FEMINISM

There are many different kinds of feminism and many different waves. They don’t necessarily agree. But there are some commonalities to start with. First, it is generally assumed that there is a patriarchal structure to society that oppresses women. Second, it is generally assumed that a degree of sexism or misogyny exists throughout society and especially in popular culture. Third, sex and gender are different things, and recognizing this helps to pull apart some of the mystification of sexism that comes from biological arguments. These ideas will be discussed in turn.

Patriarchy

Patriarchy means "rule by the father," but it has been expanded beyond the context of the family where the term originated. The argument is that the entire society is patriarchal, that it is run by and for males. Note that there are two parts to patriarchy's workings, either of which can be seen as enough to continue the system. Even if the men in charge are all good, there is still a problem of who has access to positions of power. And then, if women are in charge of a society that remains ideologically patriarchal, if they support and validate patriarchal ideology (as has been argued of Britain's conservative former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher), there is still a patriarchy. Andrea Dworkin (1983) is amazed at how many women hate feminism. They are not just not feminists, but in 1983 there were women actively working against the Equal Rights Amendment, increasing punishments for domestic violence perpetrators, etc. It is a good example of hegemony at work.

So many things testify to the ways American society is patriarchal. Women are expected to change their names when they marry, not the men. Many prayerbooks still marry couples with the phrase "man and wife." Indeed, marriage itself is considered an institution which is thoroughly patriarchal. The idea is that marriage begins as a way for a male to be certain the children his wife bore were his. Marriage supposedly ensured that when she finally gave him a son (because you couldn't pass property to women), the man could be sure that it was his own flesh and blood. The idea of the dowry, where daughters are basically sold to the men who marry them, still exists in the tradition that the parents of the bride pay for the wedding.

The implications for popular culture in a patriarchal society are complex. We'd expect that more men than women hold and maintain positions of power in media. This is generally true. Name a female music producer. The only woman ever to win the Best Director Oscar did so for The Hurt Locker, a film with barely a woman in it. Only a handful of women have ever had television production deals, although this is steadily increasing in the last 5 years. So a patriarchal media is made by men, but it is also for men.

Etherington (2009) notes the seeming surprise everyone had that there was a female audience who would buy tickets if you made movies for them. The media always underestimates the appeal of a film like Mamma Mia! or Twilight.

But there are more complex ways that films are made for men.

Mulvey (1989) argues that movies are made for male gaze. The entire viewpoint of the camera is typically structured as male. This is most true in older movies, but it is still true today. The basic idea is that when you watch a movie and the male hero looks at something, the shot immediately changes and we see what he is looking at. The camera becomes that male character. Almost never do we take on the gaze of a female character. Even in something like Silence of the Lambs, with a strong female protagonist, in the final scene we see through her stalker's eyes.

Here is a good example. This is from 1946's The Postman Always Rings Twice. See how the viewer becomes the camera consuming the woman?

Men do the looking and women are only to be looked at. In plot and in ideology, this means that only men are intelligent and active agents. Women are passive and there only for the uses of the men. This is especially true when the camera/hero is looking at a woman. We often share the gaze of the camera as it ogles a women's body, pausing at their breasts or buttocks, perhaps, often staring at the floor and traveling up her legs. This is traditionally never done for a man. Even when we see Kevin Costner's butt, it is a quick shot through a waterfall, not a lingering consumption of his body. So when Marion sees him in Robin Hood, we share her glance for a second, but it is quick and surprised and she is embarrassed. She knows it is not her place to do the looking.

There are exceptions, but they prove the rule. In what other movies besides Thelma and Louise and Sex and the City do we follow a woman's lingering gaze at a sexy man? Such films increase as times go on, but slowly. Generally females who gaze themselves or who look back at the men doing the gazing are sluts and/or evil. They are femme fatales. A return look is often enough in most films to suggest that she wants sex (that she's asking for it). Good girls always lower their eyes or look demurely away, averting their eyes to allow themselves to be appropriately consumed as objects of desire. In Playboy the women look back at the reader, but they are supposed to be bad girls anyway and they are never anything but images for consumption in the first place.

