Eugenides' Middlesex provides both the traditional representations of gender roles with Desdemona and Sourmelina in the kitchen as well as the blurred lines of gender and sexuality through Cal's dating. The portion of this novel when Cal goes out on a date with Julie is one of the earliest current scenes rather than the retrospective examination of the family's inbreeding. This brief scene which spans only across pages 183 and 184 provides an interesting instance where Cal's gender and sexual ambiguity is acknowledged. One way that Eugenides brings Cal's ambiguity to the forefront is through Julie's 'gay-dar' going off. This idea of being able to pick out homosexual people rests on the traditional views and interpretations of gender roles in our society. Many people, myself included, are guilty of assuming a person's sexuality merely by one stereotypical characteristic of homosexuality a particular person might express. This is most commonly the attribution of a feminine quality in a male to mean that he is automatically a homosexual. However, the mere interpretation of a quality as feminine is just another reinforcement of gender roles that society uses to create a binary interpretation of gender and sexuality, leaving no room for those in between. Eugenides provides an interesting idea in this scene of female women being "the last stop" (Eugenides 184). This refers to the idea that since asian women's bodies are similar to those of little boys, closeted gay men will be attracted to them. This brings about the issue of where Cal's sexuality stands. Is Cal simply attracted to Julie since she is a woman or is the female past of Cal attracted to the boyish figure Julie. This is an interesting question that I feel Eugenides leaves unanswered in this particular instance for a reason. Eugenides is trying to point out that both gender and sexuality can be as intricate and confusing as Cal's family tree. There is not only male/female or heterosexual/homosexual individuals in our society but the status quo perpetuates this binary interpretation. By including both traditional interpretations of sex and gender alongside instances like Cal's dating scene Eugenides is able to highlight the weaknesses in binary interpretations and how this approach fails to account for thousands of people and relationships in society today.
Every year, at the beginning of February, sports fans in America unite to watch the culmination of the pro-football season: the Super Bowl. Although I enjoy watching football, I think my favorite part of the event is watching the commercials on TV. Usually the ads are sponsored by big time companies that spend a fortune for highly-coveted advertising spots – this year CBS sold 62 spots from $2.5 to $2.8 million each (Adhikari 2010). The never-before-seen ads are usually comical and entertaining, whether they feature talking geckos or stylish celebrities. This year, that idea changed.
Over a month before game day, word got out that a conservative Christian organization called Focus on the Family planned to buy a spot for an ad featuring Tim Tebow, the star quarterback from the University of Florida. But Tebow, a Heisman trophy winner (the first sophomore in history to win the award) and arguably one of the best college football players in the NCAA, is not just known for his remarkable football skills. The son of two missionaries, Tebow has always been open about his strong Christian faith and he is famous for wearing Bible verses over his game-day eye-black. Officially, the plans for the ad didn’t become public until January 15th, when the organization issued a press release about a 30-second commercial in which Tim’s mother, Pam, would share a personal story centering on the theme “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.” Although details about the ad were not disclosed, theories about the content created widespread criticism and controversy.
