her desk. She finds that a man is in her office. He completely redecorated and taken over her job while she was gone. She is forced to come back to work earlier than she planned because she felt threatened by this new employee. Rachel brought her new born baby into work with her because it was too short of notice to find a babysitter. Her boss insisted that she give a presentation immediately, even though Ross was planning on picking Emma up in less than two hours. Rachel could not leave her daughter alone, so the boss suggested that someone else present in place of Rachel. Rachel’s job was threatened because of her new born child. Still, Rachel pushes through and manages to keep her job and take care of her baby. Rachel’s character is portrayed as a strong woman who does not need a man to fulfill her. She is able to rise to the challenge of balancing work and motherhood, which is commonly seen as unacceptable in our society. People judge working mothers because they doubt that women can handle the task. However, the television show Friends normalizes the idea of mothers in the wrokforce. This demonstrates an improvement of all mothers in the workforce by addressing this issue of job loss and maternity leave.
Rachel is a single mother who expresses freedom of sexuality, and who maintains a high status job. These three qualities in Rachel make her character a feminist figure and a role model. According to Lynn Spangler, “television and other media are important parts of our culture, both reflecting and influencing our personal and public lives” (Spangler p xiv). The sitcom Friends is able to influence our lives in a positive way, rather than reflecting the gender stereotypes that oppress women every day. Friends effects the veiwpoints of both men and women. Women are given hope because of Rachels character, and men are able to respect women because of the way Rachel is portrayed on the show. The character Rachel, represents the improvement of the portrayal of all women on television.
Below I included the scenes from the episode 'The One Where Rachel Goes Back To Work'. The writer's address feminist issues in maternity leave. Notice that Rachel is very determined and does whatever she can to keep her job. The writer's end up including the last scene where she is able to do her presentation, and is able to represent woman in the work force afterall.
Akstein: Media Analysis
“Contradictory Views of Gender Roles within Little Women”
The independence of women is a major theme in the novel Little Women. However, the dilemma for Alcott appears to be that although most of her female characters are strong, they still conform to typical female roles. If we go back in time to 1868 when Little Women was written, we are faced with convictions that dictated women to be virtuous, pure, and asexual. Sexual activity amongst women was understood as something to be endured to gratify their husbands or to procreate. Family remained the chief patriarchal institution and society determined that males ruled over females. Thus, gender binaries were very clear and always enforced. There was little that tied the two sexes together, and while women may have depended on men financially, it was women that they turned to emotionally. However, in many ways Alcott resists these conventions in her attempt to create strong female role models, which support the self-determination of women, and thus contribute to the fluidity of gender roles. Indeed, it is the disappointment of sexuality, being made of “one sex,” while desiring to be another that exists as a complex issue surrounding a critical analysis of Little Women; therefore, an in-depth study of Jo March’s sexual ambiguity allows for a better understanding of the performative nature of gender roles in Little Women.
It is fairly plain to see that Louisa May Alcott’s book addresses the issue of gender roles in society and also provides ample opportunities to examine and question these roles. Most readers identify through Jo’s character, which in turn shows the most outward rejection of gender norms. As Quimby writes, “Fewer would have predicted that what seems to fuel the imaginations and excite the desires of generations of girlhood readers is precisely Jo’s refusal of normative girlhood identifications and desires; she wants to be the man of the family, not the little woman.” Thus, Jo is a great example of a strong progressive female character because she goes against her culture’s expectations, breaking most of the rules, and living her life according to her will and desires. Jo is also characteristically outspoken and has a passion for writing. Her bold nature often gets her into trouble. Therefore we are led to believe that Jo exemplifies the typical tomboy stereotype. By refusing to learn and enact femininity, the tomboy destabilizes gender as a natural construct. In a revelatory phrase, Jo March laments that “it’s bad enough to be a girl, anyway, when I like boy’s games, and work and manners. I can’t get over my disappointment in not being a boy” (Alcott). Thus, as this statement suggests, tomboy plots like Jo’s are popular in part because they provoke in readers an imaginative perception of the possibilities of perverse identifications and desires among children. Nonetheless, even though many critics do seem to agree that she is a tomboy, what the tomboy represents is open to interpretation. Quimby explains this dilemma further by arguing that “the impulse to normalize Jo is understandable, but it is an impulse defined by the regulatory frame of heterosexuality, which must expel the tomboy’s queer identifications and queer plot, a plot that renders gender unfixed, that we may someday understand as representative of a ‘full humanity’.” Furthermore, even though men are