This argument is not that a look of sexual desire is necessarily bad. The problem is that desire has been coded exclusively male, as has agency. Women viewers of film must learn either to desire the images of women (view as lesbians) or they must learn to identify with and take pleasure in being looked at (become an object). This is one reason why the cover photo of Cosmo is often indistinguishable from the cover of Playboy.

Symbolic Annihilation

In much feminist thought, sexism, or the belief that women are inferior, usually ends up in misogyny, or the hatred of women. If women are supposed to be objects that should be possessed, they will eventually frustrate that desire by asserting a pesky bit of their own power and agency.

Thus, Tuchman (1978) first defines sexism in the media as symbolic annihilation. Women are erased. She gives three mechanisms for this.

First, omission. Women are simply left out of the picture, even in places where they should be. Hartman (2001), noting that histories are usually written by men who leave out women's roles and voices, still notes evidence for the presence of women as merchants or guild members in the Middle Ages. Yet we don't generally see that in movies or television shows about the Middle Ages. There is some evidence that there were women in strong positions of leadership in the early Christian church, and perhaps even female apostles, although they have been renamed or erased over the years (see Epp, 2005; King, 1998; Pederson, 2008). They certainly don't show up in New Testament based films.

Second, trivialization. Women are assigned to stereotypical roles or given stereotypical concerns. They are often emotional and/or victims. There does seem to be less and less of this in media overall, with more female protagonists and women who might use science or violence to solve traditionally masculine problems (see Magoulick, 2006), but there is argument that these women often become almost like wannabe male puppet figures who are still judged as ultimately inadequate to the task (like Linda Hamilton's character in Terminator 2).

Third, condemnation. Working women were routinely condemned in popular culture for decades. Faludi (1991) points to how Fatal Attraction worked hard to demonize the single woman who works. She quotes the director, Adrian Lyne, and the star, Michael Douglas, about how much they hate feminism and working women. They see them as sad and pathetic and whiny and violent. In the original script for the film, the male character suffers and is blamed by the end for his affair. In the revision that we see in the finished film, the woman he has sex with becomes the evil monster who must die. She is condemned more for the same act.

Making the connection with Mulvey's ideas and with Tuchman's own notion that there is a connection between trivialization and victimization, we might add another, visual element to symbolic annihilation. So fourth, violation. Women are violates by showing them as a) inanimate objects, b) beings with only a sexual function, c) in pieces, and d) objects of violence.

The following examples from advertising will illustrate.

a)    inanimate objects:

sexy-beer-ad-9 sexy-beer-ad-25 http://emmalouisefischer.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/bmw_advertisment_1.jpg heineken_girl

(http://www.realbeer.com/blog/images/20060314-stpauli.jpg) (http://www.designyourway.net/diverse/guinness/guiness-print-advertising-legs1.jpg) (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_YACzZay4RD0/SSXUHlui4KI/AAAAAAAAA88/7OofVf_JQRI/s320/heineken_girl.jpg) (http://emmalouisefischer.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/bmw_advertisment_1.jpg)

sexist-subaru-ad-from-1970-20307-1243612844-0 http://knolaust.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/fmjauv0jinh9hyrsz1fusblso1_1280.jpg womancouch

(http://www.ukgraphicsdesigners.com/wp-content/uploads/subaru-coupe-advert.jpg) (http://knolaust.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/fmjauv0jinh9hyrsz1fusblso1_1280.jpg) (http://blog.magazines.com/images/2010/12/ad_thomasville_soyou.jpg)

You can see the difference between how naturally a woman is shown as an object and how laughable it is for a man:

00012315 http://adsoftheworld.com/sites/default/files/styles/media/public/ad%203_0.jpg

