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.
Friday, April 25, 2008
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.
Femininity and Masculinity: Fluid gender identity in Kill Bill Vol. 1 & 2
Quentin Tarantino’s double movie Kill Bill Volumes 1 and 2 tells the story of a female assassin’s quest for revenge against those who betrayed her. Beatrix Kiddo AKA The Bride was gunned down at her wedding rehearsal by the Dead Viper Assassination Squad, of which she was once a part of. Her former love and master, Bill, shot the pregnant bride in the head, putting her in a coma for four years. Upon awaking from her coma, she set out on a mission to kill each member of the squad, most importantly of all, Bill. On the surface, the text appears feminist, featuring a powerful female in an unexpected, physically demanding role. On looking further, the extreme violence and theme of pregnancy and sacrifice seem to contradict feminism. However, this paper will attempt to sort through the contradictions. I will argue that the character of Beatrix Kiddo embodies a feminist interpretation of femininity in her complexity and fluidity. She displays an ability to perform both feminine and masculine roles in her behavior, dress, and interactions with other characters, resulting in an evolving, complicated identity and a characterization that is ultimately feminist.
In attempting to define femininity and masculinity, I realized I was making the mistake of giving validity to words which are based on abstract stereotypes rather than reality. Gender stereotypes are traditionally defined as a presence or absence of specific personality traits (Deaux, 290). In a report that based on an extensive investigation in 30 different nations William and Best (1982) found, “men are typically viewed as stronger, more active, and higher in achievement autonomy and aggression. Women are weaker, less active, and more concerned with affiliation, nurturance, and deference” (Deaux, 291). The problem with these stereotypes is that fail to account for fluidity and variation in behavior given a situation, as well as the many exceptions in which a man or woman doesn’t fit the stereotype. Deaux points out that the two features that may be most influential in determining male or female gender are the male’s larger size and greater strength and the female’s ability to give birth. Aside from these two signifiers, the other traits are not based on concrete evidence. She is careful to point out that there is “overlap in virtually all behaviors” associated with masculinity and femininity, and that the concepts are “multidimensional” and “inherently flexible…not explanations but simply labels” (300, 301). In her article Masculine Femininities/Feminine Masculinities: power, identiy, and gender, Carrie Paechter agrees,
“Kessler and McKenna’s (1978) classic study suggests that ‘male’ and ‘female’ are examples of what is referred to in philosophy as a ‘cluster concept’: one that is not amenable to straightforward definition but is recognized through a cluster of attributes, some of which are more salient than others, but which may not all be present. The gender binary, in consequence, only operates at the level of the label” (258).
I think it is important to be skeptical of the terms “male” and “female.” I understand the necessity of having language to discuss disparities between biological sexes, but ascribing a set of characteristics to the terms is an act of stereotyping.
Furthermore, positioning the terms masculine and feminine as opposites creates a one-dimensional concept that inhibits the understanding of gender identity. As Deaux points out, “Most often, the general concepts of masculinity and femininity are viewed in terms of opposition, with the presence of one set of characteristics implying the absence of the other” (292). The terms then become part of the gender binary, establishing two rigid categories under which one must fall, failing to account for the disparities, the gray areas, and the overlap that occurs in an individual’s identity. How we behave as masculine and feminine varies with time, place, and circumstance (Paechter, 259). Furthermore, femininity and masculinity are not as much inherent qualities in an individual as a position one occupies in relation to a situation (Haskell, 89). Simone de Beauvoir writes:
“In actuality the relation of the two sexes is not quite like that of two electrical poles, for man represents both the positive and the neutral, as indicated by that common use of man to designate human beings in general; whereas woman represents only the negative, defined by limited criteria, without reciprocity” (1).
If women are defined in relation to man, the conclusion would be that to be feminine is to be lacking masculine qualities; the terms themselves then become an act of subordination. Gender is penetrable, evolving, and inconsistent. While language is important for discussion purposes, it constrains our concept of gender because it compulsively labels and categorizes. Therefore, a feminist definition of gender wouldn’t be a definition at all- it would allow the individual to determine their own gender identity.