According to David Crary, a journalist for The Associated Press, Focus on the Family planned to be quiet about the content of the ad, but in early February the president and CEO Jim Daly alluded to the topic of abortion. Critics claimed the ad would likely convey a pro-choice (others used the phrase anti-abortion) message, as it was expected to recount the story of Pam Tebow’s pregnancy. In her article “Tim Tebow Super Bowl Ad: Anti-Abortion Commercial to Air,” published on January 26th of this year, author Brinda Adhikari explained:
The ad tells the story of Bob and Pam Tebow, who was pregnant with their fifth child when the couple traveled to the Philippines on a missionary trip. While there, Pam contracted amoebic dysentery and the medicines used for her recover threatened her unborn fetus. Doctors advised her to abort the fetus. Pam ignored their advice and gave birth on Aug. 14, 1987, to a baby boy. That boy was Tim Tebow
Variations of that story were published, but that’s the basic premise. The National Organization for Women and the Feminist Majority group coordinated with the New York-based Women’s Media Center to protest against the ad’s release, largely because it was sponsored by Focus on the Family. A statement released by the Women’s Media Center denounced CBS for giving “one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization” (Monkovic 2010). In a different article from ABC, Terry O’Neill, the president of the National Organization for Women, said that she had respect for the private choices made by women such as Pam Tebow but condemned the planned ad as “extraordinarily offensive and demeaning” (Crary 2010). That same article featured a comment from Gary Schneeberger, a spokesman for Focus of the Family, saying that there wasn’t anything “political and controversial” about it, and “when the day arrives, and you sit down to watch the game on TV, those who oppose it will be quite surprised at what the ad is all about.” In addition, there were critics who simply didn’t want to see an issue oriented ad during the Super Bowl. Everyone seemed to have an opinion about the ad’s content: whether or not it was appropriate in general, whether or not it was appropriate for television, let alone the Super Bowl. The issue got so heated that even more critics started bashing the critics. In her article “Tebow’s Super Bowl ad isn’t intolerant; its critics are,” Washington Post columnist Sally Jenkins (2010) referred to the National Organization for Women as the “National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time” and “The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us.” Jenkins even went so far as to claim that the women of NOW “aren’t actually ‘pro choice’ so much as they are pro-abortion.” Insults were thrown back and forth and the conflict escalated to the point of no return. Still, no one had seen the actual ad.
On Super Bowl Sunday, two versions of the Focus on the Family Tebow ad aired. One aired before the actual game, the other was showcased during it. Here are both versions:
Some could argue that the pre-press made us (the viewers) more sensitive to the ad. This may have occurred in several ways. On one hand, the media prepared us for the worst. No matter what argument was most compelling, we were essentially programmed to think that the ad would address pro-life/pro-choice/anti-life/anti-choice issues. In this sense, we had a lens created for us, forcing us to watch the ad through that lens. On the other hand, some of us may have felt more strongly about one specific argument or issue. Then, when watching the ad, we would only understand the content in terms of that one issue as opposed to looking at the ad in its entirety. For example, if I was more convinced by the women’s group argument that the ad was anti-equality, anti-choice, and homophobic, I may have interpreted the Tebow’s behavior differently. I might have viewed the ending – when Pam Tebow is tackled aggressively by her son – as representing the dominance of men in the patriarchal system and the normality of male to female abuse. Regardless of what each of us actually saw, preparing ourselves for the worst may have made the commercial more meaningful or even traumatizing.
Some could argue that the pre-press made us less sensitive to the ad. With an awareness of all arguments, some of us may have expected a powerful message. Others may have found Pam’s story relatively dull – lets be honest, there isn’t a lot anyone can say in such a short commercial. The only reason any of us knew the Tebow’s family background was because of the pre-press. Pam didn’t share many details of that background and she never used the term “abortion.” Overall, the ad simply shows a mother, Pam Tebow, talking about her miracle baby and the importance of families. In an article on ESPN.com, the Associated Press commented that “the subtle and humorous ad made some wonder what all the fuss was about.” For an ad that was assumed to be a polarizing anti-everything testimony, it was pretty mild. For those of us who expected controversy and drama, the ad was both a disappointment and a relief. Disappointment because on some level it wasn’t what we expected it to be, yet relief because we didn’t really want the controversy to flare up again. Others may have been so exhausted from the back and forth bashing that they just didn’t care that much anymore. By the time the ad actually aired, many people probably assumed that they knew everything there was to know about the commercial anyway.
This entire controversy says a lot about our society today. I’ve watched the ad several times and I’ve had two main reactions. First, out of context, the ad is fairly direct and unthreatening – except for the tackle. Controversial words like abortion, pro-life, or pro-choice were never used. The ad begins with Pam Tebow in front of a white backdrop holding a picture of her son, and ends with the two of them embracing. I’ll admit, the tackle was awkward, and I agree with the critics who felt that this action ruined the delivery of any intended message. Second, I actually had heard of several criticisms of the ad before it was released, which undoubtedly changed my perspective. I knew about the Tebows and their Christian faith. I knew about the trip to the Philippines. I didn’t’ know much about Focus on the Family, but I could only assume that an organization who chose the Tebows as spokespeople would probably have similar values.