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7cT-N57JZYY/R1KBAZ4Yx0I/AAAAAAAAGkk/6gw4JHOwPGA/s1600-R/hayden-dooney.jpg) (http://adsoftheworld.com/sites/default/files/styles/media/public/ad%203_0.jpg)

calzino_def

(http://www.ibelieveinadv.com/commons/calzino_def.jpg)

b)    beings with only a sexual function:

4138708780_4d00672d01 axe_anywhere bk-super-seven-incher

(http://cache.thisorth.at/00000/01034/050.460x325.jpg) (http://adoholik.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/axe_anywhere.jpg) (http://www.kerrydean.com/pictures/burger-king-bk-super-seven-incher-advertisement-picture.jpg)

axe-fx axetc2 madisonavenue_01-thumb-170x240-9193

(http://www.stefanstroe.ro/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/axe_bathtub.JPG) (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_LlHpHWKSXlc/SuILCv-9F1I/AAAAAAAAAok/KLV3ixen9J8/s320/effetto+axe+great+ads.jpg) (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_iqdGBrxKTMI/S9D8ZfMc2WI/AAAAAAAAAFs/i0q4YXJQtXA/s320/madisonave.jpg)

guinessad blush_sex_ad_13 chemensmag

(http://img.youtube.com/vi/0vUXwvy6BE0/hqdefault.jpg) (http://www.iheartberlin.de/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/blush-1.jpg) (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_g476rU5vrAk/SN1LjeHWBRI/AAAAAAAACjU/jf5f5iyAzKo/s400/che_magazine_01.jpg)

mynumber johnniewalker

(http://www.ibelieveinadv.com/commons/che_couponskirt_297x210_uk.jpg) (http://thumbs3.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/m-ecx0N6cljUEojYW-n9jrg.jpg)

See how awkward it is for the same thing to be done to a man:

Piers-Morgan-Burger-King--006 http://thumbs3.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/ml-akMl5aDAPSDbdMPGRQDQ.jpg

(http://www.spot.ph/files/2009/06/bk_flame.jpg) (http://thumbs3.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/ml-akMl5aDAPSDbdMPGRQDQ.jpg)

This sort of thing does happen in ad campaigns like for Calvin Klein, but it is far less common.

Here are some examples from comic books, where strong female heroes are constantly reduced to object-status:

457982006_1d7b8287b9_oquesada_ass

79010980_ee5f20aad1

In this case, a woman is objectified even as she is brutally killed:

infinitecrisis1_21lo

Although young boys may feel like they’ve failed the muscular ideal of comics, those male bodies are never displayed as primarily sexual:

UNCANNYXMEN_495 juggernaut12

c)    in pieces:

6a00d83451ccbc69e201156fc35f15970c-400wi cabana_2 1983_pantyhose_ad

(http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/0/6/7/5/1/2/webimg/547189340_o.jpg) (http://www.delivereddrinks.com/images/D/cabana_2-1.jpg) (personal collection)

karik-1 mercedes-benz-8-breasts-airbags-sexist-advertisement mickeys

marcjacobs_poshspice

(http://blog.lib.umn.edu/raim0007/gwss1001/karik-1.jpg) (http://www.adverbox.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/mercedes-class-s-8-airbags.jpg) (http://cdn.smosh.com/sites/default/files/bloguploads/noticed-big-mouth.jpg) (http://dlisted.com/files/marcjacobs_poshspice.jpg)

Of course, when men are in pieces, they are still active and the viewer can identify with them.