The Kill Bill movies present a unique example of the fluidity of gender identity in the heroine, Beatrix Kiddo. Throughout the film, she occupies the roles of deadly assassin and mother. Her physical strength and aggressiveness are stereotypically masculine, while her role as a mother is inherently feminine. Both roles she assumes are emphasized as natural. Bill, in the final scene of the movie, calls her a “natural born killer,” which is interesting because men are the ones typically seen as “natural” predators. On the other hand, despite being a killer, Beatrix is gentle and affectionate with her daughter when they are reunited in the final scene. Classifying Beatrix Kiddo as either masculine or feminine is impossible; she defies the gender binary. In this way Quentin Tarantino, the writer and director of the film, and Uma Thurman, the actress who portrays her, develop a characterization of Beatrix Kiddo that is feminist in its gender ambiguity.
Beatrix Kiddo’s appearance changes and evolves constantly throughout the movie. In the opening scene of both Kill Bill Volumes 1 and 2, she is bloody, dirty, and sweaty, showing obvious pain. While Uma Thurman is physically attractive, she is also unafraid to be “ugly.” In the scene where she awakes from her coma to realize that she has lost the baby she was pregnant with, she shows the kind of emotional turmoil that is unpleasant to view. It is a humanizing moment, one which the character becomes less of a cartoon and more of a complex individual. Also, in the second installment, we see Beatrix Kiddo as a beautiful and obviously pregnant bride prior to the wedding massacre. Here she is the ultimate stereotype of femininity; she is wearing a soft, white dress and is glowingly pregnant. Later, she dons a yellow, androgynous jumpsuit she when she initiates her own massacre of one of her nemesis O-Ren’s entire entourage. The final scene is interesting to me because she finally arrives at her destination where she is to kill Bill once and for all, and she is wearing a long, flowing skirt. It seems at the end of the journey she has come into her identity and isn’t donning a costume to assume the role of Beatrix the masculine female to be an intimidating warrior.
There are some actions Beatrix takes that are not in sync with feminist thought and could be interpreted as stereotypical. The largest, in my opinion, is the fact that the very day she found out her pregnancy, she abandoned her life as a hired assassin and moved to a small town to marry, work in a used record store with her husband, and raise her child. This was a decision, when confronted by Bill in the final scene, she admits she did not think would work. In what her critique of women’s films of the 1930s and 40s, Molly Haskell describes the theme of sacrifice, in which a woman must sacrifice herself for her children, and the film “may end happily, with the wife/mother reclaiming her husband/child when her rival dies” (Haskell, 24). She elaborates on her criticism, calling a woman “consumed by her maternal zeal” a mainstay of “American culture and middle class marriage,” resulting in a “conviction that children are the reason for getting married” (Haskell, 27). For a film that was made about 60 years after the films Haskell describes, the subject matter is strikingly similar. Beatrix gives up her independent identity after, as she says, “the strip turned blue” on her pregnancy test. The decision is disappointingly cliché, but it is only the beginning of the Bride’s story and therefore part of her evolution. Her adherence to the stereotypical female role in this situation and the rejecting of it further in the movie is additional evidence of the flexibility of her gender identity.
In addition, via flashbacks, we see that Beatrix wasn’t always an independent agent. Bill was not only her lover, but also her “master.” He had her trained by Pai Mei, the most overtly misogynist character in the entire film. She is put through intense physical torture under his tutelage, but ultimately she becomes stronger. As a result of his training, she was not only able to escape being buried alive, but was also finally able to defeat Bill in the final scene, using a kung fu maneuver Pai Mei taught her. Beatrix evolved from a subordinate identity to an independent identity, which contrasts the vast majority of films featuring females that go from single to married.
Furthermore, through her aggression, physical prowess, and ability to forgo emotion for the sake of rationality she embodies characteristics generally thought of as masculine. For example, in the scene in which she fights Vernita Green in her suburban home Beatrix explicitly says, “Its mercy, compassion, and forgiveness I lack. Not rationality.” Rationality, thought to be a male trait, is the one trait she owns up to, dismissing the typically feminine virtues of compassion and mercy. By distancing herself from stereotypical femininity she is claiming power and concurrently rejecting the disempowerment that comes from positioning oneself as female (Paechter, 257). She not only verbally rejects femininity, she goes on to murder countless men and women while maintaining level-headedness, agility, and composure. In Simone de Beauvoir’s introduction Woman as Other she writes that women “have gained only what men have been willing to grant; they have taken nothing, they have only received.” In her life before she awoke from her coma, Beatrix lives up to de Beauvoir’s assertion. She received training only when Pai Mei acquiesced, she lost her life while in a coma for four years where she was repeatedly raped, and her child was literally taken out of her stomach. After awaking from her coma, she murders her abusers and takes their vehicle, she gets her revenge by literally taking the lives of her enemies, and she eventually takes back her daughter from Bill. In her journey throughout the two films, Beatrix acquires everything important and valuable to her by taking- not receiving- from men.
