WRIT001_G5_ChiamEnQuanJustin_Assignment03 Movies: Feminisms Friend or Foe?

Yes, women can - the resounding words of Dilma Rousseff, Brazils first female president, trumpets an important message to the world; that gender egalitarianism is finally at our doorstep. Or is it really? While sex is biologically defined, gender is situationally constructed (Eschholz and Bufkin, 2001). One such platform for gender construction is movies, which are arguably the most seductive and powerful of artistic mediums (Hagedorn, 1994, pp.6). They manipulate society with subliminal messages that construct the gender of our generations (Hagedorn, 1994). Empathizing with the plight of women, I find the cause to highlight movies sexist pedagogy a worthy one, and hopefully, initiate the movement to circumvent sexist gender construction through media. It is intriguing to note that despite the recent progress that feminism has made, the pedagogy of gender construct that is embedded in contemporary movies still propagates gender inequality. This is due to the skewed portrayals in contemporary movies that
accentuate the devaluation of females and glorifies masculinity.

Females Devalued Women are continually being devalued and degraded in movies. While movies have long been in the business of objectifying women, technology has allowed contemporary movies to intensify this objectification. More so, contemporary movies have enhanced this visual process of sexual objectification and amplified the damage it brings to gender construction. The intensified eroticizing of the female body, coupled with technological advancements like high definition, are what Anneke Smelik (2009) terms as the pornofication of visual culture. In her article Lara Croft, Kill Bill, and the battle for theory in feminist film studies, contemporary movies fetishized the womans body and portrayed her as increasingly more naked and erotic
Page | 1

WRIT001_G5_ChiamEnQuanJustin_Assignment03 (Smelik, 2009). This portrayal enhances the objectification of women and in effect further detriments female gender construction. Gaye Tuchman (1979) agrees with this notion in her article Womens Depiction by the Mass Media, in which she describes how the internalization of the eroticized female as a role model, would lead to the devaluation of women by defining her in terms of men. This definition fuels the degradation of females by encouraging males to objectify her body and devalue her sex. More than that, this definition teaches the female to objectify and devalue herself (Tuchman, 1979). Hence, we see a two-pronged effect of this devaluation; one on the general audience and the other specifically on the female. Moreover, with this new found ability to scrutinize the female form in its perfection, society is led to strive for increasingly unattainable forms of beauty. Men will lust for this perfection while women will strive for it. The problem arises when men are consistently malcontented and women undergo dangerous combinations of diets, starvations, colon irrigation, laxatives and fitness bulimia (Smelik, 2009, pp. 183) to achieve an unnatural beauty made possible only by surgery and digital manipulation (Smelik, 2009, pp. 183). Essentially, this visual emphasis breeds a mindset in society that overvalues female physical beauty and undervalues everything else worthwhile about her. In the article Asian Women in Film: No Joy, No Luck, Jessica Hagedorn (1994) refers to this mindset as the superficial trappings of gender (pp.78), agreeing with both Smelik (2009) and Tuchman (1979) that women are widely objectified and trivialized in films. When internalized, this concept causes society to value women superficially, degrading her worth and ultimately widening the gender equity gap. Furthermore, Hagedorn (1994) also points out the dragon lady/lotus blossom dichotomy in movies which is similar to the virgin/vamp dichotomy that Eschholz and Bufkin (2001) espoused. In their paper Crime in the Movies: Investigating the Efficacy of Measures of Both
Page | 2

WRIT001_G5_ChiamEnQuanJustin_Assignment03 Sex and Gender for Predicting Victimization and Offending in Film, Sarah Eschholz and Jana Bufkin (2001) highlight the dichotomy where females who are servile and traditionally submissive are good while those who are scheming and sexually provoking are bad. These feminine stereotypes are so widely and repeatedly paraded in movies that they have become one of the few available archetypes of female gender construct. They present themselves as deleterious role models (Tuchman, 1979, pp. 531); to be good, the female must be submissive to the will of men and to be bad the female must be promiscuous, scheming and independent. Incidentally, women who trespass these good gender boundaries are often dealt
with violence or end in tragic demises. (Eschholz and Bufkin, 2001) This is confirmed by