One of the most interesting aspects of the Tebow ad conflict was not the ad itself, but what the ad shows about how our culture operates. We have a tendency to judge, both intentionally and unknowingly. We judge those who are different than us, maybe because we are afraid, or maybe because differences make us that uncomfortable. In the case of this ad, hundreds of writers, reporters, and bloggers generated a lot of talk based on nothing more than a handful of assumptions.
Brinda Adhikari. "Tim Tebow Super Bowl Ad: Anti-Abortion Commercial to Air." ABC World News with Diane Sawyer. ABC, 26 Jan. 2010. Web. 16 Feb. 2010. .
Crary, David. "CBS Urged to Scrap Super Bowl Ad With Tebow, Mom - ABC News." ABCNews.com - Breaking news, politics, online news, world news, feature stories, celebrity interviews and more - ABC News. The Associated Press, 25 Jan. 2010. Web. 16 Feb. 2010. .
Jenkins, Sally. "Tebow's Super Bowl ad isn't intolerant; its critics are - washingtonpost.com." The Washington Post. The Washington Post Company, 1 Feb. 2010. Web. 16 Feb. 2010. .
Monkovic, Toni. "Should CBS Have Allowed the Tebow Ad? - The Fifth Down Blog - NYTimes.com." Sports - Pro Football - The Fifth Down Blog - NYTimes.com. The New York Times. Web. 16 Feb. 2010. .
Philbin, Matthew. "Plans for Tebow Pro-Life Super Bowl Ad Mary Irk QB's Critics." News Busters. 5 Jan. 2010. Web. 16 Feb. 2010. .
"Tim Tebow, Mother's Super Bowl Ad To 'Celebrate Life'" Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post. 16 Jan. 2010. Web. 16 Feb. 2010. .
In class, we discussed how Western culture maintains the assumption that there are only two sexes - male and female.
The idea of this binary sex system as a social construction of our society is a large theme of Anne Fausto-Sterling's book, Sexing the Body. In chapter two, "That Sexe Which Prevaileth," Fausto-Sterling continues to explore the sexual continuum and how various experts throughout history have maintained the two-sex system, especially those in medicine and the sciences. She also explores the history of those who don't necessarily fit into either category: intersexuals (or hermaphrodites). Overall, she examines how our past and present perceptions of intersexuality have shaped our ideas about gender.
Fausto-Sterling's book is full of specific references - she acknowledges her heavy footnoting in the book's preface. After having read her more factual exploration of gender politics and the construction of sexuality, it was interesting to read a work of fiction - Jeffrey Eugenides' Middlesex. I hadn't read Middlesex in the past (although it was on my long list of books to read) and found myself completely engaged in the story. The narrator, Cal, is straightforward yet intriguing, and incredibly likable. While I enjoyed reading the first section, I often had difficulty separating fact from fiction. Perhaps I was getting too bogged down in the details, especially since we've only delved into the first book. Cal hasn't touched on too many aspects of his own life as much as he discusses the history leading up to his birth. It's not that I don't trust Eugenides, I just think that intersexuality is a complicated and confusing (for me at least) topic.
As I brought up in class, our discussions on sex and gender remind me of a book I read in high school called As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl by John Colapinto. The book is a true story about the life of David Reimer, born Bruce Reimer, whose family was convinced to raise him as a girl after a botched circumcision in infancy. Bruce underwent sex reassignment surgery and was raised as Brenda (his twin brother, Brian, had a successful circumcision). His doctor, Dr. John Money, believed that natural-born gender could be altered by "nurture" and hormone treatments. After years of confusion, depression, and instability, he chooses to live as a male (David) at age 14. The book touches on issues of gender and sexual identity, the nature vs. nurture debate, and the overwhelming need to "correct" any sexual ambiguities, even at birth.