The parts where the fluidity of her gender identity is most evident are in the ways she moves between masculine and feminine roles within the same interactions.For example, upon first encountering Hatori Honso, the man she wished to make her a priceless samurai sword, she first pretends to be naïve to Japanese language, which she speaks fluently, and she giggles timidly, obviously attempting to charm him. When he has warmed to her, she abandons the act and proceeds to speak to him in Japanese and holds steady eye contact, assertively telling him she wants him to make her a sword for nothing in return. The example illustrates the performance aspect of gender roles, and the ease with which she executes performing them to get what she wants shows that her identity is complicated. She executes a similar strategy with Esteban Vallejo, a father figure of Bill’s and a pimp, by complimenting him and laughing coyly at his jokes, playing a feminine role until him until she feels confident to get what she wants out of him- Bill’s location. She manages to get both the sword and Bill’s location through performing gender roles.
I think it is also worth noting that Quentin Tarantino was raised by a strong, independent woman without his father present (Rich, 1). That would likely color the way he views strong women in a favorable way. In an interview, Tarantino has also said “This movie does not take place in the universe that we live in. In this world women are not the weaker sex. They have exactly the same predatory hunting instincts as the men, the same drive to kill or be killed.” This could be taken as anti-feminist in that he is inferring that in the “real world” women are the weaker sex. On the other hand, he could be implying that there is a perception that women are the weaker sex, which is true. While many feminists cry misogyny when they see the treatment of Beatrix Kiddo in Kill Bill, I would find it strange if there was no violence against her. She is, after all, a deadly assassin on a revenge mission, and she is involved in multiple battles with both men and women. In addition, from Reservoir Dogs to Pulp Fiction, Tarantino’s films are known for their excessive violence, and Kill Bill is no exception. Unrealistic as the film may be, presenting a strong, powerful, multi-faceted female lead in a scenario in which she triumphs without the help of any man is, in my opinion, a feminist characterization, whether or not Tarantino identifies as a feminist.
If masculinity and femininity in a feminist perspective are intertwined, flexible, and variable, then the characterization of Beatrix Kiddo’s gender identity is feminist. She doesn’t conform to a specific way of dressing, though she is most recognizable in her androgynous jumpsuit. Her behavior ranges from stereotypically feminine as a blushing bride, to a caricature of masculinity as a sword-wielding assassin. In interactions she displays competency in acting out each role- female when she wants to charm men and male when she wants to intimidate aggressors. Her gender identity operates independent of her biology and sexual orientation. It is ambiguous and defies labels and binaries, thus making the media text of Kill Bill, with regards to Beatrix Kiddo, essentially feminist.
In attempting to define femininity and masculinity, I realized I was making the mistake of giving validity to words which are based on abstract stereotypes rather than reality. Gender stereotypes are traditionally defined as a presence or absence of specific personality traits (Deaux, 290). In a report that based on an extensive investigation in 30 different nations William and Best (1982) found, “men are typically viewed as stronger, more active, and higher in achievement autonomy and aggression. Women are weaker, less active, and more concerned with affiliation, nurturance, and deference” (Deaux, 291). The problem with these stereotypes is that fail to account for fluidity and variation in behavior given a situation, as well as the many exceptions in which a man or woman doesn’t fit the stereotype. Deaux points out that the two features that may be most influential in determining male or female gender are the male’s larger size and greater strength and the female’s ability to give birth. Aside from these two signifiers, the other traits are not based on concrete evidence. She is careful to point out that there is “overlap in virtually all behaviors” associated with masculinity and femininity, and that the concepts are “multidimensional” and “inherently flexible…not explanations but simply labels” (300, 301). In her article Masculine Femininities/Feminine Masculinities: power, identiy, and gender, Carrie Paechter agrees,
“Kessler and McKenna’s (1978) classic study suggests that ‘male’ and ‘female’ are examples of what is referred to in philosophy as a ‘cluster concept’: one that is not amenable to straightforward definition but is recognized through a cluster of attributes, some of which are more salient than others, but which may not all be present. The gender binary, in consequence, only operates at the level of the label” (258).