Cosmopolitan-November-1953-1 diesel_ad_banned jovan2

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3344/3204932153_91661f6eff_o.jpg) (personal collection) (http://www.aef.com/images/book_covers/jovan2.jpg)

d)   objects of violence

444 img10111207261

jimmy_choo3 loulaad1 postagedm2711_468x705

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2TE79xyLPMY/UFMxr0R-FPI/AAAAAAAAA60/v5DTyll1q_w/s1600/CHOO.jpg) (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/images/article-images/tankard-reist_200803_loula.jpg) (http://bedazzled.blogs.com/bedazzled/images/2008/01/09/postagedm2711_468x705.jpg)

vintagesexism5 violent-ad1

(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1049993.1332625390!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/gallery_635/leggs-ad.jpg) (http://cdn.trendhunterstatic.com/thumbs/duncan-quinn-suit-ad-depicting-strangled-woman.jpeg)

Think also of the many fetishized moments in horror films where women die in slow and almost sexualized ways. Men die too in those films, but often as an afterthought.

In Friday the 13th, Part II, Jason kills a couple while having sex. Clearly the object is Sandra. Jeff just happens to be in the way:

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120312101709/fridaythe13th/images/e/ea/Death_Sandra.jpg http://images4.fanpop.com/image/quiz/639000/639581_1309989864160_400_259.jpg

(http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120312101709/fridaythe13th/images/e/ea/Death_Sandra.jpg) (http://images4.fanpop.com/image/quiz/639000/639581_1309989864160_400_259.jpg)

Here’s a sample of violations a) through d) in a set of horror film deaths:

Group logo of Female Death Sceneshttp://3.bp.blogspot.com/_9udfncYtHlw/TTNuJ-zpBSI/AAAAAAAAGdQ/6ax5KDOCyoc/s1600/4.pnghttp://4.bp.blogspot.com/_v0fV15P7uQo/SXN_TxsHmzI/AAAAAAAAEkM/1GyTUkJ-7bE/s400/Basket_Case_surgeon.bmphttp://content6.flixster.com/question/65/74/53/6574536_std.jpghttp://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wiCF8F9ZLmo/ScURJz3CWyI/AAAAAAAAB6U/3AHMx6ccdQ8/s320/PDVD_215.jpg

http://content8.flixster.com/question/65/74/53/6574538_std.jpgEscargot...to hell!http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSHK1I6sqybDwxmkuJ_LU4hE1FzU9bcAzNXULtudhnbEtnvdMcE9CVhZb0eMghttp://1.bp.blogspot.com/_LG9Xf_vgmdo/TMNFiNgbRwI/AAAAAAAAB8E/k-01-XzKs8k/s1600/suspiria-death-1024x435.png

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hbd2_Pn8nzU/T0cO3c0sXKI/AAAAAAAABcM/BbVXCV_vbEU/s1600/Sara+Death.jpghttp://mos.totalfilm.com/images/t/the-10-coolest-death-scenes-of-the-90s-10-420-75.jpghttp://i2.ytimg.com/vi/aBAK8mLEhgQ/mqdefault.jpghttp://alphaomega9997.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/bloodymoon6.jpg

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00241/F_200610_October25B_241793a.jpghttp://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pGvYNuuLpIM/TKyCBKu6xXI/AAAAAAAAAEU/hdRQC76eXoQ/s1600/death2.pg.jpghttp://www.rhizomes.net/issue7/images/zom2-1.jpg

Although most of those examples are from advertising, you can see the echoes in larger culture. Most of those ads were supposed to be funny. If our society wasn’t sexist, would they be?

When a woman's body is consumed in pieces by a traveling camera, she is not only a passive object, but she is really just a collection of objects. She is a conglomeration of sexy parts. There is not only sexism inherent in this, but there is implicit violence as well. Magazine advertisements do this more than anywhere else. We see lips, legs, torsos . . . name a part. Sometimes we see just hands or faces or feet (the places of action and personality for active men in the world), but the most common image when only parts of a woman's body is shown are of erogenous zones. That the fiction and reality of serial killers reveals that certain men find the idea of a severed women's breast attractive shows the potential connection between this kind of fragmented desire and violence.

