Bromances: Radical Idea or Reality?

Two weeks ago, Hollywood released I Love You, Man, (right) which was generally well received by critics and audiences. The movie follows two straight men who forge a close friendship, a theme that is not new and has been documented countless times in movies such as Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle, and Men in Black. However, this movie stands apart from the rest because it establishes male friendship as an offbeat development, making the movie a high-concept comedy. A reality show that fits into this same vein is Bromance, which aired six episodes on the MTV network between December 2008 and February 2009. The series consisted of competitions in which the male contestants would express their devotion for Brody Jenner, who previously appeared on The Hills, which also airs on MTV. While it is not a typical dating show, where participants vie for a romantic relationship with the protagonist, the production is still heavily steeped in sexuality. Certain behaviors and practices are deemed appropriate for males by Jenner, and consequences happen to those who deviate from what is constructed as suitable. Even in its the promotion, Bromance was pushed as being representative of the "changing times" surrounding masculinity and male relationships. The program did not enjoy much popularity with audiences, probably because the drama that typically accompanies female-centered programs is replaced with subtleties of male communication and sporadic expressions of aggression. However, it is still valuable to examine how Bromance serves as a litmus test of what existing as a "man" entails and follows in this new tradition of showcasing male friendship as new and original.

In the press surrounding the premiere of Bromance, one interview seems to embody the attitude of the coverage that existed on other media entities. Brody Jenner told Kelley L. Carter of USA Today that "the trend in movies is like these awkward guy moments. So I thought it was a great time for this." He also claimed to be "totally comfortable with my sexuality and showing my affections with my guy friends" when asked about the changes in how male, heterosexual relationships are becoming common conversational fodder. His quotes are representative of the idea that the show was produced to conform to the changing media representations of heterosexual male relationships. I admire the attempt the show makes to challenge the outgoing male ideal. Nonetheless, the show fails to deliver on this claim. In another interview with Marc Malkin of E! Television, Jenner recognized the homoeroticism in the show when he said, "It's kind of homoerotic and I love people saying that." He recognizes the difficulty of gathering a group of men, gay or straight, and avoiding any homoerotic references. This is quickly countered, however, with the statement "I'm cool with my sexuality and the gender that I like and I have a beautiful girlfriend," establishing the show and himself as heteronormative. A piece that ran in The New York Times took issue with this blatant coding of heterosexuality behavior, saying the show branded straight men as superficial. Ginia Bellafante wrote, "what do you have to do to become his consigliere, his sidekick, his mandate? You have to find as many good-looking women as you can and show up at a party with them."

Bellafante was not unfounded in her disdain of the show. The incident that she refers to, in which the contestants (left) are challenged to find two girls to bring to a lingerie party in a limited time period, occurred in the first episode. The heteronormativity in this activity is blatant, obvious, and followed by many more like activities. A "bro-athalon," where the contestants complete a variety of physical strength tests, suggests that a man, thus anyone eligible to have a "bromance" with Jenner, must be physically apt. These physical tests are followed by others in future episodes, including challenges such as wrestling, biking, camping, and dancing. If these activities and portrayals say that able men must be active and strong, what do they say about women? One does not have to think too hard for the solution to this question because Jenner is able to provide the answer in the prizes he provides his potential "bros." For one challenge, the winning boy is rewarded with five bikini-clad girls waiting in a bathtub waiting to wash him off. For another competition, the winner is awarded time to spend in a hot tub with two Playboy playmates. Women are rendered to be the prize of hard work and physical strength, obviously fueling the masculine ideal that the show is depicting.

In the more downplayed segments of the show, the contestants are seen bonding with each other and Jenner. They speak candidly about their life experiences, which lead some to tears. Jenner appears comfortable with the emotions, even going so far as to hug his "bros," and the others follow suit. The show did promote male bonding, and it delivers. The problem, however, lies in how these relationships are framed. The males all display a dislike of wearing what they consider to be "women's" clothing, praise womanizing, and place value on physical strength. By encouraging a separation and differences between men and women, the contestants are encouraging a double standard for the sexes. These sentiments are misogynist, idealistic, and fall into the binary model of gender which establishes innate differences between the male and female genders. This model supports the idea that the innate differences encourage a gender hierarchy, that somehow behaviors deemed appropriate for women are somehow belittling and below men.

