Upon reading “Feminist Perspectives
on Media” and “Postfeminist Media Culture” the first thing I
thought of was the very first episode of Mad Men. I don't want to
sound very pretentious but I'm going to. I really don't watch that
much TV. The TV I do watch is mostly on DVD. And it's usually at
least three years old. So, I just watched the first episode of Mad
Men and one of the storyline hooks to that initial episode is how the
businessmen abusively treat their secretaries. The secretaries are
expected to take it because, I think, they thought that was the best
way to keep their jobs. It was pretty jaw-dropping but I understand
it was one of the hooks designed to keep you watching. So you would
say to yourself, “I cannot believe that older veteran secretary
just told the younger secretary (late teens to early 20s) to always
dress provocatively in the direct hopes that the higher-ups (all men
by the way) would perhaps sleep with the “alluring”secretary.
Essentially, it is the first day on the job for the new secretary and
she is told such things as, “always have a drink ready for your
boss”, “never question his requests” etc. It was shocking to
me. It also made me grateful for the strides we have made since the
first and second waves. I understand things are not perfect. I know
many workplace environments are not socially aware but I do think
beneficial changes have taken place since the time of Mad Men. I have
heard many people say that Mad Men seems pretty authentic as far as
the time period goes and how things actually were then. It's scary to
think we used to treat women that way then.
I wonder just how many women have been
given prominent roles as heads of TV networks. I know Bonnie Hammer
is pretty high up at the USA Network. Which reminds me of the show
Fairly Legal which depicts a mediator working in her stepmother's
firm. To me, this character is seen as the main character and is
often times shown in a position of power which to me is refreshing. I
have only seen it two or three times but the character is very
headstrong and assertive and really doesn't care who she upsets. So
yes, I suppose in both these examples the text are being mediated. In
one it is a negative viewpoint and in the other it is positive.
Even though the current show "Mad Men" depicts earlier times, it seems very offensive because new viewers who are not aware of past strides in feminism or who are aware of feminism in the sense of the "f" word, which is derogatory, such shows only work to promote old ideas in new ways. "Girls" and boys who watch may be picking up old habits that media refuses to let die. I think it is a conspiracy. Presentism in order to maintain the status quo, or a desperate attempt to lure us back into more oppressive times. Am I wrong to think this? I have not watched the show.
ReplyDeleteI don't know, Deb. I think MadMen (which is a great example, Thomas, thanks) is pretty solidly situated in the past. As the Butler piece points out, gender norms and performances are situational and contextual. I can't imagine many folks would think it is advocating for this sort of treatment of anyone (women, ethnic minorities, the poor - all groups featured on the show to an extent). Instead, I think it is hoped it will inspire discussion -- like this -- about how far we've come. I guess the danger is for us to think we've progressed farther than we actually have.
ReplyDeleteI think vanZoonen (and I'll be eager to see what y'all think of the Mulvey piece for Monday) would say the way to safeguard against stereotypes here is to give viewers the language to discuss the gendered performances they see.
A good point and I hope that it is true. This may render my post on the two readings as incorrect since I allude to the same idea that similar messages are produced but in different forms. I will reevaluate my interpretations.
ReplyDelete