Like the story of Levi Suydam in chapter two of Fausto-Sterling's book, Reimer's story "conveys both the political weight our culture places on ascertaining a person's correct "sex" and the deep confusion that arises when it can't be easily determined" (30). I still think that issues of sexual development and gender identity can be difficult to explain and understand, but thats why books like Sexing the Body and Middlesex are so important. Fact or fiction, they open our eyes and expose us to ideas and issues that force us to consider and to question our existing ideas and beliefs.
Reading Levy’s chapter “From Womyn to Boys” shortly after reading Lorde’s speech last week raised several similarities and differences between the two works. Like Audre Lorde, Ariel Levy is extremely inclusive in her interpretation of the feminist movement. This chapter focuses specifically on the lesbian culture. While Lorde emphasized the power that could be generated from including lesbians and alternative female sects in the feminist movement, Levy demonstrates how various groups frequently have both positive and negative effects towards feminism.
As Lorde pointed out in her speech, mainstream heterosexual women do not need to be the only helping force in the feminist battle. While the gay community and other alternative sexualities may bring more support to the movement, it is important to recognize they are not exempt from perpetuating patriarchal domination within our culture. Levy focuses her attention upon females of alternative sexualities. Within this unconventional population, patriarchal domination is used in similar ways to those within popular culture. More and more gay women have started to refer to themselves as “bois” rather than “butch” because of the negative connotation associated with the original term. While those who label themselves as “bois” emphasize the youthful nature of the categorization and the non-monogamous lifestyle, we must look deeper into the social implications of associating themselves with the male gender. Levy closes her chapter with the statement, “this isn’t about being a lesbian, it’s about being a woman. Or a girl” (Levy, 138). This statement emphasizes the fact that in order to act as a united and powerful force, the feminist movement but recognize and reject all forms of female objectification, even if it is coming from unexpected angles.
Within her short article, Myhre’s language reflects her strong beliefs and self-respect. Rather than using her sexuality and appearance to degrade other females or take part in various forms of sexual activity like that described in Levy’s book, the feminist uses her looks to make a statement. I think that Levy would fully support Myhre’s mentality and hope to fight masculine domination by breaking down the cultural social roles we have grown to be so accustomed to. This mindset is a positive means of achieving change because it does not demote the female sex in any way but merely calls social norms into question.
Prominent politician John Edwards, a former U.S. Senator from North Carolina, has recently admitted to fathering a child with a woman he had an affair with in 2008, during his presidential campaign. News of John Edwards’ affair has created a media frenzy. Every newspaper, news channel, and all over the Internet, different accounts regarding the recent events of Senator Edwards’ actions are circulating. During the last week of January, the New York Times reported: “Edwards Admits He Fathered Girl with Mistress.” About a week later, the news website Politics Daily broke a story, “Elizabeth Edwards and John Edwards separate, Can Divorce in One Year.” Edwards released a statement to the Associated Press on January 21 with his recent personal news. John Edwards has truly embraced his societal role as a Caucasian male from a reputable background, destroying his family life while getting caught up in the whims of an unsuccessful political campaign.
Today, politicians have a certain image to live up to. In recent years, politicians have been uncovered in partaking in numerous affairs while spending long hours at work in Washington D.C. for the majority of the calendar year. These infidelities have driven numerous political figures to exposure in the media and often, divorce. John Edwards is no exception. The societal image of a politician is somewhat homogeneous; we believe in Caucasian men running our political system who give off the right “image” of strong, moral convictions with a family life many desire to have. Somehow, the tumultuous love lives of many politicians have become household conversation in America – the double standard still exists. Ariel Levy discusses the history of the double standard in her book, Female Chauvinist Pigs, pointing out, “free love was edifying for a man, immoral for a woman.”[1] It almost seems that the standards of the 1970s, during the Second Wave Feminist Movement, have not changed up until today. John Edwards has received a large amount of scrutiny ever since the news of his affair became public, but one cannot help ask the controversial question: What would the media response be if this was a female politician who became pregnant out of wedlock?
