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?