Violence is often symbolically remote, but it is there in many forms. That there are so many words like "bitch" in out vocabulary testifies to the level at which even our language is misogynistic. On TV shows which curse, "bastard" often seems to be suggested as the opposing masculine swear. But bastard is merely about the questionability of your lineage, the extent to which you as a man are an unworthy member of the property lineage of the patriarchy because of the sexual misdeeds of your mother. A bitch refers to animalistic sexuality. Males are hated for their idiosyncratic inabilities. Women are hated because they are women. This is what we see in horror films, as well. Men are usually only killed because they got in the way. The women characters (except for one) might as well have the words "Stab Me" on their foreheads. But they need no such tattoos in horror films. In such films breasts serve the same function.

Misogyny is socially enacted in what Susan Faludi (1991) has called backlash. This social war against women and feminists is easily spotted in the 1980s. Faludi looks at movies, television, the media, politics, etc. and points to the ways that hatred of women is not only common but is often celebrated. The idea with misogyny and backlash is that sexist ideology is not just this thing that slightly oppresses you. It is active and acidic. This, as with all oppressive ideologies, our participations in them are never innocent and never without effect. Modleski (1991) further argues that all talk that feminism is over or no longer needed, which she sees proliferating through culture 20 years ago, is a key hegemonic move of that backlash.

Hegemonic Masculinity

A further element of the ideological backlash against feminism is the proliferation of portrayals of hegemonic masculinity (Hanke, 1988). Hegemony, remember, is ideological struggle in which the powerful ideologies make concessions to weaker ones to convince people that it is just common sense or that things are getting better. Hegemonic masculinity is the portrayal of "softer," more feminine men as in thirtysomething and Mad About You. It is also the critique of sexist blowhards in shows like Home Improvement, Everybody Loves Raymond and Coach. On the surface these male characters seem positive. They look like critiques of traditional sexism. But when you look at the narratives in which these men are placed, these men most often still assert control. The idea is that it is no so bad that we live in a patriarchy--see how kind and generous men can be. No need to challenge the system. It can protect the womenfolk. Sometimes this goes so far as to replace women, and especially mothers, altogether. Although we might like Junior and Three Men and a Baby for their valuation of fatherhood, those movies really seem to tell us that men are enough. We don't need women, even for the making of babies. Hegemonic masculinity is the perfect example of Cloud's idea of ambivalence.

The general history is that in the first half of the 20th century, men were portrayed as a particular kind of superior man, with no emotions, tough, and able to use weapons and honor to solve problems. Like John Wayne and Gary Cooper:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_bpdWsOrotV0/Sw1W1ffbnjI/AAAAAAAABQs/_EK64FiGKn4/s1600/john+wayne+rio+bravo+2.jpg http://the100.ru/images/actors/id316/828-039_60362.jpg

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_bpdWsOrotV0/Sw1W1ffbnjI/AAAAAAAABQs/_EK64FiGKn4/s1600/john+wayne+rio+bravo+2.jpg) (http://the100.ru/images/actors/id316/828-039_60362.jpg)

But by the 1970s, the “new man,” a more sensitive soul who felt and expressed emotions, cried, and could be mocked showed up. The hero of Invasion of the Body Snatchers in 1956 was a one of these tough guys, but a doctor who could do some science:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReviews25/a%20invasion%20of%20the%20body%20snatchers/de%20ws%20invasion%20of%20the%20body%20snatchers%202043.jpg

(http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReviews25/a%20invasion%20of%20the%20body%20snatchers/de%20ws%20invasion%20of%20the%20body%20snatchers%202043.jpg)

He’s got the less manly, sweater-wearing suburban man and the women there helping him, but he’s in charge. The 1976 version of the film, though, has a more sensitive and less effective presence, as disordered as his hair:

http://flickminute.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Invasion-Body-Snatchers_-1978-Horror-Classic.png

(http://flickminute.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Invasion-Body-Snatchers_-1978-Horror-Classic.png)

The 70s showed us lots of examples of the crying new man’s superiority to the “old” stereotype. Richard Dreyfuss survives Jaws, while Robert Shaw does not:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mb26y5VJLz1qcye95o1_400.jpg http://www.horrorphile.net/images/jaws-robert-shaw1.jpg