John Edwards released the statement admitting to be the father of Quinn Hunter, and immediately left to offer his personal aid to the disaster-stricken country of Haiti, reported Politics Daily.[2] The hype around this affair, as well as John Edwards’ responses appear to seek media attention. Elizabeth Edwards is hardly discussed in many of the press releases, not to mention she has been in and out of a battle with stage four metastatic cancer in recent years. Although this does not pertain to the actions of John Edwards, this brings one to question the values of an elected official who is representing our nation. So many of these men are educated with long marriages and numerous children. Allan Johnson, in his article “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us,” discusses the system in which we live: “we develop a sense of personal identity—including gender—and how this positions us in relation to other people, especially in terms of inequalities of power.”[3] Because Senator Edwards is a prominent face in society, he is above the standards protocol of behavior within a marriage. Instead, in his press release regarding the daughter he had with the videographer Rielle Hunter, former Senator Edwards draws in a sense of sympathy for his daughter, after “a lengthy period of denials and disclosures,” reports Julie Bosman for the New York Times.[4]
Bosman’s newspaper article, as well as Emily Miller’s article in Politics Daily report of the “public image rehibilitation” Edwards is working towards.[5] His need to exercise poise and control throughout this ordeal comes across as alarming. With four children and a wife of 22 years, the media has not spent a lot of time reporting on these aspects of his personal life. We have become a culture that is obsessed with things that are morally unsound. After becoming legally separated from his wife, Miller reports that Edwards has been spending time at his family’s vacation home near Wilmington, North Carolina. He reportedly has made efforts to have sexual relations with women from the area.[6] Although many reports are speculation, the accusations are out there for the world to read, including Edwards’ former wife and children.
The fact that we as a society have turned John Edwards’ life into a spectacle tells a lot about the entertainment value we assign to people in power. Elizabeth Edwards has not been taken into account publicly or embraced by the media. Senator Edwards hardly expresses a tinge of remorse towards the pain he has caused his family and confidants during this time. It all seems to be about power, media relations, and a public image to maintain. John Edwards, whether or not he has made political progress for the American people, embodies the type of man that takes advantage of women and of his position in society. I believe I can safely say that the public perception of this incident would be much more harsh had the politician been female. The double standard here is more than apparent. Elizabeth Edwards will continue her life, most likely involved in the lives of her children, and working to stay healthy. On the other hand, Senator Edwards will move on to other professional endeavors, and from what it seems thus far, more women. He has perpetuated many stereotypes about men in power in this country and how the women in their lives have been taken advantage of. The media has a way of making events seem more promiscuous, adding the entertainment value for the public. Unfortunately, this time, it has been at the expense of John Edwards’ wife, a woman who stood by her husband in all of his political endeavors, while he turned his back on his family for his own sexual pleasure and personal benefit.
[1] Ariel Levy, Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture. (New York: Free Press, 2005), 59.
[2] Emily Miller, “Elizabeth Edwards and John Edwards Separate, Can Divorce in One Year,” Politics Daily, January 27, 2010.
[3] Allen G. Johnson, “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us.”
[4] Julie Bosman, “Edwards Admits He Fathered Girl With Mistress,” The New York Times, January 22, 2010.
