What's the Big Deal? (make up for week of 03/09/09)

I've been thinking a lot about the article we read called Beauty and the Patriarchal Beast earlier in the semester. I found myself getting really annoyed at the article the more I read through it because, while it made a valid point, I feel like it really never considered the other side of it. It discussed the idea of mismatched couples on popular television sitcoms in which the husband is overweight, unattractive, and undesirable while the wife is attractive and intelligent. It makes the point that these women could clearly find better looking husbands but that, due to male dominance being a subliminal message in these shows, these women are essentially stuck with their ugly husbands. I agree with this article to a certain point. However, mismatched couples are not really a new idea. Take a look at Fred Flintstone and Wilma. Or how about, in the Disney movie Hunchback of Notre Dame, Quasimodo and Esmeralda? Even Fred and Ethel Mertz on I Love Lucy could be considered mismatched. The part that is sort of irritating is that maybe these shows are not promoting male dominance in that they can be ugly while still keeping hot wives, but that their wives accept them based on other things purely not physical. Or maybe their husbands' appearances are attractive to them for beauty is in the eye of the beholder, after all. The women on these shows never seem unhappy in their marriages aside from the typical bickering of the average married couple. Maybe the women are happy with their husbands, regardless. None of the shows mentioned in the article ever make a statement that these women were forced to marry thei ugly husbands; it was a choice. If they wanted someone better looking, they could've married someone better looking. I just don't see what the big deal is.

That's gay?

I was watching Family Guy last night and one of the brand new episodes was playing. In it, Peter gets an injection at the doctor's office that turns him gay, dubbed the "gay gene." After said injection, Peter starts baking muffins, wearing tight clothing, dancing out at dance clubs late at night and so forth. Eventually, he leaves his wife for another man. While I was watching this episode, I began to wonder. Why does baking muffins make Peter gay? Why does it make him gay to wear a lime green shirt? Or to dance out at a club late at night? Many of the traits Peter expresses in the episode after turning gay are traditionally feminine traits. This led to another question for me. Why are gay people represented this way? Why is it that in any typical movie that features a gay male or female are the traditional gender traits transposed? Lois suspects that Peter is gay when she sees him baking muffins, a typically feminine thing to do. This is not the first of television shows or movies that make gay men extremely feminine and gay women extremely butch. Does this reflect real life? Not totally. Take a look at Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi. Ellen is more of a masculine figure in the relationship with her short hair and her white pantsuit at their wedding. Portia, on the other hand, wore a beautiful white gown, she wears high heels often, has long bonde hair, and is a pretty feminine woman. Or my sister, for example. She is a lesbian but she is not overly manly at all. She has long hair, loves to wear pink, and just acts like herself or any other person. These are just a few of many real life examples in which gay couples' gender traits are not being transposed. So why then, if this is true, do television shows and movies make gay men seem really girly and gay women seem really manly?

"It feels good to be a woman..."

Recently, Wal Mart aired a new commercial about the makeup that they sell at their store at low prices. The commercial features close up shots of various women applying foundation, mascara, blush, etc. The song playing in the background is a soft melody about how it feels good to be a woman. I found this commercial very interesting because it really captures the idea of what makes a woman very feminine. Every woman in the commercial was applying her make up or fixing her hair or just doing general primping. Women, according to Wal Mart's commercial, are feminine through the use of makeup and through raising their physical appearance to a very high standard. Wal Mart prides itself on being able to supply a variety of tools to this end for women at low prices. This representation is extremely generalized and shows what the overall idea about women in today's world contains. It implies, subtly, that if a woman is not obsessed over primping or does not wear makeup that she is not feminine and she is missing out on how "it feels good to be a woman," as stated in the background song. Personally, I know several women who do not wear makeup or dresses or really even care much about physical appearance at all. Based on that, I think the commercial, while accurate to a degree, is far too generalized to reflect what is actually happening with women in today's society. Because, quite honestly, most of the women I know who do obsess over makeup and the like are not buying it at Wal Mart. I think the commercial is too new to be on YouTube yet. I tried.

3 Men and 3 Little Ladies

One of my all time favorite television shows from childhood is Full House. I have most of the seasons on DVD and I watch reruns of it every afternoon. Simply put, I am obsessed. Well, after reading the article about mismatched couples from class, it got me to thinking about sitcoms from the '90s and how they represented gender roles. I immediately thought about Full House. For anyone who isn't familiar with the show, it's about a widower and his brother in law and best friend living in a house together raising the widower's 3 daughters. Scattered among these main characters are supporting characters including the neighbor child, one guy's girlfriend, and various other family friends that come to visit the house. I find the portrayal of gender on this TV show to be quite interesting for a few reasons. First of all, this television show places 3 men in a role typically played by a woman. I feel that this sends a subtle message that it takes 3 men to do a job that a woman often does all by herself and that men are incapable of being single parents. I don't really have a problem with this, but I think it is funny that even though there are 3 men in the same house raising 3 girls, the oldest of the daughters often has to step in and help when "girl" issues arise with her younger sisters. The fact that these 3 men are raising 3 girls adds to comedic effect in the show as well. When two of the young guys attempts to change a diaper by using a half roll of paper towels, a pot, and a plastic bag, hilarity ensues. This points out that changing diapers and raising babies is not a male's job, especially when the middle daughter points out a bag of diapers nearby and they realize how ridiculous they were. Later on in the show, however, permanent female characters are introduced such as Danny's love interest, Vicki, and Jesse's wife, Rebecca. These female characters are permanently introduced to the show late in the series, possibly as a way to keep the show believable. One may argue that these 2 female characters were brought onto the show because it just isn't practical to think that 3 men could raise 3 little girls entirely on their own. I find this interesting to think about in relation to popular sitcoms in the new millenium in that this storyline, while funny in the '90s, is no longer original or comical in this day and age and gender messages are instead represented through couples on the show rather than the lack thereof as they were only a decade ago.