noticeably absent within Little Women and the men that are present are feminized, the inference that male rules female is still maintained. According to Tuck, “Jo’s refusal to perform her prescribed gender role rather illustrates a reluctance to grow up and leave behind her bi-sexual childhood and enter this womanhood of compulsory heterosexuality.” Indeed, it is not until the death of Beth that she is forced to leave behind her bi-sexual world behind her and journey into womanhood; thus, her sister’s death signifies the death of her own childhood. In addition, if we consider why Alcott refused to marry Laurie in the book, the most probable reason is that she had already united them within a romantic friendship. Therefore, as the book clearly suggests, Laurie and Jo are equally adept at occupying each others sexual spheres, and thus they can exist independently of gender and sexuality. Several indicators of Jo’s androgyny are apparent. For example, she is constantly referred to as boyish and much is made of the fact that she whistles. She is the breadwinner of the family, ultimately supporting them through her literary endeavors, and she is unable to perform any feminine tasks properly like cooking. Also, all her chores are masculine, she isn’t sentimental, and she plays all the male roles in their plays. In contrast, Laurie is quite feminized in that he prefers a girl’s name, is moody, and artistic. Thus, as Tuck observes, “Whilst they are aware of their biological maleness and femaleness and are vaguely aware of their socially separate spheres, they do not need to find their place within one or the other.” Yet, other critics would say that with the eventual demise of this relationship, the sexual boundaries within Little Women are no longer blurred and the hegemonic social order is fully restored. Thus, while it may appear that Little Women remained within its conservative roots and ultimately reinforced gender norms and heterosexual relations, one needs to place the novel within its historical context. Its place within the nineteenth century domestic novel genre allows us to appreciate that this book was and remains a radical novel that barely escapes censorship and succeeds in its attempt to question the sexual conventions and stereotypes of its era. Thus, I believe that Alcott creates an awareness of gender roles and their expectations by exposing them to us; and then by creating this awareness she allows readers to decide what they are going to do with that knowledge. She recreates the difficulties people face in real life when their actions, either consciously or unconsciously conform to gender roles or resist them.
Nonetheless, there are other feminist critics that believe Alcott’s characters support dominant and patriarchally defined roles for women, thus reinforcing the very roles we seek to reject. So, according to Alberghene and Clark “chief tension occurs between a liberal-feminist ideal of autonomy and a cultural feminist ideal of connectedness.” Thus, some argue that Jo provides a model of independence, even if she ultimately gives in to marriage. Yet others still say that she submits to prevailing cultural norms rather than contesting them. Also, there is a great deal of criticism surrounding Jo’s marriage to Professor Bhaer. Most critics seem to contend that he represents patriarchal values around which the March family circle ultimately revolves, and thus his marriage to Jo seems to perpetuate it. In addition, another subject of controversy for critics lies in the way Little Women shows us how negative emotions in fact actively produce the specific forms of gender the book elaborates. The message that comes through to readers according to Foote is that “women must learn to repress their anger, even if their anger is, in the world of the novel, just and reasonable.” One can take the example of Amy, who through her narcissism, acts as an antithesis to Jo. Amy’s argument to Jo is that gender conformity helps to compensate for uncertain class positions. Thus, many critics have made arguments about the transformation of Jo’s rebelliousness, and the domestication of her character. Foote talks about the way the domestication of Jo is “deeply implicated in the lessons of class that she slowly comes to engage with not just emotionally-angrily, or resentfully, or yearning- but critically.” Class is a moral orientation toward the world, and it is therefore tied to gender and its relationship to the moral. So, as these critics suggest, the characters endure a series of mortifying confrontations with their own social inadequacies, and that they experience very negative emotions. These are in turn transformed through the understanding that the home can aid in learning, practicing, and reconfiguring social distinctions into natural distinctions. Moreover, another negative criticism of Little Women lies in the title itself. Some wonder whether Alcott’s novel belittles women in serving as an instrument for teaching girls how to be “little.” Armstrong writes that “Little women tend to be restricted to little deeds when they live in a little sphere. Part of the pressure for an adolescent girl of this period is the need to choose an appropriately-sized sphere for the adulthood ahead of her.” Thus, the problems of little deeds and little spheres are pointers to the central problem: the fear of the littleness of womanhood. Also, in respect to Jo’s temperament, her efforts to break out of the vicious circle of anger are bound to fail if the circle is kept intact by the anger of others. That is because Jo’s weapons are words, and verbal expression of anger is unacceptable. Furthermore, her grief must be ignored in the effort to silence anger. Thus the text belittles women in diminishing the power of words.