The position of the female in Afghan society has undergone monumental changes throughout the past ten years. This drastic change from a subjugated position in society to one where personal expression and achievement are possible has been greatly aided by the U.S. military and the eradication of Taliban control of the nation. Gayle Tzemach Lemmon’s article from The New York Times, “U.S. Military Experiments With Empowering Afghan Businesswomen,” highlights how the U.S. military has played a direct role in advancing women in Afghanistan. This micro perspective of Afghan women allows for interesting comparisons to be drawn between the roles of women all over the world and provides a clear example of women rising from the rock bottom. An interesting aspect of this NYT article is that the methods of empowerment enacted by the U.S. military parallel those described in Levy’s text. The clearest similarity is the importance placed upon female involvement in the economy, specifically in upper management roles. Just as Levy points out that “Playboy is a company largely run by women,” the U.S. military is starting workshops and programs to allow female run businesses to flourish.[1] Similar empowerment gained by running Playboy is achieved by Afghan women that run businesses producing clothing. However, this does not in any way go to say that this empowerment is the same. In fact, the freedom achieved by the Afghan women through this new sense of self empowerment is much more potent in Afghanistan. While they both represent the expression of individuality and freedom, one would find it difficult to say that posing naked represents a greater achievement of freedom than simply being able to shed a bhurka and reveal your face. This article highlights how the capabilities to actively participate in the economy highlight merely one aspect of the much larger picture of Afghan oppression and subsequent empowerment of women. Another critical aspect of this article is the description of the degree to which the lives of Afghan women changed. The life of women under the Taliban was the life of oppression in the truest sense of the word. Women were forced to live behind bhurkas with virtually no rights to speak of. As Marilyn Frye points out as one of the key components of Oppression, the Afghan women were complicit in their “being made invisible,” in their “occupying no space.”[2] To rework one of Frye’s analogies, it was almost as if the Afghan women were behind a brick wall, rather than in a bird cage, with no hope for freedom in sight. The juxtaposition of the freedoms that the women hold today against the life of oppression makes every achievement all the more remarkable. The programming of the Afghan women is indicated by their inability to even relate with the men from the U.S. military forces that tried to help them at first. This is why Patricia Babida’s, “a veteran Air Force contracting officer,” role was emphasized as she felt the Afghan women would feel “less intimidated” to direct their concerns and questions at another woman.[3] It is interesting to see how the oppression of the Afghan women was so severe that even when approached by males willing and ready to aid in the advancement of the female role in society they were still hesitant to open up to them. The role that the U.S. military has played in allowing the Afghan women to take a foothold in the economy has been unrivaled. Lemmon highlights an interesting aspect of this relationship that has allowed for the success of these budding entrepreneurs. The most important aspect has been the standardization of U.S. military orders as they contract out orders for t-shirts and other items of clothing that require standardized measures. This allows the Afghan women to keep up with the great demands for production as the process of producing identical items becomes a easy-to-follow routine. This is a mutually beneficial system where the U.S. military, as well as the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police, are able to receive new gear quickly, while simultaneously stimulating the local economy. This investment in the local economy and the creation of a strong foundation in the Afghan economy is an investment that will pay invaluable dividends in the future. This article presents much promise for the future. The long and arduous journey the Afghan females have traveled to reach their current position in society is one that must be remembered to continue the advancement of females in society. Through the interference from the U.S. military the Afghan women were presented with the once in a lifetime opportunities that came with the total destruction of ‘the system.’ This complete destruction of the system was the product of an oppressive and weak regime that was destined for failure that was overrun by the U.S. military. It is great to see achievements like those described in Lemmon’s article that paint an honorable image of the U.S. military and include stories of success and advancement of the people our nation is seeking to help. The “unremarkable life” of oppression that is part of Johnson’s patriarchal system and was definitely characteristic of the Taliban has been destroyed and the future holds much promise for the women of Afghanistan.[4] [1] Ariel Levy, Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture. (New York: Free Press, 2005), 35. [2] Marilyn Frye, “Oppression.” [3] Gayle Tzemach Lemmon, “U.S. Military Experiments With Empowering Afghan Businesswomen,” The New York Times, January 29, 2010. [4] Allen G. Johnson, “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us.”