Let's keep this stereotype.

The other day, I was watching a commercial for Boost Mobile. In the commercial, a couple is on a bike and the guy is riding behind the girl and what looks like her head hair at first is blowing in the guy's face behind her. Upon closer consideration, I realized that this woman had ridiculously long armpit hair! I'm talking armpit that reached her waist probably. It was completely ridiculous and gross and it was blowing in this guy's face! She mentioned how her armpit hair wasn't good and how hidden fees and cell phone contracts aren't good either and that's why she uses Boost Mobile. First of all, this commercial is completely gross. That kind of armpit hair on a man or a woman is out of hand. Especially on a woman who keeps clean shaven armpits typically. I think this commercial is going overboard a little on making their point about prepaid cell phones. Obviously, there is a stereotype that women don't have armpit hair and, equally, that a woman who does have armpit hair is some degree of disgusting. The Boost Mobile commercial exaggerates this stereotype by not only placing grotesquely long armpit hair on this woman but by placing her in front of a man on a bicycle and having that armpit hair blow in his face. The image is a little disturbing which, I think, was done on purpose as a way to get people to remember the Boost Mobile commercial. However, I don't think that women should stop shaving their armpits by any means. I think the ideal that women should have clean shaven armpits and legs is a good one and not a stereotype that should be changed. Perhaps maybe guys should shave their armpits too.

"Dad's a chick!"

As the creator of the ever popular show Family Guy, Seth McFarlane has a knack for exaggerating situations to poke fun at the standards in today's society. One particular episode entitled "I am Peter, Hear Me Roar," places emphasis on the typical ideas that people have about women. In this episode, Peter is forced to attend a women's retreat after making a joke about women to a female coworker who decides to press sexual harassment charges on him. After attending the retreat, Peter returns home with all the characteristics that are found to be typical in women, according to traditional ideas. From his exclamation that "Oh fudge! I broke a nail!" to arguing that The View be on for 3 hours per day, Peter is a walking stereotype. This episode is interesting in that Seth McFarlane highlights the stereotypes about women through Peter's extreme exaggeration of such characteristics. This is meant to be a comical presentation of these stereotypes in that they really do not exist in that form anymore. While it is typical for a woman to admire her newborn baby or to fight for equality between the genders, McFarlane takes it a step further when Peter attempts to actually breast feed his baby. Nowadays, women are not as emphatic about broken nails or daytime television nor do they walk around spouting about equality, at least typically. I feel that this episode makes an attempt to highlight these characters in a man for the purpose of emphasizing the difference between the genders. I do not feel that McFarlane is attempting to highlight the importance of equality in this episode, but that he is rather trying to emphasize the difference in typical gender characteristics. By going overboard with Peter' feminine traits when he returns home from the retreat, McFarlane makes it seem ridiciulous that a man or even a woman should be so emotional and oversensitive. The other female characters in the show are not as extremely feminine, especially Lois who is a housewife yet holds none of the bizarre feminine characteristics that Peter does after the retreat. McFarlane does make a statement about masculinity, however, when the episode ends with Lois getting into a fight with another woman and Peter is aroused at the sight and brings Lois home to bed. This makes a bold statement about men as being perverted and simple while simultaneously making women seem more sophisticated than what the stereoptypical ideas about women might suggest.

Super Bowl Commercial vs. O'Reilly

The O'Reilly Factor was on last night and when I tuned in, the topic of debate was a Super Bowl commercial and whether or not it was appropriate due to the gender messages contained therein. The commercial was one that showed a company office with a boss and subordinates. A scene shows the boss throwing a snow globe into one of the employees' crotches. This commercial was supposed to be hilarious and sends a classic message about hitting a man in the crotch, his weakest point. According to O'Reilly, this commercial was not at all appropriate. He said that it would not be appropriate if the boss were to throw a snow globe into a woman's crotch, so it shouldn't be okay for them to show him throwing one at a man. Another debater on the show last night came in to say that it is just fine to show the boss assaulting a male worker rather than a female because females are the weaker sex. O'Reilly came in then to say that if women are, in fact, the weaker sex, then they should not be cabinet members or run for office. They should just stay home and bake cookies all day. This particular episode of the O'Reilly Factor got me really fired up last night because O'Reilly is awesome! He completely said everything that I wanted to say regarding the commercial and fully demonstrates that in today's world, men and women are equal. It is not appropriate in any situation to assault a person in the manner shown in the commercial whether that person is a man or a woman. I think this particular converstaion on the O'Reilly Factor, a show about politics, makes an even larger impact in that O'Reilly wasn't simply discussing politics. He was discussing daily media and its impact on politics, in this case, regarding gender. He makes a bold statement about the equality of men and women in politics and society in general which I think is a big win in today's world.