The power of Little Women derives in large measure from the contradictions and tensions it exposes, and how it presents the feminist exploration colliding repeatedly against patriarchal repression. Thus, for a feminist reader of the book, two familiar questions arise: Is Alcott creating a supporting argument for traditional gender roles? Or is she taking a subversive stance towards society and its expectations of gender roles? Critics tend to place themselves on one side or the other; however, I believe that her purpose was simply to create an awareness of gender roles and their normative expectations through Little Women’s vivid female characters, though with significant attention to Jo’s overtly ambiguous sexuality. She thus highlights the effects that cultural constructions of gender have on individuals. These effects ultimately will be taken for granted, and will continue to manipulate people’s lives until, and unless, society is forced to acknowledge their existence.
The independence of women is a major theme in the novel Little Women. However, the dilemma for Alcott appears to be that although most of her female characters are strong, they still conform to typical female roles. If we go back in time to 1868 when Little Women was written, we are faced with convictions that dictated women to be virtuous, pure, and asexual. Sexual activity amongst women was understood as something to be endured to gratify their husbands or to procreate. Family remained the chief patriarchal institution and society determined that males ruled over females. Thus, gender binaries were very clear and always enforced. There was little that tied the two sexes together, and while women may have depended on men financially, it was women that they turned to emotionally. However, in many ways Alcott resists these conventions in her attempt to create strong female role models, which support the self-determination of women, and thus contribute to the fluidity of gender roles. Indeed, it is the disappointment of sexuality, being made of “one sex,” while desiring to be another that exists as a complex issue surrounding a critical analysis of Little Women; therefore, an in-depth study of Jo March’s sexual ambiguity allows for a better understanding of the performative nature of gender roles in Little Women.
It is fairly plain to see that Louisa May Alcott’s book addresses the issue of gender roles in society and also provides ample opportunities to examine and question these roles. Most readers identify through Jo’s character, which in turn shows the most outward rejection of gender norms. As Quimby writes, “Fewer would have predicted that what seems to fuel the imaginations and excite the desires of generations of girlhood readers is precisely Jo’s refusal of normative girlhood identifications and desires; she wants to be the man of the family, not the little woman.” Thus, Jo is a great example of a strong progressive female character because she goes against her culture’s expectations, breaking most of the rules, and living her life according to her will and desires. Jo is also characteristically outspoken and has a passion for writing. Her bold nature often gets her into trouble. Therefore we are led to believe that Jo exemplifies the typical tomboy stereotype. By refusing to learn and enact femininity, the tomboy destabilizes gender as a natural construct. In a revelatory phrase, Jo March laments that “it’s bad enough to be a girl, anyway, when I like boy’s games, and work and manners. I can’t get over my disappointment in not being a boy” (Alcott). Thus, as this statement suggests, tomboy plots like Jo’s are popular in part because they provoke in readers an imaginative perception of the possibilities of perverse identifications and desires among children. Nonetheless, even though many critics do seem to agree that she is a tomboy, what the tomboy represents is open to interpretation. Quimby explains this dilemma further by arguing that “the impulse to normalize Jo is understandable, but it is an impulse defined by the regulatory frame of heterosexuality, which must expel the tomboy’s queer identifications and queer plot, a plot that renders gender unfixed, that we may someday understand as representative of a ‘full humanity’.” Furthermore, even though men are noticeably absent within Little Women and the men that are present are feminized, the inference that male rules female is still maintained. According to Tuck, “Jo’s refusal to perform her prescribed gender role rather illustrates a reluctance to grow up and leave behind her bi-sexual childhood and enter this womanhood of compulsory heterosexuality.” Indeed, it is not until the death of Beth that she is forced to leave behind her bi-sexual world behind her and journey into womanhood; thus, her sister’s death signifies the death of her own childhood. In addition, if we consider why Alcott refused to marry Laurie in the book, the most probable reason is that she had already united them within a romantic friendship. Therefore, as the book clearly suggests, Laurie and Jo are equally adept at occupying each others sexual spheres, and thus they can exist independently of gender and sexuality. Several indicators of Jo’s androgyny are apparent. For example, she is constantly referred to as boyish and much is made of the fact that she whistles. She is the breadwinner of the family, ultimately supporting them through her literary endeavors, and she is unable to perform any feminine tasks properly like cooking. Also, all her chores are masculine, she isn’t sentimental, and she plays all the male roles in their plays. In contrast, Laurie is quite feminized in that he prefers a girl’s name, is moody, and artistic. Thus, as Tuck observes, “Whilst they are aware of their biological maleness and femaleness and are vaguely aware of their socially separate spheres, they do not need to find their place within one or the other.” Yet, other critics would say that with the eventual demise of this relationship, the sexual boundaries within Little Women are no longer blurred and the hegemonic social order is fully restored. Thus, while it may appear that Little Women remained within its conservative roots and ultimately reinforced gender norms and heterosexual relations, one needs to place the novel within its historical context. Its place within the nineteenth century domestic novel genre allows us to appreciate that this book was and remains a radical novel that barely escapes censorship and succeeds in its attempt to question the sexual conventions and stereotypes of its era. Thus, I believe that Alcott creates an awareness of gender roles and their expectations by exposing them to us; and then by creating this awareness she allows readers to decide what they are going to do with that knowledge. She recreates the difficulties people face in real life when their actions, either consciously or unconsciously conform to gender roles or resist them.