One of my favorite shows of all time, hands down, is AMC’s Mad Men. For those of you who aren’t familiar with the show, here is a little background from AMC: “set in New York in the 1960s, the sexy, stylized, and provocative drama follows the lives of the ruthlessly competitive men and women of Madison Avenue advertising, an ego-driven world where key players make an art of the sell.”[1] The show revolves around one particular advertising agency, Sterling Cooper, and the lives (both professional and personal) of those who work there. Although Mad Men doesn’t take place during the raunch culture of today, it depicts a time when a different kind of culture also devalued women. Despite this difference, when watching the show through the lens of Ariel Levy’s Female Chauvinist Pigs, Mad Men reflects a version of raunch culture similar to that of our culture today. Specifically,the show plays into Levy’s ideas of raunch culture and the Female Chauvinist Pig through the character Joan Holloway, the head secretary at Sterling Cooper. More generally, it is interesting to think about why Mad Men is so popular today, especially with women. Women make up a large part of the fan base, despite the negative and oppressive presentations of women in the show. In order to understand how these ideas and characters relate, it is important to cover some background first.
According to Levy, raunch culture and the Female Chauvinist Pig both stem from a larger phenomenon: women are acting like men. Our society embraces a patriarchal culture and women are socialized to accept male models of leadership as the social norm. Things like power and success are associated with men, but these are things that women want, too. In order to succeed, women must fit in, and in order to fit in they must act like “one of the guys.” The problem, Levy says, is that women are being taught that achieving equality is associated with two things: “acting like a man,” and taking on qualities that are traditionally associated with men and masculinity. But, by embracing the masculine, women are essentially rejecting things that are traditionally associated with women and femininity – an act that devalues other women and the category of women in general. Enter the Female Chauvinist Pig. According to Levy, “raunch provides a special opportunity for a woman who wants to prove her mettle. It’s in fashion and it is something that has traditionally appealed exclusively to men and actively offended women, so producing it or participating in it is a way both to flaunt your coolness and to mark yourself as different, tougher, looser, funnier – a new sort of loophole woman who is “not like other women,” who is instead “like a man.” Or, more precisely, like a Female Chauvinist Pig” (96). In this sense, raunch culture and Female Chauvinist Pigs go hand in hand. Levy says that women are wrongly buying into the idea that modern raunch culture is empowering, but both males and females are at fault. Women are objectifying themselves and accepting this objectification: they are making sex objects of other women and themselves (Levy, 4). They are caught in the middle – they have to show that they are “one of the guys” while maintaining certain sexuality. Levy explains, “the task then (of the Female Chauvinist Pig) is to simultaneously show that you are not the same as the girly girls in the Victoria’s Secret catalogs, but that you approve of men’s appreciation for them, and that possibly you too have some of that same sexy energy and underwear underneath all of your aggression and wit. A passion for raunch covers all the bases” (99). Although Levy acknowledges that everyone doesn’t participate in this raunch culture, it still has become an expected (and accepted) part of society as a whole.
There are several parallels between Levy’s conflicted woman of today and the Mad Men character Joan Holloway. In many ways, Joan can be seen as a very real example of Levy’s Female Chauvinist Pig. Evidence of this can be seen throughout the show, but I am choosing to focus on two specific clips. The first is from the first episode of the first season.
Here, Joan instructs Peggy (a new secretary hire) on proper office etiquette and expectations. Joan is bossy but charming, sassy but sweet. Both men and women seem to gravitate to her because of her confidence and charm. At the same time, she takes advantage of her head secretarial position and gives “advice” to the newer, lower secretaries that plays on their insecurities and tends to make her look and feel powerful while usually making them look and feel inferior and unintelligent. Like Levy’s Female Chauvinist Pig, Joan is a woman of contradictions. While her strong personality and attitude give her power over her female coworkers, she also uses her sexuality as an intimidating force and something for the men in the office to lust after. She exudes sexuality through everything she does, from the way she dresses to the way she walks, talks, and even smokes. Like Levy’s Female Chauvinist Pig, Joan seems to be a part of a delicate balancing act: she must be tough enough (or masculine) to intimidate her coworkers and be taken seriously, yet alluring enough (or feminine) to maintain her seductive image.