(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mb26y5VJLz1qcye95o1_400.jpg) (http://www.horrorphile.net/images/jaws-robert-shaw1.jpg)

In Love Story, the emotional son is clearly superior to his dad, the unfeeling patriarch:

http://d1oi7t5trwfj5d.cloudfront.net/1b/50a2b0558b11e19869123138165f92/file/oliverstory4.jpg

(http://d1oi7t5trwfj5d.cloudfront.net/1b/50a2b0558b11e19869123138165f92/file/oliverstory4.jpg)

But this new man’s hegemonic function comes when his sensitivity is used as a critical counterpoint to feminism, especially in 1979’s Kramer vs. Kramer, when we are supposed to side with the father against the mother and her desire for a career.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/dvdreviews47/kramer_vs_kramer_blu-ray/large/large_kramer_vs_kramer_blu-ray12.jpg http://images4.static-bluray.com/reviews/1026_3.jpg

(http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/dvdreviews47/kramer_vs_kramer_blu-ray/large/large_kramer_vs_kramer_blu-ray12.jpg) (http://images4.static-bluray.com/reviews/1026_3.jpg)

In the 1980s, when Faludi’s anti-feminist backlash begins, a man who cries at the end of First Blood (1982) becomes a musclebound yelling and killing machine in the sequels:

http://obscureinternet.com/wp-content/uploads/rambo-first-blood.jpg http://billsmovieemporium.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/vlcsnap-2010-08-19-14h47m50s48.jpg

(http://obscureinternet.com/wp-content/uploads/rambo-first-blood.jpg) (http://billsmovieemporium.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/vlcsnap-2010-08-19-14h47m50s48.jpg)

The heroes in the 80s get armored with actual armor, with muscles, and with sarcasm, rejecting the sensitive man and the feminist woman:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02282/robocop_2282286b.jpg http://collider.com/wp-content/uploads/conan-the-destroyer-movie-image-arnold-schwarzenegger-2.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-R0m7kz063B0/UPreR8zgxtI/AAAAAAAAGBg/L_xy0yJUFLk/s1600/hard1.jpg

(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02282/robocop_2282286b.jpg) (http://collider.com/wp-content/uploads/conan-the-destroyer-movie-image-arnold-schwarzenegger-2.jpg) (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-R0m7kz063B0/UPreR8zgxtI/AAAAAAAAGBg/L_xy0yJUFLk/s1600/hard1.jpg)

But, as the culture shifted, this rejection and reassertion of Reagan-era masculine power became ridiculous. Instead of the sensitive man, though, the big doofus came along as the mock-macho sitcom came to the fore. Why bother trying to destroy the patriarchy if this loser is in charge, right? Coach, Home Improvement, King of Queens and Everybody Loves Raymond built a formula that still exists in many shows. The wife character is always right, but we hate her for it:<

 

This mock-macho guy seems to have evolved into the man-child who must find a way to impress his preteen son as well as the women in his life. Again, not much of a threat. Think of Liar, Liar (1997), Big Daddy (1999), Night at the Museum (2006), and Dan in Real Life (2007):

http://media.screened.com/uploads/0/5749/419275-liar_liar_1997_570x364_354661.jpg https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQZAgZFkmmiCSoMjaC2wYJDmMs0z0lX2KvsM08-JkmYlvUcWKVF0Q http://pbskids.org/itsmylife/blog/image-2.jpg http://mythrandir.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/dan-in-real-life.jpg

(http://media.screened.com/uploads/0/5749/419275-liar_liar_1997_570x364_354661.jpg) (www.fanpix.net) (http://pbskids.org/itsmylife/blog/image-2.jpg) (http://mythrandir.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/dan-in-real-life.jpg)

So the question is always the one about whether or not things are really getting better or not.

