Lack of trust vs. abusive, invasive, obsessive behavior. Which is the more urgent problem? The gender double standard at work.
Having been away from grad school for a while and deep into the job search, I have been exposed…or perhaps, saturated… to the new fall season of daytime TV. As I have been beating away on my laptop keyboard entering my work history for the 100th or 200th time, I have been becoming increasingly aware of the old yet new themes that seem to dominate this viewing season: female traditionalism.
I have identified these themes before in previous posts, such as with Dr. Phil; the prevalence of white men telling all manner of women how to live, eat, dress and generally behave. Daytime TV is a fascinating lens into the popular culture of the demographic of viewers likely to be viewing this kind of media: stay at home mothers and the unemployed or night employed. This kind of media overflows with gender and sexual stereotypes and assumptions, which have devastating effects on real human relationships. Talk TV that focuses on paternity tests, such as the Maury Show, are replete with sexual and gendered double standards. I have heard time and time again on these shows, women crying out in frustration how they sacrificed everything for their man, and that they were still cheated on or called names like slut, whore and bitch. What I do not hear is men saying they sacrificed anything, much less their friends and family, which illustrates the gendered social double standard of women giving up for men but not the reverse. Hearing women say this on these shows doesn’t stir up much of a fuss with the TV cast or the audience either, likely because it has been sufficiently normalized through mass media and other social institutions. I mean, of course women lose when they couple with men! They don’t even typically keep their own last names. Oh wait, those names were likely their father’s name anyway, but hey, that’s normal, isn’t it?
Sometimes, cheating trumps mental and physical abuse. But which is the crime and which is bad behavior?
The sexual double standard perhaps gets the most limelight on daytime TV however, with most shows centered on marital or relationship infidelity. The way this unsavory behavior is framed on daytime TV is nearly on par with a real criminal act; women bring their men on the Steve Wilkos show to get them lie detector tests for cheating, while after questioning is it revealed that the women are actually physically and mentally abused –apparently a secondary issue to the real social crime of infidelity. Often, when women discover through a lie detector test that their man is having sex with others outside of the relationship, they rise to anger and even violence, but return to the men over time (women are more “forgiving?”). When men discover that their woman has cheated, the relationship is more likely to be over and irreconcilable. And ironically, women know this. I heard one woman say to her husband on a talk show, “…if I were the one who was cheating, you would leave me in a heartbeat.” To these men, women cheating are an aberration or an indication of a mental problem (low self-esteem), while male cheating is normal. Ah, there’s that word ‘normal’ again.
Sometimes, men who appear on talk TV openly discuss their expectation of the sexual double standard, even flaunt it, saying that its “different” when women cheat and typically use the fact that women get pregnant as a reason for this discrimination (they bear more responsibility for sexual behavior). Of course, the sexual double standard goes both ways; in the case of men, they are often accused of cheating or sexual activity with others outside of the relationship, regardless of the evidence, since it is assumed that men are more likely than women to cheat.
“How to find, keep and understand a man” (Because women evidently need help with this)
These sexual and gendered myths are especially prevalent on the new talk show, Steve Harvey, which appears to have two main segments. The first half of the show demonstrates Harvey’s apparently innate ability (since he has no formal training in relationships or counseling) to provide advice to women about men, relationships and their personal lives. Women (typically), stand up and direct a personal question at him -in which he makes humorous remarks about and answers- filled with assumptions and myths about perceived differences between men and women. The second half is filled with Harvey humorously interacting and participating with sponsors invited on the show to demonstrate products, everything from food and weight loss equipment to clothing. The bulk of the dialogue of the show is directed at men and women and the way they act towards each other, with an emphasis on women acting in certain ways to prevent upsetting and chasing men away while male advice tends to revolve around being more romantic. Harvey seems to be convinced that a strong understanding of male and female innate differences can lead to a successful relationship and social life, as these differences should be acknowledged and respected.
As I have said in posts before, social science and biological tests reveal that men and women are actually surprisingly similar in how they think and especially how they feel-what creates the changes we generally notice in society are the very different way we are socialized since birth, both intentionally and unintentionally. However Harvey frequently conflates biological difference and socialization, often using rhetoric such as “hard-wired”, “made that way” and “just that way” to elaborate why men do things that women do not understand, or vice-versa. Harvey often relies on perceived internal qualities of men, such as the desire to hunt, chase and be competitive, to relate to women why they are unsuccessful with men in their lives.
Appropriately, even the text in the book is gendered, with the “lady” part written in pink and the “man” part in blue. Why can’t she be a “woman” and not a “lady”? Why isn’t “man” ever synonymous with “boy”? Women become ladies while men are always men.
