Are lad mags funny?

The issue of “lad mags” is an interesting one to me because it seems that many issues that are debated in terms of men’s magazines seem to also be discussed in terms of women’s magazines in addition to various other topics that are relevant only to men’s magazines. Gill talks about how it is difficult to create a men’s magazine that caters to a general population that most readers will be interested in. This challenge is also present in women’s magazines as we saw from the various magazines that we analyzed in class which each catered to a certain type of woman.

                With the growing focus on masculinity and issues of masculinity in the arts, the topic of men’s magazines seems to be one that could heat up fast. As we have discussed, there is a perception of a “crisis of masculinity” in today’s society and the question of how magazine staff and editors may deal with this possible crisis could be a challenging one to tackle. While  there are similar issues at hand with men’s versus women’s magazines, there is a large distinction between the two in that women’s magazines tend to be more oriented toward the attainment and maintenance of “femininity” while men’s magazines are taking a turn towards a more playful approach encouraging pleasure, consumption, and irony.

Lad mags have sparked some controversy about whether they are genuinely funny or simply offensive and problematic. UniLad was forced to pull a "surprise" rape segment and other lad mags have been called out for offensive segments; however, it is argued that these segments are not intended to be taken seriously and that a unique sense of humor/irony is needed to fully understand them. However, while humor may be present, it may be more harmful than funny.

Lad Culture: funny or simply degrading?

Having previously analyzed women's and men's magazines in a Women's Studies course, I am sadly aware of the sexist differences between the two genres. Why is it that men's magazines are all about images of sexy women and improving their bodies for themselves whereas women's magazines are constantly telling women to alter their appearances and learn new ways to please men?

After reading about the 20th century rise in masculinity present in men's magazines this question makes a little more sense to me. Clearly men became aware of the recent rise in empowered women, in the workplace and at school, and felt they needed to regain some of the control they used to acquire. By objectifying women and portraying them as unimportant sexual objects, I can see how men might've felt they were regaining this lost power.

How they choose to reclaim this superiority, however, is truly appalling. It's unfortunate that women can rise in power through academics and hard work, but men must laugh and degrade women in order to feel more like "real, powerful man."

'Cause You Were Born This Way, Baby

Throughout the first season of Glee, the series could arguably be seen as a show that conforms to society’s stereotypes whereby, “it turns its characters into what our society expects”. Finn’s character in the show can be seen as meeting the socially constructed definition of ideal masculinity such as being heterosexual and involved in sports, whereas Quinn's character can be seen as meeting the societal definition of being the ideal female.

Upon examining Chris Colfer, I argue that he is the most transformed character over the course of the following seasons, moving being a man ashamed of his homosexuality to completely embracing it and becoming a hyper-sexualized, gay icon. Kurt begins the series as a boy who feels the need to lie about his sexuality, so much so that he when he is caught by his father for wearing a unitard and dancing to the song “Single Ladies” by Beyonce in episode 4, he decides to lie to his dad that he is wearing that costume as part of football training. This scene directly exemplifies the social stigma attached to the idea of being homosexual, where in the case of Kurt, he feels the obligation to maintain a certain level of masculinity while at the same time covering up for his feminineness.

As the series progresses, the audience begins to see Kurt taking on a more sexual-liberating role by embracing his sexual orientation and flaunting it. Within the blogpost by Allison McCracken entitled, “Glee: Kurt and the Casting Couch,” she gives the example of Kurt’s performance of Lady Gaga’s “Born This Way,” in which the song represents Kurt’s coming out not as a gay man but as a sexually confident one, ready to play. He has transitioned from a character afraid to show his true self to even his family, to a man completely comfortable with who he is and can be viewed as a role model for young male audiences. At the same time, Kurt’s acceptance of the cultural feminine has made him an icon of identification and desire for the girls who can sing along with him, and who share his feelings of isolation, longing, and gender-as-performance. Kurt traditionally sings songs originally by female artists and is viewed as the more “feminine” male in his relationship with actor Darien Criss. Kurt no longer feels the need to overtly express masculine traits in order to be seen as a “true man” or be accepted by society, he is a character who moves between the gender binaries and assumes several identities over the course of the series.