Despite the male chauvinism promoted in the series, the show does reflect the shift in media in the portrayal of the males. The show promotes open communication between men, widening the sphere in which men are allowed to feel comfortable and doing away with the narrow macho ideal that has been so commonly portrayed. Bromance and I Love You, Man may not be perfect in their portrayal gender roles, but at least they question those roles. In the constant struggle to portray something other than the male archetype and demonstrate fair/accurate images of non-binary gender, Bromance at least made a small impact by showcasing male friendship and communication as acceptable and desirable. Hopefully, one day a television show or movie will not need to market this idea as novel.

Masculine Identity: How does it manifest itself in traditionally masculine beings?

As a student currently enrolled in two classes regarding gender, sexuality, and media, I have heard a lot about the idea of how society constructs categories such as gender, and how media helps assign rules to such categories. Students of gender and media learn that the narratives assigned to gender and sexuality are familiar and powerful, and how easy it is to take them for granted. However, as I have attempted to demonstrate in my past three posts, neither sex nor gender are pure categories, and any narrative regarding them perpetuated from the media can, and should be, be disputed. In my pursuit of such narratives, I found two posts that covered popular reality shows with very strong and conventional narratives that perpetuate what it means to exist as a masculine being. The first post I respond to this week is an article on Celebuzz that covers the aftermath of how Jason Mesnick behaved in the finale of The Bachelor. My second response is to a post on the Idol Tracker blog on the Los Angeles Times website that covers the speculation around the sexuality of a current contestant on American Idol. Both shows are widely watched and are broadcast on network television. They have also been airing for multiple seasons, proof that audiences find both shows enjoyable and relatable. My responses to both of these items can be found below.

Kimmel to Bachelor: "You've Been a Very Bad Boy"
Comment

I am troubled by the question you ask in your last sentence. When Mesnick (left) made the announcement in the first "After the Rose" special that he would be leaving Melissa for Molly, he expressed his genuine regret in toying with the emotions of both women. He also tried to appease them, the rest of the female contestants, and the audience by stating that he fell in love with two girls. By confessing his mistake and admitting to his inability to make a decision, he pulled the veil off the ideology that The Bachelor is a gentleman. Throughout the seasons, the bachelors on the shows have played to the softer side of the cultural ideology of masculinity. They have given out roses, proposed marriage and expressed "genuine" love in a plethora of grand romantic gestures. I believe that when you asked the question "Do you accept Mesnick's explanation, or is he a bad boy?," you are asking viewers to categorize Mesnick into either the "gentleman" category or the "bad boy" category. Both categories are encouraged in masculinity, and although they may hold conflicting instructions on behavior, don't you think Mesnick is simply behaving to social instruction? Also, as the bachelor, is Mesnick really either a "gentleman" or a "bad boy"? And by asking the question that you did, are you not encouraging the masculine cultural ideologies of "the gentleman" and "the bad boy"?

The narrative that has persisted on the show over the years has followed a man who seems to have everything except the perfect woman to love. This heteronormative narrative seems to continually resonate within viewers, a testament to the longevity of the show. I am glad you wrote this post on your views regarding Mesnick's decision because it so clearly demonstrates how men are socially molded to adapt two different and contradictory, ideologies of masculinity. The Bachelor, with its powerful narrative, encourages one ideology. If and when will the show expand on its definition of a masculine being?

'American Idol' needs to open the closet door
Comment

I am glad to read that someone else in the blogosphere is concerned with the hidden sexualities on American Idol. Although the show is presented as a family show, I have to agree with you that there is room to diversity the "unified mainstream" that the American Idol producers strive to portray. While past contestants of the show who did not fit into the mainstream were either voted off early or kept quiet about their identities, I think the producers have a unique opportunity to educate the American audience on diversity in gender identities. With so many seasons under their belt, the producers need to relinquish their identity of a fiction mainstream and embrace the "bothersome backstories" that can allow the show fairer representations of gender and sexuality.

I think that by hindering Adam Lambert (right)in being outspoken about his sexual orientation, the hegemonic power of the producers is normalizing heterosexuality. There is something fundamentally wrong with oppressing a man who does not fit the heterosexual ideology of masculinity. I understand the point you made that American Idol represents "America's troubling history of racial divides and assimilation," but do you think that with Idol's decreasing ratings, the producers will allow him to be honest about himself? What impact might this make on America's ideologies of division? Also, what do you think that the fact that we are discussing and speculating on a person's sexuality has to say about our ideas on masculinity?

MTV’s Leading Ladies: Feminist Luminaries for the New Generation?