Double Standard, aahh!

So, I was watching old episodes of Steve Wilkos online the other day and one of the episodes was entitled, "You ruined my life." The topic of the show was a couple, the woman was 13 years older than the man. They started dating when the boy was 15 years old and the woman was 28. Apparently they fell in love and got married and had kids, the whole nine. Well, he went on the Steve Wilkos show to whine and complain about how she ruined his life and stole his innocence and how he was never in love with her, rather he was brainwashed into believing it was a healthy relationship. Fast forward to this morning and I'm watching an episode of Divorce Court where the couple has a similar age difference like the one on Steve Wilkos, only the man is the signicantly older one. His wife, or soon to be ex I assume, has no problem with this. Not once on this episode did she ever mention that he was older than she was and therefore had control over her. I found this parallel between the two shows to be quite interesting in several ways. First, the obvious age difference. Traditionally, it is seen as taboo for an older man to date a younger woman, especially a woman 10 years or more his junior. These men, if caught, are forced to become registered sex offenders and go to jail and such. However, when a woman dates a younger guy, it seems to be a little odd yet accepted more readily. The woman on Steve Wilkos did not face any jail time nor was she a registered sex offender. The only complaint came from the guy she married. This leads me to one conclusion: women feel as though they have more control in relationships than men. Now, I realize that this isn't always the case. I know there are several cases where women are in abusive relationships with men who beat them and control their lives. However, if neither part of the relationship is psycho and wants to beat up the person they love, then I think that women generally do feel like they have the upper hand. The case on Steve Wilkos blatantly displays this idea when the man declares that she brain washed him and controlled his mind to the point where he believed it was a genuine relationship. Then, with the case on Divorce Court, the woman had absolutely no problem with her husband being much older than she was. She never accused him of brain washing her or trying to force her into believing something that may not have been true. This goes to show that this woman felt like, regardless of age, the amount of control she had over the relationship remained the same. These two cases struck me for these two basic reasons: the difference between an older man dating a younger woman and an older woman dating a younger man and then the difference in attitude toward the relationship of either party. I feel like this is a huge double standard. I feel like men and women should be treated the exact same way if they commit the exact same "crime." I don't think it is more acceptable for an older woman to date a younger man or vice versa. It is the same thing to me. In the same respect, I think women and men should have equal control in their relationships regardless of age. A lot of times, men are accused of being "whipped" by their girlfriends or wives and I just don't think that's fair. Then again, double standards in general drive me crazy so what can ya do? There will likely be more on the topic in future posts.

Steve Wilkos is the MAN!

For my first post about gender on this blog, I would like to attack the beast that is Steve Wilkos. Anyone who is at all familiar with The Steve Wilkos Show will understand exactly why I have chosen his show about which to write. Steve Wilkos is, in my opinion, a manly man. He is a great provider, loves his wife and kids, and will verbally beat down any man who does not do just the same. Steve is a former police officer and marine and, even just based on that, he is real man. Steve Wilkos has very high morals and holds everyone on his show to those same morals. The way Steve treats women, specifically, draws me to his show. Countless women come on Steve's show and talk about their boyfriends or husbands or baby's daddies and say how they beat them while they were pregnant or choked them or, in one case, ripped their tongue out! Steve's reaction to these men? "IS THIS HOW YOU TREAT THE WOMAN YOU LOVE?!?!?!" Oh yeah. Total screaming manly awesomeness. Steve Wilkos has no hesitation about voicing how he feels about dirt bag men that abuse women and, to me, Steve's ideas about men and women are the ones everyone should have. In one show, Steve even says that his wife could throw boiling water in his face and he'd simply walk away; he'd never hurt her back. I think The Steve Wilkos Show is the perfect place where strong manly men (or man, in this case) intersect with weak willed women. 90% of the female guests that Steve has on his show are in abusive relationships that they are too weak to leave. For me, that is the opposite of how a woman should live her life. I feel that women need to be strong, independent people that are capable of living their own successful lives without the help of any man. However, should they choose to spend their life with a man, he should be one like Steve who is caring, nurturing, masculine, and will provide well. I don't think that the clash between strong men and weak women is in any way a premise of this talk show, but I do feel that, despite that, it is a prime example of various ideas about men and women and their self respect, or lack thereof, in today's world. Ironically, I find myself siding with Steve than with the women on his show because, really, those women are just weak and annoying.