This quote below is from an episode in the 3rd season, and I thought it emplifies the point I am making above that Kurt is able to be anyone he wants and does not have to fit into the structured, socially constructed binaries of society. He is being accused of not being manly enough and Burt is describing how he assumes multiple identities.

Burt Hummel: Dude you're gay.
Kurt Hummel: Excuse me?
Burt Hummel: You're gay. And you're not like Rock Hudson gay, you're really gay. You sing like Dianna Ross and and you dress like you own a magic chocolate factory.
Kurt Hummel: I don't know if you've noticed, but no one's really looking for a Kurt Hummel type to play the opposite Kate Hudson in a rom com. I'm just me.

The Irony of "Bromance"

Like Sasha, I also have a problem with many of the examples of bromance that were brought up. What exactly constitutes a bromance, and what makes that different from a "normal" friendship between two guys?

I agree with the author that the show Bromance does, at times, establish itself as gay-friendly. For example, having Michael on the show is not an issue at all and is depicted and received as natural. However, the show also proves to be the opposite (for example, the "awkward" and "uncomfortable" hottub eliminations).

There seem to be some Foucauldian elements here that would prove that Jenner's show is not as gay-friendly as it may seem. The whole bromance theme that we see in the show as well as the times it pops up in sitcoms like Seinfeld further emphasizes the social stigma attached to homosexuality and that we must classify ourselves as gay or straight and perform our sexuality as such. Just the fact that we had to coin the term "bromance" suggests that homosexuality is still not as "normal" as heterosexuality. The term suggests that there is a grey area between male homosexuality and heterosexuality, but that men in this grey area are not (I repeat, NOT) gay.

Men in these shows get very defensive and make sure others know that they are not (God forbid!!!) gay. They are constantly checking themselves to make sure that their friendship or bromance is not crossing the metaphorical line between buddies and lovers. They often say things like, "We're not gay... not that there's anything wrong with that." ...Except that the characters in the examples given go out of their way to explain and prove to others that they are straight.

If our society was completely free of homophobia, there would be no desire for straight men to prove to others that they are straight and not gay. I even think that the term "bromance" would not exist.

Ahh, the Bromance

I had a real problem with a lot of the examples that were brought up in this article, but I’ll try to keep myself from ranting. To begin with, however, I would like to ask a simple question: why is it that as soon as intimate male bonds are depicted on television a name must be assigned to this concept in order to draw a distinction between friendship and homosexuality? As far as I know, no term has been coined regarding close female bonds – we don’t feel the need to announce to the world that WE ARE NOT LESBIANS. Why is this cultural phenomenon of “bromance” so easily condoned by the media and by society in general?

Our writer begins by stating that homosexuality has increasingly become more acceptable by society over the past couple decades…so why is there such a need to clarify this difference? The real problem to me is that, it seems, men believe that by showing emotion, care, and consideration for one another they are emasculating themselves. Close male bonds have always existed: why is it then that so recently men need an “excuse” to behave a certain way? Why is it that now they fear being mistaken as gay? A logical explanation I suppose would be that gay characters have received greater roles recently, or that acceptance of homosexuality IS in fact more common and thus men are fearful of being “seduced” into this lifestyle, as this is one of the criticisms of homosexuality that consistently comes up. To me, it’s just ridiculous that this term even exists. Men can just be friends – they don’t need to be “cool” by defining their friendships as “bromances.”

As for the reality TV show Bromance that acted as the central example in this essay, please give me a break and PLEASE tell me that nobody actually watched the show. This just seems like a pathetic excuse for a celebrity male to gain attention, to promote advertisements, and to perpetuate the stereotypes that are a result of heteronormativity. Congratulations – you had a gay contestant…you didn’t kick him off the show. Nonetheless, the contests that were conducted are not only misogynistic but they are also reinforcing the dominant discourse of the heterosexual male.

Sorry, but I couldn’t really help from ranting.

Motorcycles=Masculinity?