The second clip is also from the first season, but a later episode. In this scene, Joan is on a “lunch date” with Roger Sterling, one of the Partners of Sterling Cooper. While the last scene showed the many roles that Joan takes on in the workplace, this scene shows the contradicting roles of Joan’s personal life. From the very beginning of the clip, even those of you who haven’t seen the show can probably gather that Roger is married (and not to Joan). That aside, Joan and Roger sneak away to hotels during lunch breaks where they do quite a bit more than have lunch. Throughout the scene, it is clear that Joan is conflicted. On one hand, she tries to pull herself together – she gets dressed and attempts to deflect Roger’s advances. He showers her with kisses and gifts, which she takes, but it is as if she emotionally tries to keep her distance. On the other hand, she is constantly using her sexuality to influence and control his every action. She has to be emotionally distant and calm in order to maintain a sense of power over Roger, yet she still has to be submissive and sexy to sustain his interest. She claims that she loves being with Roger (and she obviously has a good time with him) but she also wants to keep her apartment and her autonomy – she enjoys her “own world.” Still, as much as she enjoys going out and having parties, by telling Roger this she knows that she will make him jealous. He yearns to make her happy and give her what she wants, but she won’t tell him what that is. Like Levy’s Female Chauvinist Pig, Joan strives to be both independent and adored. She can’t show too much emotion (femininity) or she risks being vulnerable, but she also can’t be too independent (masculinity) or she risks losing Roger. Although her constant change of mind and heart can be hard to keep up with, the contrasting sides of Joan are a part of what make her character so intriguing – and so similar to a Female Chauvinist Pig.
Overall, Joan Holloway acts and behaves a lot like the way Ariel Levy describes the Female Chauvinist Pigs of today. Joan may not be a Female Chauvinist Pig herself, but traces of Levy’s ideas present, even in the 1960s. Even though Mad Men is set during a different time period, it is important to consider that the show is on television today, in our generation. Women may watch Mad Men and think, “oh, that was then” or “we’ve come so far.” But shows like Mad Men, shows with themes that include the oppression of women, are still on television and women are still watching them. Don’t get me wrong; I am a devoted Man Men fan. My intentions are not to criticize the show or to discourage others from watching it. Countless reviewers praise Mad Men for authentically portraying the roles of men and women in the late fifties and early sixties, not to mention their ideals and values, both good and bad. Still, it is interesting to think about why so many women today tune in to watch a show where women are depicted in such negative positions. Maybe we are fascinated by the romanticized yet raunchy world of the “mad men” themselves – their jobs, their homes, their families. Maybe for some of us, it really is “just a show.” But maybe, just maybe, we haven’t come so far after all.
Disclaimer: I really do love the show Mad Men. Yes, there are things that some of the characters do that I don’t exactly approve of. But I watch the show and until recently I had never questioned why. When I told one of my friends that I was a huge Mad Men fan, he replied, “Seriously? But that I thought that show was all about manipulating advertising men who drink and smoke and cheat on their wives. You actually like watching that?” His description may have been a bit exaggerated, but to a certain extent, he was right. So why do I still watch Mad Men? I think I can guess what Ariel Levy might say.
[1] "About the Show." Mad Men Official Site. American Movie Classics. Web. 2 Feb. 2010. .
“My idea of feminism is self-determination, and it's very open-ended: every woman has the right to become herself, and do whatever she needs to do.” Ani Difranco
"It's important to remember that feminism is no longer a group of organizations or leaders. It's the expectations that parents have for their daughters, and their sons, too. It's the way we talk about and treat one another. It's who makes the money and who makes the compromises and who makes the dinner. It's a state of mind. It's the way we live now." Anna Quindlen
"I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat." Rebecca West
"People have accepted the media's idea of what feminism is, but that doesn't mean that it's right or true or real. Feminism is not monolithic. Within feminism, there is an array of opinions." Judy Chicago