Gender

Sex is biological: it is the parts (or chromosomes) you are born with. Gender is the social and cultural attributions given to biological sex. Generally these are sedimented into particular kinds of ideas about what it means to be a woman or a man. These ideas can be internalized behavior patterns we use to define who we are as a male or female. For example, a male might consider being handy with tools an aspect of his masculinity. Femininity, likewise, has certain socially mediated attributes. These things basically are stereotype. A stereotype is, at base, a generalized judgment from insufficient information. The assumption that all men or women are one thing or another is a stereotype. Stereotypes become particularly problematic when they are used to devalue people. So in our culture femininity is devalued and masculinity is praised. Masculine characteristics become inflated and stereotypically feminine characteristics, like emotionality, become devalued.

Because gender roles are social and not biological, there are feminine males and masculine females. Both of these things are generally punished by society for violating relevant gender roles, but it has been argued that both "violations" are often more highly valued than a feminine female. If a woman's masculinity is perceived as part of her threat to male power, then it is punished, but if she's "just one of the guys,' then it is often rewarded by the men in power. It all depends on what ultimate effect such changes in gender roles have on the power structure.

It is important for feminist analyses of popular culture to be aware that gender is a kind of performance, because a key element of patriarchal mystification is the notion that gender differences are innate or biological. If there are intelligence differences or if girls are just born liking pink and Barbies and cooking and cleaning, then perhaps it is not so bad that women are encouraged to like only these things. But if we admit that we try to masculinize male babies (“Look at your strong little arms!” or the way Zach Galifianakis does in The Hangover) and feminize cute, precious and sweet little girls, if we admit we give kids trucks and dolls but don't realize the way we differentially reward them for making the “right” choice, if we admit that girls are more often giving housework responsibilities and boys are more often given computers, and if we admit that many grandmothers still call women at college not to ask about studies but if their granddaughter had met any promising boys, we might ask whether these things can and should be changed. As computers pervade society, more students in this class tell me that computers are no longer segregated into the son's room. This has a profound effect on how we see computers and how they are used.

Conclusion

When we put it all together, most people imagine that things are better than they were. Perhaps. But how many of the improvements are hegemonically self-limiting? And how could we tell?

By Steve Vrooman, March, 2013

References

Dworkin, A. (1983). Right wing women. NY: Perigee.

Epp, E. (2005). Junia: The first woman apostle. Fortress.

Etherington, J. (2009). What do women want? More movies like Mamma Mia!Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/4307230/What-do-women-want-More-movies-like-Mamma-Mia.html

Faludi, S. (1998). Backlash: The undecalred war against American women. NY: Crown.

Hanke, R. (1998). The `mock-macho' situation comedy: Hegemonic masculinity and its reiteration. Western Journal of Communication, 62, 73-93. http://bulldogs.tlu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=346735&loginpage=Login.asp&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Hartman, R. (2001). Nun, widow, wife, and more!: Career options for medieval women. http://www.strangehorizons.com/2001/20010528/medieval_women.shtml

King, K. (1998). Women in ancient Christianity: The new discoveries. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/women.html

Magoulick, M. (2006). Frustrating female heroism: Mixed messages in Xena, Nikita, and Buffy. Journal of Popular Culture, 39, 729-755. http://bulldogs.tlu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=22145976&loginpage=Login.asp&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Modleski, T. (1991). Feminism without women. New York: Routledge.

Mulvey, L. (1989). Visual and other pleasures. Indiana UP.

Pederson, R. (2008). Paul praises a female apostle. http://www.cbeinternational.org/files/u1/resources/14-pederson-pdf.pdf

Tuchman, G. (1978). Hearth and Home: Images of women in the mass media. Oxford UP. http://books.google.com/books?id=S-YEWwAPTtcC&lpg=PA150&ots=crmANgJvU6&dq=tuchman%20symbolic%20annihilation&lr&pg=PA150#v=onepage&q=tuchman%20symbolic%20annihilation&f=false