So, why in the world is this kind of talk TV so prevalent? I mean, when we pull back the lens and think to ourselves about the appropriateness of a man telling women how to behave and think in order to keep men in their lives, isn’t that kind of ridiculous? Yes, it’s ridiculous; the issues here are much deeper than men vs. women or gender binaries. But why is it all over the TV? Are women just sheep? Nope, actually, the sociological viewpoint can provide insight, especially located in a study about why male-centered jobs, such as deep sea fishing and gold miners have become so popular in recent years.
In the 2009 Journal of Popular Culture (42(3); pp.541-553), ”Monster Masculinity: Honey, I’ll Be In The Garage Reasserting My Manhood” by Peter Tragos, the author illuminates the social changes in recent decades that have complicated gender roles, and how men and women are now expected to not only have traditional gender roles but also “progressive” roles from the other gender. The incredible strain this paradox creates, nurtures a desire in individuals to a return to what seems like a simpler social situation. Thus the emergence of hyper-masculine reality TV shows which clearly and definitely defines masculinity as the inverse and utter lack of anything feminine; the ultra-dangerous deep sea fishing with “brave” men fighting a war with the ocean and the machine that is their ship, and the innovative, “tough” guys who make monster Harleys –not a shred of softness or femininity in sight -and that is exactly the point. So what does that have to do with our women and talk TV issue?
In the same vein, changing gender roles have complicated that way women feel about themselves and how they relate to men. The massive bulk of western history has defined women as being subsidiaries of men, property and under the control of the men in their lives. The prevalence of this kind of talk TV harkens back to this time, under the historical fallacy, which is the false assumption that the past were the “good ‘ol days”. So, much like men, women are seeking order in our transitory society, and the order that makes the most sense is the order of the past. The past just happens to be oppressive, sexist and undermining, just like the history of western masculinity (just less obviously).
While it is true that the social differences between men and women can be important as they make up our social reality in which we must navigate and bring our children into, it is important to also understand that these differences are not innate. The pressure of rigid gender roles and the chaos of multi-defined gender roles should not overshadow that emotional, social and downright human needs of individuals, whether male or female or the entire spectrum of genders in the world. Rigid gender roles, such as the ones that Harvey discusses and insist on in his talk show, can be dangerous, not just undermining. Framing men as wild, sexual creatures that respond –even without control- to visual stimuli can lead to justifying sexual assault and rape against women who “ask for it”. Also, focusing on what are essentially male or essentially female insults and neglects people who do not fit into those archetypes, fostering an “us vs. them” mentality towards the perceived difference. Of course, I think that Harvey’s personal philosophies are also informed by Christianity, which likely has an effect on his perception of gender and sexuality, but that is another post.
*Whew!* Well, that was a mouthful and probably a repeat of things I have said before.
Interesting post, I found your blog yesterday from another blog I read. I don’t really understand the emphasis on gender being important. To me, I am myself, an individual with my own preferences, some of which are typically female others typically male and others neutral. Obviously gender is part of my identity, but to me not the most important part. I have always been very independent minded though. It makes me wonder whether gender really matters more to most people than it does to me, or whether that is part of society telling people that it matters, as well as how they ‘ought’ to behave accordingly. If that makes sense?
As for how much Christianity may have affected things, that is a whole big knotty question again. Different denominations have had different interpretations and many have developed their own traditions which are as much if not more influenced by societal norms than by the Bible. What was important to the early church when the New Testament was written was salvation, real spiritual issues. Society had (and still has) so many imperfections that they can only be dealt with a few at a time. The most important issues were about spreading the news of salvation and about how the new Christians should relate to each other with love, and of course about being allowed to worship their God. Within the church everyone was supposed to be equal: Galatians 3:28 says ‘there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.’
But those people still had to survive in the society of their day. Change happens gradually; although slavery for example is self-evidently against Christian values that was not the most urgent thing to tackle. It would have been too major a social upheaval, the Romans would not have stood for it. They had enough trouble with the more central insistence that they not be forced to worship other gods. Equally, gender issues were not the most urgent problem, although Jesus certainly treated women as human beings of equal value with men. So just because Paul advised people to fit in and not rock the boat on issues whose time had not yet come does not mean that the church today should maintain the outdated gender relationships which were the norm 2000 years ago. Our church has a female pastor, which is not controversial at all in some denominations but highly controversial and unacceptable in others.
Hi! Thanks for your viewpoint and comment; the reason I emphasize gender is because research in sociology heavily supports (and is in fact a foundation of sociology) that three major aspects of a person influences their “social location”: their race, class and their gender. The intersection of these three fundamental and unchanging (generally) aspects of a person are among their most salient and powerful influences of how a person will experience their life in society.
