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.

The “Real” Woman: Ideas on Exploitation

In my previous post, I attempted to support my claim that elevating masculinity in gay men is fundamentally sexist and homophobic. By lambasting whatever is not masculine in men, one is verbalizing sexist ideas. Emmy-nominated shows such as Survivior, or any reality show of that matter, will never be capable of portraying gender and sexuality in a completely fair and accurate manner. However, viewing media content with a critical eye and crying fowl at the more blatant sexist/homophobic representations will help steer the movement for better depictions. Last week, I expressed my disagreement with the idea of criticizing different gender representations in the male gender. This week, I was compelled to find posts that dealt with media representations of femininity in heterosexual women. Despite the paucity of educated and academic writing on reality television, I managed to scrounge up two brief posts on the careers of the post-show careers of two reality television personalities. My first response is to a blog post on Hip Hop Crunch covering Tiffany Pollard’s decision to act in a production of “The Vagina Monologues.” My second response is to a brief article on the TV Guide website on an American Idol contestant’s decision to decline an offer to pose for Playboy Magazine. Both fit in with my theme of analyzing gender in reality television and can be found below and at the respective sites.

Tiffany Pollard ‘New York’ ‘Vagina Monologues’ Performance
Comment

I am glad to read that Tiffany Pollard (right) will be acting in The Vagina Monologues, a play that is about female empowerment. Ms. Pollard, or “New York” as her nickname goes, has made a name for herself though the bevy shows she has starred in on the VH1 cable channel. Although she started out as a plaything Flavor Flav on the dating show Flavor of Love, she managed to portray herself as an unruly woman on all five reality shows she starred in. By enabling her disruptive power, she managed to highlight how people are constructed into gendered subjects. In her shows I Love New York and I Love New York 2, both in which a group of men compete against each other for Pollard’s heart, she triggered an unease about her that the men were very much aware of. By carrying this air of unease and being at ease with this, Pollard expressed a sort of indifference to objectifying gaze of the men and the audience. This indifference can be translated into power, one that breaks the social norm of women being the objects of mens’ satisfactions. She expanded the repertoire of how women can act, giving power to female watchers at home. In being the unruly woman on her show, Pollard is defying what it means to be the “perfect” woman, and shattering the idea of a “perfect” woman altogether.

Pollard’s role in “The Vagina Monologues” fits in perfectly with the work she has done in her reality shows. I think it is emblematic of her belief in female empowerment. As she said, the show is a “celebration for women and we need to be liberated every day.” She has done a good job so far with ensuring that she portrays a woman who is liberated and strong. Acting in the show just seems like a natural progression. However, despite all that she has done, I cannot speak for her acting skills. Judging from what I saw on New York Goes To Hollywood, she might not have the chops.

Will Idol's "Bikini Girl" Bare Even More for Playboy?
Comment

“Bikini Girl,” otherwise known as Katrina Darrell (left), embarrassed herself the minute she stepped in front of the judges, and the camera, to audition for American Idol. She decided, whether it was in her best judgment or not, it would be best to wear nothing but a bikini in an attempt to advance on the show. Unfortunately, the tactic worked. Simon Fuller and Randy Jackson immediately took a liking to her and gave her the pass to go to Hollywood. The story was different, however, with the female judges. Paula Abdul and Kara DioGuardi took issue with the fact that Darrell was in a bikini and feigned a catfight with the contestant. While maybe the entire debacle was constructed by the producers to make for compelling television, it regrettably puts into discourse that women just have to put on a bikini to appeal to men. Nobody knows if she would have been given the same attention had she entered the room fully clothed and had nothing to rely on except her talent. It is evident in the way the audition was edited that the producers have little respect for women, apparent in the fact that a contestant such as Darrell was not taken seriously, present as nothing more than eye candy.

I also take issue with the fact that Playboy offered her the chance to pose for the magazine. While Playboy in itself is an issue that can warrant its own essay, the problem lies in the media exploiting women for their sexuality instead of their talents. I am reminded of the Maxim Magazine photo spreads of female Olympic athletes, which consist of pictures of talented athletes hyper-sexualized and wearing almost nothing. I hope Darrell does not take the offer like she claimed to in the article, because it would do nothing for her dignity or for the representation of women in television and media in general.