Nonetheless, there are other feminist critics that believe Alcott’s characters support dominant and patriarchally defined roles for women, thus reinforcing the very roles we seek to reject. So, according to Alberghene and Clark “chief tension occurs between a liberal-feminist ideal of autonomy and a cultural feminist ideal of connectedness.” Thus, some argue that Jo provides a model of independence, even if she ultimately gives in to marriage. Yet others still say that she submits to prevailing cultural norms rather than contesting them. Also, there is a great deal of criticism surrounding Jo’s marriage to Professor Bhaer. Most critics seem to contend that he represents patriarchal values around which the March family circle ultimately revolves, and thus his marriage to Jo seems to perpetuate it. In addition, another subject of controversy for critics lies in the way Little Women shows us how negative emotions in fact actively produce the specific forms of gender the book elaborates. The message that comes through to readers according to Foote is that “women must learn to repress their anger, even if their anger is, in the world of the novel, just and reasonable.” One can take the example of Amy, who through her narcissism, acts as an antithesis to Jo. Amy’s argument to Jo is that gender conformity helps to compensate for uncertain class positions. Thus, many critics have made arguments about the transformation of Jo’s rebelliousness, and the domestication of her character. Foote talks about the way the domestication of Jo is “deeply implicated in the lessons of class that she slowly comes to engage with not just emotionally-angrily, or resentfully, or yearning- but critically.” Class is a moral orientation toward the world, and it is therefore tied to gender and its relationship to the moral. So, as these critics suggest, the characters endure a series of mortifying confrontations with their own social inadequacies, and that they experience very negative emotions. These are in turn transformed through the understanding that the home can aid in learning, practicing, and reconfiguring social distinctions into natural distinctions. Moreover, another negative criticism of Little Women lies in the title itself. Some wonder whether Alcott’s novel belittles women in serving as an instrument for teaching girls how to be “little.” Armstrong writes that “Little women tend to be restricted to little deeds when they live in a little sphere. Part of the pressure for an adolescent girl of this period is the need to choose an appropriately-sized sphere for the adulthood ahead of her.” Thus, the problems of little deeds and little spheres are pointers to the central problem: the fear of the littleness of womanhood. Also, in respect to Jo’s temperament, her efforts to break out of the vicious circle of anger are bound to fail if the circle is kept intact by the anger of others. That is because Jo’s weapons are words, and verbal expression of anger is unacceptable. Furthermore, her grief must be ignored in the effort to silence anger. Thus the text belittles women in diminishing the power of words.
The power of Little Women derives in large measure from the contradictions and tensions it exposes, and how it presents the feminist exploration colliding repeatedly against patriarchal repression. Thus, for a feminist reader of the book, two familiar questions arise: Is Alcott creating a supporting argument for traditional gender roles? Or is she taking a subversive stance towards society and its expectations of gender roles? Critics tend to place themselves on one side or the other; however, I believe that her purpose was simply to create an awareness of gender roles and their normative expectations through Little Women’s vivid female characters, though with significant attention to Jo’s overtly ambiguous sexuality. She thus highlights the effects that cultural constructions of gender have on individuals. These effects ultimately will be taken for granted, and will continue to manipulate people’s lives until, and unless, society is forced to acknowledge their existence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)