I found this article on American Copper to be very interesting. In the time of a decrease in blue collar "traditional" masculine job it has led to a a hit to the America male psyche. Because of men's inability to prove typical norms of masculinity that comes along with physical labor, such as dominance, control and working a "man's job," resulted in the creation of alternative modes of expression. Carroll offers the symbol of the motorcycle in American Chopper as such an alternative. In addition it has come to represent a symbol of rebellion and masculinity, part of the Wild Wild West, and in times such as post-World War II.
In other forms of media the motorcycle has come to represent this as well, even if just subtly. Like in last week's episode of Pretty Little Liars, one of the main characters', Spencer, ex-boyfriends, Toby, comes riding out in the middle of the street with the helmet during the night. Although the audience cannot see his face, Spencer makes it's clear when shading her eyes, she asks to know one in particular, "Toby?" He stops and then turns his motorcycle around without saying anything. Even though this is such a seemingly small detail in this overarching show, this moment shows that Toby has the power. Another such example is seen in the more recent Batman movies. When Batman's not riding in the Batmobile, he'll hop onto his super-emasculated motorcycle, further asserting his dominance and rebellion by wearing his mask and darting in between cars to save the world. As seen by both these media examples, the motorcycle can also represent a sense of mystery, which can be used in many aspects, such as to increase the allure of a male figure. 

Who said men can't be dramatic -- Men Soaps

Carroll highlights the Men’s Soaps Automotive Television Programming and Contemporary Working-Class Masculinities and does a great job with using American Chopper as a great example. WE can immediately distinguish such working class men, being burly, chizzled, aggressive, innovative, and independent identifying with blue collar. In this clip we quickly see such working class men being defined as masculine.  As America Chopper highlight working class men and reinforce the honor and recognition working class men should have they quickly deter that by having such viewers of the soap operas create a realm of masculine interactions that add to the decoding of masculine and feminine. We see the, “Collapsing the separate spheres of public and private, work and home into pseudo-domestic world of fraternity and labor that is the OCC workshop, American Chopper relocates the franchise of masculinity.”

One of interesting the arguments Carroll presented was the counterculture going mainstream. Contradiction within the message we see of inspiring working class men to accept their occupation in society is essential just as great and cool as playing in the NBA, NFL and major leagues of Baseball. As they show a different man on television by embodying the working class man we also see the set up to have such working class men expose products such as motorcycles as a manly and popular purchase although such motorcycles they present are extremely expensive. We then see this contradiction of empowering working class men by also reminding them of their economic standing and how their goals should be centered on working to pay for such costly products. “The counterculture has gone mainstream; the motorcycle has gone from being a countercultural symbol of dissatisfaction with the traditional values.” We see a blue collared man living the financial life of the white collared business man.

Such white collared approaches do most certainly reinforce masculinity and along with whiteness it can really create a setting where such influences and effects are beyond not empowering working class men to be proud of their position in life. We see such effect in politics. Running across this quick ramification that such highlight in masculinity really draws women away and reinforces a patriarchal society.

The American Dream and a Shift in Working-Class Masculinities

I found that this article took on a very interesting perspective by analyzing American Chopper. Over the past few years, with the American economy in turmoil, we have seen a shift in TV shows reflecting this ideal of blue-collar work, and people still striving for the American Dream even when unemployment is still very high in this country. However, what this article observes is that the decline in traditional "masculine" jobs has led to a rise in insecurity in the American male psyche, and that American men are becoming increasingly marginalized in our society, so much so that its causing a "crisis to masculinity."

And I guess I honestly have to agree. While shows like American Chopper are presenting, "idealized realm of masculine interaction that reproduces traditionally coded divisions of public and private, masculine and feminine, labor and leisure while updating those divisions in the face of the corrosive pressures of the neoliberal service economy" (p. 280) we are seeing more and more, TV shows where the stereotypical masculine identity it put into question or has shifted. Reality based shows such as, Interior Therapy with Jeff Lewis, It's a Brad Brad World, or Million Dollar Listing show this similar theme of striving for the American Dream, but it's taken from a much more gender fluid and more feminist viewpoint. So I could understand where there could be questions raised about this "crisis to masculinity" that we are seeing in the media, however, I wonder if this is even a threat at all, but rather just engaging more with the spectrum of gender roles and stereotypes that our culture possesses now?