I think it is important to be skeptical of the terms “male” and “female.” I understand the necessity of having language to discuss disparities between biological sexes, but ascribing a set of characteristics to the terms is an act of stereotyping.
Furthermore, positioning the terms masculine and feminine as opposites creates a one-dimensional concept that inhibits the understanding of gender identity. As Deaux points out, “Most often, the general concepts of masculinity and femininity are viewed in terms of opposition, with the presence of one set of characteristics implying the absence of the other” (292). The terms then become part of the gender binary, establishing two rigid categories under which one must fall, failing to account for the disparities, the gray areas, and the overlap that occurs in an individual’s identity. How we behave as masculine and feminine varies with time, place, and circumstance (Paechter, 259). Furthermore, femininity and masculinity are not as much inherent qualities in an individual as a position one occupies in relation to a situation (Haskell, 89). Simone de Beauvoir writes:
“In actuality the relation of the two sexes is not quite like that of two electrical poles, for man represents both the positive and the neutral, as indicated by that common use of man to designate human beings in general; whereas woman represents only the negative, defined by limited criteria, without reciprocity” (1).
If women are defined in relation to man, the conclusion would be that to be feminine is to be lacking masculine qualities; the terms themselves then become an act of subordination. Gender is penetrable, evolving, and inconsistent. While language is important for discussion purposes, it constrains our concept of gender because it compulsively labels and categorizes. Therefore, a feminist definition of gender wouldn’t be a definition at all- it would allow the individual to determine their own gender identity.
The Kill Bill movies present a unique example of the fluidity of gender identity in the heroine, Beatrix Kiddo. Throughout the film, she occupies the roles of deadly assassin and mother. Her physical strength and aggressiveness are stereotypically masculine, while her role as a mother is inherently feminine. Both roles she assumes are emphasized as natural. Bill, in the final scene of the movie, calls her a “natural born killer,” which is interesting because men are the ones typically seen as “natural” predators. On the other hand, despite being a killer, Beatrix is gentle and affectionate with her daughter when they are reunited in the final scene. Classifying Beatrix Kiddo as either masculine or feminine is impossible; she defies the gender binary. In this way Quentin Tarantino, the writer and director of the film, and Uma Thurman, the actress who portrays her, develop a characterization of Beatrix Kiddo that is feminist in its gender ambiguity.
Beatrix Kiddo’s appearance changes and evolves constantly throughout the movie. In the opening scene of both Kill Bill Volumes 1 and 2, she is bloody, dirty, and sweaty, showing obvious pain. While Uma Thurman is physically attractive, she is also unafraid to be “ugly.” In the scene where she awakes from her coma to realize that she has lost the baby she was pregnant with, she shows the kind of emotional turmoil that is unpleasant to view. It is a humanizing moment, one which the character becomes less of a cartoon and more of a complex individual. Also, in the second installment, we see Beatrix Kiddo as a beautiful and obviously pregnant bride prior to the wedding massacre. Here she is the ultimate stereotype of femininity; she is wearing a soft, white dress and is glowingly pregnant. Later, she dons a yellow, androgynous jumpsuit she when she initiates her own massacre of one of her nemesis O-Ren’s entire entourage. The final scene is interesting to me because she finally arrives at her destination where she is to kill Bill once and for all, and she is wearing a long, flowing skirt. It seems at the end of the journey she has come into her identity and isn’t donning a costume to assume the role of Beatrix the masculine female to be an intimidating warrior.
There are some actions Beatrix takes that are not in sync with feminist thought and could be interpreted as stereotypical. The largest, in my opinion, is the fact that the very day she found out her pregnancy, she abandoned her life as a hired assassin and moved to a small town to marry, work in a used record store with her husband, and raise her child. This was a decision, when confronted by Bill in the final scene, she admits she did not think would work. In what her critique of women’s films of the 1930s and 40s, Molly Haskell describes the theme of sacrifice, in which a woman must sacrifice herself for her children, and the film “may end happily, with the wife/mother reclaiming her husband/child when her rival dies” (Haskell, 24). She elaborates on her criticism, calling a woman “consumed by her maternal zeal” a mainstay of “American culture and middle class marriage,” resulting in a “conviction that children are the reason for getting married” (Haskell, 27). For a film that was made about 60 years after the films Haskell describes, the subject matter is strikingly similar. Beatrix gives up her independent identity after, as she says, “the strip turned blue” on her pregnancy test. The decision is disappointingly cliché, but it is only the beginning of the Bride’s story and therefore part of her evolution. Her adherence to the stereotypical female role in this situation and the rejecting of it further in the movie is additional evidence of the flexibility of her gender identity.