You may not consider gender to be a strong part of your social life, but gender has been demonstrated as one of the most meaningful categories in human society, beginning with the concept of the difference between sex and gender. While sex is a biological trait, gender is a learned and reinforced concept that communicates through symbolism to other people in society in meaningful ways.
I encourage you to try this exercise: the next time you are shopping, take a look at the children’s toy sections. What patterns do you see there? Often, you will see that the sex of a child seems to suggest a certain preference for types of toys. Do you see images of boys or dark colors in the aisle with the dolls, Barbies and baby dolls? How about images of girls, the colors pink and light purple or domestic toys such as toy ovens in the boys aisle? Have you ever encountered a child that did not conform this this model (boys who want to play with dolls, perhaps), and hasn’t it been a cause for alarm for some parents? Just this simple exercise suggests that gender is important enough to separate and even police the ways that children play.
Oh I’m not denying society tries its best to imprint gender roles on people, I’m more wondering how things would be if it didn’t
As a child I played with all sorts of toys, neutral ones like lego, female things like dressing up and male ones like toy cars. My parents must have encouraged us to not be stereotyped I suppose. Maybe if I’d had a brother my Dad wouldn’t have tried to interest me in mechanics and electronics 
Also I guess it’s easier for a girl as it’s more socially acceptable to be a tomboy than it is for boys to like dolls. Funnily enough I just saw an episode of Antiques Roadshow where a young man had a collection of 2000 Barbie dolls and had started his collection as a child. He even had a tattoo of one!
I tend to think people would be happier if they could just be allowed to be themselves rather than being told how they should behave just because of their dangly bits or lack of them. A while ago we read a book about whether you have a male or female brain which was quite interesting (as you might guess my brain came out male! I think it’s to do with the Myers Briggs T/F if you know much about that) but one thing it said was they did this experiment with puppies (don’t worry, no puppies get hurt!) When put in a room with puppies, men whose behaviour was stereotypically male did not play with the puppies, all the others did, but women with stereotypically female behaviour did not enjoy it, they seemed to be doing it because they believed it was what was expected of them. The people of both genders who were not following stereotypes both enjoyed playing with the puppies. But maybe some people prefer being told how to behave, it saves them from having to think for themselves. And other people love telling people how they should behave
I see it as a symptom related to the very binary view in all the political ads and discussion I’m being bombarded with lately. People instinctively like to categorize, and they feel better when they can have a very black and white, good vs. bad, “this is just how it is” view of life. The media panders to this base instinct, and feeds it, because it makes them money. I like to think the majority of people do know that nothing in life is actually that clear-cut, but sometimes when I hear people describing a politician they don’t intend to vote for, I wonder. I guess all those of us who do know better can do is turn off the t.v. and quietly try to surround ourselves with other more analytically-minded folk.
Very good points; the binary construction of people and issues are a consequence of many social phenomenon. In sociology, we discuss how stereotypes and binary identities are formed and perpetuated in the mass media due to its necessary homogeny to appeal to as many consumers as possible. The much of the media often breaks down complex issues or neglects the multidimensional character of people and issues to create standardized programs. In that respect, I agree that it is driven by financial gain. Also, these nasty political ads we have all been suffering though really reflect a sound understanding of the typical media consumer: a person that has an 8th grade reading level or below, does not follow or value politics and did not gain a critical, analytic viewpoint through public education. Not only do those ads distort facts, they rarely just present facts and ask the public to make a sound decision. They tell the viewer what to think after they present a slanted story. I think the state of politics (among other things), both in in Washington and among the public, reflect our very quickly transitioning global society. I am fascinated at how our society may change in the next 20-30 years (ignoring whether it is for better or worse).
I generally agree with you that people tend to know that social/political issues are more complex than presented in the media, but at the same time, I am influenced by Cultivation Theory (George Gerbner formed this theoretical framework and analysis in the 1960s), which (contemporarily) posits that the more people rely on television for their information on aspects of society (such as crime, ethnicities, politics, etc), the more likely they will develop a viewpoint that is parallel with what the media presents. Gerbner’s theory for example demonstrated that people who watch a great deal of television tend to think people are more likely to be victimized by crime and that other people generally cannot be trusted. His analysis is also called “Mean World Syndrome”, based on his aforementioned findings. According to him, people who consume heavy amounts of television live in a “scary world”. Gerbner’s theory can also be applied to the political advertisements. When you hear those people who frame the president and the candidate in black and white terms, you are probably hearing the result of a person or people who are getting the vast majority of their information from the television, and are subject to the theatrical, binary and slanted presentation of the media, which of course has a specific agenda: to sell a particular viewpoint. This is why we must foster a critical lens on society and seek to find opposing opinions on issues, rather than seek to reinforce them by selecting media, information and programs that only support our position (but I bet you and those more analytically-minded folk already feel this way!).