Paul Teutul on The Celebrity Apprentice

I think that Paul Teutul Sr.’s appearance on the most recent season of The Celebrity Apprentice is interesting to think about in terms of Carroll’s argument about the significance of American Chopper.  Carroll discusses the changing economic climate in the United States and what this has meant for the idea of masculine professions.  The move away from an economy centered on labor to one that is service oriented has also meant a disappearance of traditionally masculine jobs, or jobs that involve hard labor.  The characters of American Chopper represent a nostalgic view of these traditionally masculine professions.  The employees of Orange County Chopper make their money through manual labor; they get their hands dirty and craft motorcycles from scratch.  They are also big, tough looking men that are undeniably representative of the traditional ideal of masculinity.

            That is why it is interesting that Paul Teutul Sr. is now appearing on The Celebrity Apprentice, where the work that he has to perform is based more on intellect than manual labor.  Teutul’s move from American Chopper to The Celebrity Apprentice mirrors the shift from an economy focused on manual labor to one that is centered on service and is more dependent on intellect.  Depending on how he is portrayed on the show, his appearance could also demonstrate the incompatibility of the traditional ideas about masculinity in a service-oriented society.  If he is portrayed as a joke or gets eliminated early, it would show how a working class individual is unable to succeed in the current economy.  The traditional idea of masculinity being tough and labor-oriented, this would also show that the typical idea of “masculine” must change in order to be successful in today’s society.  Teutul’s appearance on The Celebrity Apprentice could potentially become symbolic of the necessary change of the ideas of masculinity in modern society.

Are American Chopper and Cake Boss kind of similar?

In Carroll’s paper on “Men’s Soaps,” there were a few point that really stuck out to me and a few point that got me trying to think of other possible examples. Carroll states that American Chopper creates a world of blue-collar workers who perform skilled labor. This labor is always understood to be male. When I read this section about the masculinity of skilled, blue-collar labor, I could not help but think of a particular episode of The Office. Michael Scott goes to have a “man meeting” in the warehouse because there is a “women in the workplace” meeting being held in the office. Throughout the series, the warehouse workers are portrayed as strong, blue-collar, and masculine. Michael gathers all of his male employees, goes to the warehouse, and begins his meeting. However, there is a woman, Madge, who works in the blue-collar warehouse who Michael overlooks. Having watched this episode just yesterday, it was a very clear parallel to me that blue-collar workers are generally assumed to be male and their work, masculine.

Another aspect that Carroll touched upon was the success of American Chopper and what it can be attributed to. She says that, while part of the show’s success is partly based in the current hype surrounding reality television, another aspect of the show’s popularity comes from “its presentation of men at work and its production of a masculine family melodrama” (Carroll, Men’s Soaps, pp 266). I am wondering how the popularity of American Chopper compares to the popularity of Cake Boss – a show that also presents men at work in a family atmosphere; however, one could argue that the type of work in Cake Boss is more stereotypically feminine. While both shows portray men at work alongside family drama, the two shows will probably never be categorized together because of the portrayal of more “masculine” work in one versus the more “feminine” work in the other.  If ratings for both shows are similar, I would be interested in who the audiences are for these shows? My guess is that more men watch American Chopper and more women watch Cake Boss.

And speaking of audiences, the article quotes Clark Bunting saying, “We have some of the most affluent audience in the history of the network…” (pp 266). Maybe it is because the material for the last section of class is fresh in my mind, but I immediately thought, “I’d like to see that audience analysis!” I wonder who exactly is watching this show? How are they taking it in? Does it affect them in any way? Are there particular reasons – some which Carroll shed some light on (patriotism, crisis of masculinity) – that people watch the show?

He Just Needs the Right Broom

I am fascinated by the idea that masculinity exists as a foil to femininity and it is oftentimes portrayed in the media as such. Countless characters gain initial power and esteem based on masculine norms. The buff, stud of a man dressed in athletic gear with female arm candy are initially the character we “look up to” or see as some sort of authority. He is also the character that we expect to be brought down by his hyper-masculinity. Of course there are the easy examples of superhero flicks (of course phallo-centric) where the male, dominating hero encounters the limitations of the anaconda in pants and usually needs the sensibility of a woman to bring him back. It is so interesting that these are the images that sell; Mad Men is a show centered around and devoted to traditional masculine ideals and people eat it up! Of course, I love it to and I can watch it while recognizing the chauvinism, but how many people cannot or do no take the time to deconstruct it?