In addition, via flashbacks, we see that Beatrix wasn’t always an independent agent. Bill was not only her lover, but also her “master.” He had her trained by Pai Mei, the most overtly misogynist character in the entire film. She is put through intense physical torture under his tutelage, but ultimately she becomes stronger. As a result of his training, she was not only able to escape being buried alive, but was also finally able to defeat Bill in the final scene, using a kung fu maneuver Pai Mei taught her. Beatrix evolved from a subordinate identity to an independent identity, which contrasts the vast majority of films featuring females that go from single to married.
Furthermore, through her aggression, physical prowess, and ability to forgo emotion for the sake of rationality she embodies characteristics generally thought of as masculine. For example, in the scene in which she fights Vernita Green in her suburban home Beatrix explicitly says, “Its mercy, compassion, and forgiveness I lack. Not rationality.” Rationality, thought to be a male trait, is the one trait she owns up to, dismissing the typically feminine virtues of compassion and mercy. By distancing herself from stereotypical femininity she is claiming power and concurrently rejecting the disempowerment that comes from positioning oneself as female (Paechter, 257). She not only verbally rejects femininity, she goes on to murder countless men and women while maintaining level-headedness, agility, and composure. In Simone de Beauvoir’s introduction Woman as Other she writes that women “have gained only what men have been willing to grant; they have taken nothing, they have only received.” In her life before she awoke from her coma, Beatrix lives up to de Beauvoir’s assertion. She received training only when Pai Mei acquiesced, she lost her life while in a coma for four years where she was repeatedly raped, and her child was literally taken out of her stomach. After awaking from her coma, she murders her abusers and takes their vehicle, she gets her revenge by literally taking the lives of her enemies, and she eventually takes back her daughter from Bill. In her journey throughout the two films, Beatrix acquires everything important and valuable to her by taking- not receiving- from men.
The parts where the fluidity of her gender identity is most evident are in the ways she moves between masculine and feminine roles within the same interactions.For example, upon first encountering Hatori Honso, the man she wished to make her a priceless samurai sword, she first pretends to be naïve to Japanese language, which she speaks fluently, and she giggles timidly, obviously attempting to charm him. When he has warmed to her, she abandons the act and proceeds to speak to him in Japanese and holds steady eye contact, assertively telling him she wants him to make her a sword for nothing in return. The example illustrates the performance aspect of gender roles, and the ease with which she executes performing them to get what she wants shows that her identity is complicated. She executes a similar strategy with Esteban Vallejo, a father figure of Bill’s and a pimp, by complimenting him and laughing coyly at his jokes, playing a feminine role until him until she feels confident to get what she wants out of him- Bill’s location. She manages to get both the sword and Bill’s location through performing gender roles.
I think it is also worth noting that Quentin Tarantino was raised by a strong, independent woman without his father present (Rich, 1). That would likely color the way he views strong women in a favorable way. In an interview, Tarantino has also said “This movie does not take place in the universe that we live in. In this world women are not the weaker sex. They have exactly the same predatory hunting instincts as the men, the same drive to kill or be killed.” This could be taken as anti-feminist in that he is inferring that in the “real world” women are the weaker sex. On the other hand, he could be implying that there is a perception that women are the weaker sex, which is true. While many feminists cry misogyny when they see the treatment of Beatrix Kiddo in Kill Bill, I would find it strange if there was no violence against her. She is, after all, a deadly assassin on a revenge mission, and she is involved in multiple battles with both men and women. In addition, from Reservoir Dogs to Pulp Fiction, Tarantino’s films are known for their excessive violence, and Kill Bill is no exception. Unrealistic as the film may be, presenting a strong, powerful, multi-faceted female lead in a scenario in which she triumphs without the help of any man is, in my opinion, a feminist characterization, whether or not Tarantino identifies as a feminist.