With the fourth season finale bringing in 2.6 million viewers in December, two spin-off shows, and the constant tabloid coverage, The Hills has proven to be the venerable reality show for the MTV target audience. Last week, People Magazine reported that the upcoming season would be the last, passing the reality/drama/fashion format to The City, a spinoff starring Whitney Port. While both shows have been criticized for walking dangerously close to the line that separates the scripted and reality genres, the fact that they are presented as reality is satisfactory for the purposes of this post. Both The Hills and The City center on a young, beautiful blonde attempting to find a balance between career and personal life. Despite the possible good intentions of the cast and producers for portraying characters that are smart and career-minded, both shows are damaging in their portrayal of women. They seem to place high focus on the aggression between the female characters, glamorizing petty and trivial tiffs. While this type of drama and conniving behavior is commonly portrayed on reality television, the fact that they have become firmly associated with Port and the protagonist of The Hills, Lauren Conrad, is troublesome. The men on the show, for the most part, seem to get by as rational observers of the histrionics, while the women are defined as irrational, emotional beings.

On The Hills, Lauren Conrad (see right) is the narrator and center of most conflicts. Throughout the four seasons that have aired, she has managed to “break up” with several of her girlfriends, including Heidi Montag, Audrina Patridge, and Jen Bunney. The narrative of the earlier seasons focused on Conrad and Montag’s rocky relationship, one that seemed to run into continuing issues surrounding boyfriends. Later seasons saw Conrad getting into he said/ she said spats with her roommates. Gossip and betrayal seem to be major themes in Conrad’s reality life, penetrating into the relationships she has with all of the female characters on the show. Seemingly unaware of what audiences were seeing on her show, she said “It's about empowering girls. You're gonna have bad boyfriends and best friends-turned-enemies. You need to be yourself, you need to work hard, and you'll get there. And if you can get someone to give you a reality show along the way, it can't hurt.” when asked about how she viewed herself as a brand in an article with Entertainment Weekly. Unfortunately, Conrad is delusional as to what the show seems to promote. Producers of the show have steered away from focusing on the career aspect of the show, deciding instead that concentrating on drama would be more fitting. As to the comment regarding how her show “can’t hurt,” I have to interject that viewers are ultimately the ones that are hurt. The show, in selling itself as reality, is coding Conrad’s irrationality and pettiness as legitimate behavior for women.

Montag is another character on The Hills who is just as irrational and does nothing positive for the portrayal of women. Ginia Bellafante of The New York Times, however, does not agree with me and felt it necessary to call Heidi Montag a “feminist hero” last year. She supports this statement by citing a few examples of Montag standing up to her boyfriend and putting her career first. While this did happen, the occasion was drawn out for dramatic purposes and portrayed Montag as a victim. In the next season, Montag eloped with said boyfriend, and continued to gossip with the other female characters about Conrad. These actions completely diminish any credibility she may have had as a feminist, and exemplifies the conduct that is characterized on the show. An additional character on The Hills, Whitney Port (see left), did not have any of her personal life filmed. She was always shown at work with Conrad, dishing about whatever circumstances she got into the night before. Port was reliably professional and visibly career-driven, but everything changed when she was placed front and center as the narrator and main character of The City. The show, currently airing its first season, documents Port’s life as she adjusts moving from The Hills’ Los Angeles to New York City. Based around the premise that she moved to pursue bigger professional opportunities in the fashion industry, the producers seem hell-bent on creating another Conrad-type character around Port. In the sixth episode of The City, the story revolves around one of Port’s friends, Allie, and her obsession over whether her boyfriend kissed another girl or not. The speculation, over-dramatization, and gossip paints Allie and Port as desperate and emotionally indigent. A confrontation between Allie and her boyfriend provide the climax of the episode, and at some point in their argument, her boyfriend asks, “Why are you gonna cry about this?” Of course, the boyfriend remains the rational one, while his female counterpart is senseless.

With the New York Times critiquing Montag and Us Weekly placing Conrad on its cover, it is clear that MTV has has in its hands a cultural phenomenon that comes with the unique opportunity to reach out to its large, young audience who is faithful to shows such as The Hills and The City. Both shows reinforce the dominance of aggression in relationships among young women. While these shows glamorize tensions in relationships to attract viewers, it is important to note that since they are being promoted as “reality,” they are reinforcing the cultural messages that are coded in the shows themselves. Eventually, these negative cultural messages can possibly become the norm and become accepted as mainstream. I hope MTV will realize that the messages communicated through its shows expose audiences to stereotypical images, which can reinforce gender expectations. I understand that viewer pleasure and ratings have priority in the business of television, but the network is missing opportunities to make small yet consequential changes in the production that can go a long way in breaking down portrayal barriers for all underrepresented genders.