Hagedorns (1994) recount of the Jade Cobra girls who symbolize the rebellion against male dominance and paid dearly for it with their lives (Hagedorn, 1994). These female archetypes convey a message that breeds the inferiority of women to men and sends a message to women; either submit or die. As Lena Lee (2008) shows us in her article Understanding Gender through Disneys Marriages: A Study of Young Korean Immigrant Girls, adolescent females internalize such sexist concepts from good archetypes in Disney movies to conclude that only a man can be someone or do something (Lee, 2008, pp.15), while women are responsible for the trivial. This dichotomy confines women to the will of men, while to claim independence is generally taboo because of the punishment that comes with it. In sum, the aforementioned female archetypes widen the gender equity gap by breeding female inferiority. Females: Mens Image One might argue that the movie genres with lead female heroines do in fact empower women. Seemingly empowering female archetypes actually exalt masculinity and emphasize the divide of gender. At a cursory glance, the recent influx of female archetypes that exhibit grace,
Page | 3

WRIT001_G5_ChiamEnQuanJustin_Assignment03 power and poise in contemporary movies seem to empower women. The likes of Salt, Charlies Angels and Tomb Raider are but the tip of the iceberg of contemporary movies with female heroines at the helm. What these butt-kicking babes embody actually delineates the celebration of masculinity. The female protagonist relies on her far superior physical prowess to fell multitudes of enemies in often violent and gory fashion (Smelik, 2009). This exhibits what Gaye Tuchman (1979) calls feminine machisma (pp.537), which is the adoption of the masculine traits like violence, power and strength by females. This conveys a message that to succeed, one needs to become more masculine. Eschholz and Bufkin (2001) go on to state that society is constructed in a way that certain social characteristics will give rise to differential treatments. Individuals exhibiting masculine traits will likely be treated with respect while exhibiting feminine behavior impliesa certain vulnerability, signaling a need for protection and direction (Eschholz and Bufkin, 2001, pp. 658). So instead of empowering the female, what these heroines are actually doing is simply telling women to be more manly. While this shift in gender characteristics may not always be a bad thing as extolled by the increased female participation in college sports (Eschholz and Bufkin, 2001), this may cause the inevitable conclusion that men will always be more successful than women. That men have utter dominance over women in the field of physique is an axiom of biology since time immemorial. Blame it on testosterone for physical prowess and violent tendencies, but to associate masculine traits with success is to handicap feminism in the battle for equality. Truly empowering female role models should flee as far as possible from the only thing men can claim utter dominion over; the physical form, especially in this era of intellect where it really does not matter that much anymore.

Page | 4

WRIT001_G5_ChiamEnQuanJustin_Assignment03 Likewise, in movies where women are portrayed as bosses or leaders and where there is a distinct lack of masculine violence involved, the portrayal is still symbolic of masculinity. The New Woman as cleverly coined by Tuchman (1979), is one who does not want to work for the boss, date the boss, or even marry the boss: she wants to be the boss (pp.537). While there is nothing demeaning or degrading in pursuing economic and corporate excellence, this appeal of the New Woman with shirt buttonedeyeliner tastefully removed (Tuchman, 1979, pp.537) undermines feminism by relating achievement with the economically successful gray-suitedupward-mobile corporate woman (Tuchman, 1979, pp.537). Essentially, this urges woman to strive towards becoming an image of man; masculine, authoritative and bureaucratic, diverting the desire to succeed the feminine way. Again we see the subtle celebration of masculinity. One might suggest that the genre of chick flicks provide ample archetypes of female empowerment that steer clear of violence or masculine traits and is therefore pushing feminism forward. The truth of the matter is that these feel good movies do detract from the norm of masculinity-exalting film culture. However, Natalie M. Thompson (2007) in her article The Chick Flick Paradox brings to light the fact that these chick flicks lump together an entire genders interest into one genre (pp.44). It highlights the perception that all women strive for the same Hollywood clichs. What this does is it reduces the alternatives that females ought to have, giving way to just what the majority wants. It is the symbolic annihilation (Tuchman, 1979, pp.533) by media. The problem with this is that when women internalize these concepts as norms, they become victims of consumerism, unconsciously playing a part in the game of advanced capitalism (Tuchman, 1979). Just like how the adolescent girls in Lena Lees (2008) studies recognized the unexplained imbalances in the reality of women, they account for the differences with preferences, desires, ability or natural disposition (pp.16). These seemingly
Page | 5