If masculinity and femininity in a feminist perspective are intertwined, flexible, and variable, then the characterization of Beatrix Kiddo’s gender identity is feminist. She doesn’t conform to a specific way of dressing, though she is most recognizable in her androgynous jumpsuit. Her behavior ranges from stereotypically feminine as a blushing bride, to a caricature of masculinity as a sword-wielding assassin. In interactions she displays competency in acting out each role- female when she wants to charm men and male when she wants to intimidate aggressors. Her gender identity operates independent of her biology and sexual orientation. It is ambiguous and defies labels and binaries, thus making the media text of Kill Bill, with regards to Beatrix Kiddo, essentially feminist.
Audris Insixiengmay: Media Analysis
Media Analysis: How to Look Good Naked: A Queer Eye's View of the Beauty Myth
Commercials, runways, billboards, magazines, movies, sitcoms – it seems that today's women are being ambushed from every angle by the “Beauty Myth”, the belief that there is a singular, exclusive, pristine image of perfection and that this image is what self-respecting women everywhere should look like (Wolf 120). Fortunately for the vast majority of us that are not a size 0 there is How to Look Good Naked and shows like it that herald an enlightening message: despite what size bra you wear, the color of your hair, or how many kids you have had, you are beautiful. However, it is hard to view the show without a feminist lens and an uncritical eye. Although the message HTLGN sends is an overall positive one, it still feeds the multi-billion dollar cosmetics industry that pays for those models in the magazine ads and those billboards beside the freeway. Though it cannot be denied: the media has grown to become more accepting of women of varying shapes, colors, and sizes, the fact is that women are still primping for hours before a mirror prior to setting foot outside their front doors which only breathes fresh, sustaining life into the Beauty Myth.
When Naomi Wolf wrote her article in 1991, I am pretty sure she did not for see the myriad makeover shows sprinkled throughout cable television networks, including How to Look Good Naked, a show that premiered earlier this year on Lifetime. Hosted by Queer Eye for the Straight Guy's Carson Kressley, the show helps body-conscious women get rid of the painful, damaging images they have of themselves in exchange for an more approving, self-loving view. In January, Kressley appeared on Good Morning America to give audiences a preview of HTLGN. Kressley told Good Morning America: “The point of the show is to say you don't have to be perfect to be beautiful”, you can be beautiful just as you are (ABC). In a world where nothing less than perfect is acceptable, the show's message appears to be a positive one. Nicole Cohen of Herizons magazine observes that “beauty standards have evolved from functioning as visual health cues to becoming bodily insecurities companies [use] to hawk lipstick and liposuction” (37). I can walk into any drug store or supermarket and see entire aisles devoted specifically to women's cosmetics and care: face creams and body lotions, hair straighteners and curling serums. With so much evidence to woman's undeniable imperfection, how can we ignore the need for improvement? Kressley acknowledges that women today cannot help but be sucked into an oppressive, self-deprecating state of mind because of the myriad size 0's dancing in music videos or clear-skinned, long-lashed bombshells serving chicken wings in the local bars. He proceeds in the interview – and on the show itself – to share tricks of the trade that help.
Nevertheless, is that enough? Makeover shows may take the outward appearance of media-oppressed women and morph it into the “goddess within”, but is that enough to cancel out the decades of promoting botox, bronzers, and boob jobs? Sheila Mason articulates that “over the past thirty years...women have gained increasing access to work and leisure opportunities that were previously inaccessible to them. Social and philosophical obstacles to collective self understanding have diminished with the appearance of emancipatory social movements” such as feminism and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender awareness (Beyond flow 233). Women have overcome paramount obstacles over the past years in order to gain an equality that was once unheard of. Yet in spite of all our accomplishments, we are still struggling under the yoke of the Beauty Myth. A point that Wolf makes in her essay is that “'beauty' is not universal...nor is beauty a function of evolution”, in essence beauty is fluid (Beauty Myth 121). A beautiful woman to a man in Kenya will undoubtedly be different from a beautiful woman to a man in Japan, but because the media has tattooed an exclusive image into our minds, women cannot help but feel inadequate with what they have. In this way HTLGN can be applauded because the show helps society's women who are so often disappointed with their reflection – in some cases, to the point of tears – realize that they do not need to fit the prototype to be beautiful. You can be four foot seven and still look sophisticated, you can wear a size 14 jean and still exude confidence.
However, does self-appreciation reciprocate the fact that HTLGN is still working for a system that capitalizes on women's need to buy beauty products and trendy outfits? Not necessarily, but I do feel that women – and men – should feel good about looking their best. In addition, looking your best does not mean plastic surgery and starvation. Everyone – man, woman, transgender – has the potential and the right to look as good as the next person. I personally adore makeover shows because they make me realize that there are women in the world who are so insecure about the way they look on the outside that it effects how they feel about themselves on the inside. And it is because of the Beauty Myth that 99% of women are unhappy with their bodies. However, shows like HTLGN show women that there is nothing to be ashamed of, there is nothing that they should envy; every woman is beautiful and it starts with how they feel about themselves. It was for this reason that I chose to do my media analysis on HTLGN.
So, it is true that How to Look Good Naked raises the consciousness of women about body images and shows them that the “ideal” body image is nothing but a myth. Nevertheless it is also true that shows like HTLGN continue to oppress women with the fact that beauty is only as good as the clothes you wear and the highlights in your hair. The Beauty Myth cannot be vanquished with shows like HTLGN; they only prolong the fight to liberate women from the yoke of commericalism, the need to wear mascara and lipstick.
Check out full episodes here
~Remember! Regardless of who you are or what you look like, flaunt it!!!
Greene: Media Analysis
Applying Feminist Thought to “Secret Life of a Soccer Mom”
Representations of women and men in the popular media often reflect society’s assumptions about gender roles; portrayals of “real” women and men in reality based television shows are no exception. Reality television, just one of many media outlets that “claim to present reality” (Nabi et al 304), can be defined as programming that “film[s] real people as they live out events (contrived or otherwise) in their lives, as these events occur” (304). While reality based programming endeavors to represent unscripted events and dialogue, individuals on these shows can typically be seen acting out their gender scripts, implicit regulations woven into our everyday lives that consciously and unconsciously guide men and women’s behavior. One reality show, however, has attempted to reverse the typical gender roles by offering stay at home mothers the opportunity to work outside the home.
On TLC’s “Secret Life of a Soccer Mom,” women who nominate themselves for the show are given one week to secretly participate in their dream careers while their families believe they are vacationing at a spa. When the week is up, the women reveal their “secret lives” to their families and choose whether or not to keep their jobs. On the first episode of the series, stay at home mom Adrian is given the chance to work as a high-end fashion designer for one week, eventually deciding that she will keep this career permanently. In my analysis of this episode, I will argue that although this show offers some women a unique opportunity to cast aside their expected roles of wife and mother, it is not a fully feminist text because it ignores the systemic barriers that working mothers must face and presents working outside and inside the home as mutually exclusive roles. Further, I will examine this episode using a second wave feminist framework to illustrate the ways in which current obstacles facing mothers intersect with past feminist struggles.
In the first episode of TLC’s “Secret Life of a Soccer Mom,” viewers are introduced to Adrian, a stay at home mother of three who studied fashion design in college. After nominating herself for the show, Adrian was chosen as the first contestant to secretly experience her dream career for one week. During the episode, Adrian tells her family that she will be relaxing at a spa for the week as a reward for all of her hard work at home. Her husband, a physician, must care for their children and the house. Both experience hardship; Adrian’s design skills are called into question by her coworkers and her husband’s lack of experience in the home is apparent. Although Adrian leaves a list of instructions, he questions their validity, saying he “can’t be bothered” to follow them. Meanwhile, his toddler daughter is seen drinking and spilling a bottle of coffee creamer, which she insists on cleaning up herself without any objection from her father. At work, Adrian’s fabric choices and design concepts are criticized, and when she completes a small collection of clothes to be anonymously evaluated alongside another designer’s, only one of her outfits is praised. The episode culminates in an emotional scene where Adrian tells her family about her new “secret life” and informs them that the design firm she worked for would like to hire her full time. After a short discussion with her family, Adrian decides that she will continue to work as a fashion designer outside of the home.
Although this episode reveals definite feminist themes and empowers one woman by offering her the opportunity to enter the “public sphere,” the overall nature of the show posits it as a less-than-feminist text. Women on the show view it as an opportunity to “fulfill a dream” (The Secret Life of a Soccer Mom: Adrian) and expand their identities to encompass more than being a mother, a role often expected of woman and encouraged through socialization from a young age. Adrian says she is satisfied being a mother and that being a stay at home mom is “a balancing act…like in the workforce” (The Secret Life of a Soccer Mom: Adrian), but she is also passionate about fashion design and values this facet of her personality as well. Clearly, the show is a positive experience for the women who choose to participate; whether they decide to return to work or stay at home full time, they are given the chance to examine themselves and their lives and as host Tracey Gold observes, “discover a newfound confidence” (Tracey Q&A) that they may not have had before. However, while the show offers some women the unique opportunity to redefine themselves as working mothers, it offers little commentary on the real tensions that women who work and have children must face.