WRIT001_G5_ChiamEnQuanJustin_Assignment03 harmless chick flicks are really dictating women as individuals and consumers, using womens self-denial as a shield against the inconvenient truth that they are mere pawns on the chessboard. This notion is reinforced by the fact that while only three percent of Hollywood cinematographers are females (Thompson, 2007), there is a vast expanse of chick flick films that claim to address feminine issues and problems. Ironically, the male directors are telling women what problems women should be facing and how women should go about solving them. Thus, we see a widening of the gender equity gap once more. Females Not Feminists The pertinent question remaining is why does the movie industry, which is driven by equal proportions of male and female consumerisms, present such skewed representations of gender construction? The obvious answer to why contemporary movies reek of sexist connotations is because they reflect the societal sentiment that women themselves do not want to be equal to men. In The Failure of Feminism? Young Women and the Bourgeois Feminist Movement in Weimar Germany 1918-1933, Elizabeth Harvey (1995) shows us that not all young and educated women seek corporate and economic excellence, choosing rather the development of traditional familial ties. Lee (2008) shows us that Disney movies convey the message that gender restrictions for females transcends socioeconomic status, while it is vice
versa for the males (Lee, 2008). This ideology agrees with Harvey (1995) and inculcates life

objectives in adolescent individuals that are gender-specific; males will pursue economic success, whilst females aim for the most obvious validation of her existence reproduction and the general welfare and sustenance of the family unit.

Page | 6

WRIT001_G5_ChiamEnQuanJustin_Assignment03 Incidentally, the choices that women make to differentiate achievement from mens definition; economic success (Tuchman, 1979), has led them to fill the lower echelons of society simply for the fact that the rich becomes powerful and the poor becomes oppressed. One observes an ironical tenet, where women veer away from masculinity and economic success, but crash into the wall of poverty. We see a vicious dyadic cycle that feminisms woes revolve around; the oppressions by poverty and by men. Depending on the social situation native to the era, society deals with the women question in its own way (Harvey, 1995, pp.9) and constructs the gender of its new generations accordingly. This may well be the reason why contemporary movies are allowed to continue widening the gender divide. In conclusion, contemporary movies are propagating gender inequality because they devalue women, and in the few instances where women succeed, masculinity is still the underlying key. More than that, movies propagate gender inequality simply because not all women want equality. Perhaps, this is something Dilma Rousseff might want to think about before continuing her fight for feminism. 1998 words

References Eschholz, S. & Bufkin, J. (2001).Crime in the Movies: Investigating the Efficacy of Measures of Both Sex and Gender for Predicting Victimization and Offending in Film. Sociological Forum, 16 (4), 655-676.
Page | 7

WRIT001_G5_ChiamEnQuanJustin_Assignment03 Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/684828 Accessed on 25 June 2010 Harvey, Elizabeth. 1995. "The Failure of Feminism? Young Women and the Bourgeois Feminist Movement in Weimar Germany 1918-1933." Central European History (Brill Academic Publishers) 28, no. 1: 1. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed November 6, 2010). Hagedorn, J. (1994). Asian women in film: no joy, no luck. Ms. Magazine, 4 (4), 237-244. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.libproxy.smu.edu.sg/pqdlink? did=1715914&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=44274&RQT=309&VName=PQD Accessed on 6 Jul 2010 Lee, L. (2008). Understanding Gender through Disneys Marriages: A Study of Young Korean Immigrant Girls. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36, 11-18 doi: 10.1007/s10643-008-0260-5 Retrieved from www.springerlink.com/index/605667837j830r33.pdf Accessed on 28 June 2010 Smelik, A. (2009). Lara Croft, Kill Bill, and the Battle for Theory in Feminist Film Studies in R. Buikema & I. van der Tuin (Eds.), Doing Gender in Media, Art and Culture (178-192). New York: Routledge Thompson, Natalia M. 2007. "The Chick Flick Paradox: Derogatory? Feminist? Or Both?." Off Our Backs 37, no. 1: 43-45. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed November 6, 2010). Tuchman, G. (1979). Womens Depiction by the Mass Media. Signs, 4 (3), 528-542 Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3173399 Accessed on 28 April 2010

Page | 8