In reality, motherhood is said to be “the single biggest risk factor for poverty in old age” (Crittenden 193); while class issues certainly influence this statistic, all mothers who work within the home are vulnerable since “government social policies don’t even define unpaid care of family dependents as work” (193). Although Adrian’s family is clearly in a privileged class position on the show, her status as a stay at home mom puts her at severe risk for poverty later in life. Rather than addressing this issue, though, the show glosses over it and sends her into the workforce with no commentary on the struggles that all stay at home mothers must face. While she will be earning an income by returning to work full time, thus potentially “equalizing the balance of power within [her] marriage” (Okin 611), Adrian’s situation is in stark opposition to that of other women who return to work after becoming mothers. Her abilities are questioned for only brief period of time; in reality, mothers who enter the workforce after a long hiatus are often met with resistance since the work they do at home is hardly considered valuable experience in the “public sphere.” Here, the show might have recognized this challenge and somehow integrated it into the first episode; however, little is said about the difficulties real mothers must face when returning to the workforce.
Similarly, the show offers virtually no commentary on the “second shift” job that many women must work when they return home from the job. Although viewers see Adrian’s husband taking care of the children and the home while she is secretly working, his reaction to the work is disheartening. After ignoring his wife’s instructions, he struggles with the tasks that all stay at home mother’s must endure on a daily basis. He cannot keep up with the children, is seen telling his youngest daughter to “stay” like a dog, and allows one child to eat a tube of diaper rash cream. The house is a mess, yet the show portrays his inability to work in the home as humorous, dubbing playful, lighthearted music over the scene.
By representing her husband in this manner, the show reinforces the stereotype that work at home is “women’s work” and perpetuates the idea that it is okay for men to avoid housework and childcare. Pat Mainardi describes this phenomenon in her article “The Politics of Housework;” highlighting the excuses many men use to trivialize work women have traditionally done in the home, Mainardi notes that men often say they do not “do it very well” (189) and that women must “show [them] how to do it” as a way to keep women from asking them to do their fair share. Rather than addressing her husband’s alleged inability to do housework, the show simply portrays him as a well meaning father trying his best. Although he offers to “help out more” when Adrian announces that she will be returning to work full time, this is rarely the reality for working mothers. In the essay “Vulnerability by Marriage,” Susan Okin points out that “many husbands who profess belief in sharing household tasks equally actually do far less than their wives” and that “in many cases, egalitarian attitudes make little or no difference in who actually does the work” (609). In an interview taped during the show, Adrian even notes that she is “in awe” of mothers who work full time and go home to take care of the children; even she does not question the assumption that she will continue to care for the home and the children while working. The show does not address these issues, however, and posits Adrian’s return to the workforce as nothing more than a positive, empowering experience.
While returning to work is undoubtedly “one of the ways that women show their rejection of their role in society” (James 192), TLC’s “Secret Life of a Soccer Mom” offers little relevant commentary on women’s positions as wives and mothers in today’s world. Extending the dialogue that Betty Friedan started during the second wave of feminist thought with The Feminine Mystique, texts on women and work must do more than represent working inside and outside the home as mutually exclusive roles; in reality, these positions are inextricably linked, and a fully feminist text must recognize both empowering and disempowering aspects of working in the “public sphere.” Women must be given the opportunity to move beyond their prescribed roles of wife and mother, but blindly sending women into the workforce without addressing the barriers all working mothers must face is not the answer. The second wave struggle to earn women the right to be working mothers continues, and only by recognizing the work that women do as mothers and employees, offering support for women who wish to work inside or outside the home, and eliminating the economic and social vulnerabilities that working mothers and wives face can we realize this goal. Although the first episode of TLC’s “Secret Life of a Soccer Mom” is not a fully feminist text, perhaps it is a start; at any rate, it illustrates that the issues second wave feminists faced are still applicable and facilitates an open dialogue that may move us closer to equality for all women.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)