I want to focus on Hitch, I think Will Smith embodies masculinity in both his physical presence, but not in his relationship “techniques.” He is a male icon for nerdy guys that want to get laid or find love, but his “toxic masculinity” hinders him in his own romantic pursuits. He has been victimized by the same gender norms that he substantiates, because he cannot fulfill them when it comes to his own life. He almost sabotages his budding relationship, because he tries so hard to live up to his own scripted ideals of what a man is supposed to be in a relationship. The audience loves to watch him self-destruct using the same tenets that he has been brainwashing his clients with. Ironically, what he claims to be is almost a feminist ideal. He respects women and speaks about them lovingly, and yet he still takes on the knight in shining armor persona and expects to be the "one in charge" in many ways. No wonder people are up in arms about gender role portrayals in the media that affect men in the “real world;” male role models are limited to the body-builder on the Old Spice commercials, the guidos on Jersey Shore and the mixed messages of the romantic yet foolish, Hitch.

Toxic Masculinity in Mad Men and Friday Night Lights

         Marcotte’s article focused on television shows, such as Mad Men and Friday Night Lights, that appeared to celebrate masculinity and patriarchal power, but instead the plots encompassed toxic masculinity and the down fall of patriarchal power.  Although I have not seen much of Mad Men or Friday Night Lights, Marcotte’s article highlighted the story of men enjoying and celebrating their power and roles in life, until their realities shift and they find themselves in unfamiliar territory.  For Mad Men’s Don Draper, he finds himself without his family and job, while Eric Taylor of Friday Night Lights struggles with a new coaching job and his wife and daughter demanding more respect.  Why do these types of plots attract such a large audience and fan base?

            Personally, I would find myself drawn a show in which a character experiences a hard downfall, but then tries to undo his/her mistakes and grows to me an honorable and likeable character.  After reading Marcotte’s article, I believe I would find myself rooting for Don Draper and Eric Taylor because they are learning from the wrong doings and attempting to make changes no just for their benefits.  I think many viewers would have the same feelings towards the lead characters of these male dominant television shows.  There also appears to a large female fan base as well.  One commonality in these plots appears to be that a strong supporting female character comes to the rescue of the drowning lead male character.  Therefore, the presence of strong women in a male dominant television show may be the cause of a large female fan base.

            However, the most interesting part of the article was that dramas similar to that of Mad Men and Friday Night Light but instead with female leads have yet to achieve a large fan base and the popularity as dramas with male leads.  Instead, women are starting to dominate the comedic genre.  Marcotte suggests that society is not ready to deal with the questioning of gender roles and women being placed in dramatic and complex plots.  I hope that women find themselves in dramatic and complex roles in dramas sometime in the future, and are not limited to comedies.          

           

   

Mad Men vs. Lipstick Jungle and Funny Ladies

Reading Marcotte's article, "How to Make a Critically Acclaimed TV Show About Masculinity", made me realize something that I haven't really noticed before--I couldn't think of any TV shows that revolve solely around a woman or a group of women and their struggles.  I am sure there must be some show out there, but when I think of TV shows I mainly think of either a show revolving around a group of both men and women or shows that have men as their main characters.  This made me think of the show Lipstick Jungle, which ended after its second season in 2009 and was about a group of three powerful women in the workforce in New York City.  The show was about their struggles involving work life, their families, romance and other daily dilemmas.  Lipstick Jungle feels like a modern day version of Mad Men, in which women have full representation in the work place and they hold very high positions, along with the men.  Mad Men to me is a very interesting example of masculinity in the media and the male's struggle to deal with "the fantasy of patriarchal power" versus newly evolving male and female societal roles.

The article also made me think about the fact that many times, popular media that revolves around women is comedic.  Marcotte's point that "Perhaps the absurdities of being female in this modern era don't lend themselves well to drama, but have to be approached sideways, through comedy" was really interesting to me, because it seems like comedy is a way in which women have broken through and been able to be represented in the media, but that is just one way.  Thinking back on the "Funny Ladies" presentation, I was reminded of Bridesmaids and how it is completely about women and their lives, but it is presented to us through comedy and makes us laugh at some of the gender ideas in the movie, such as the scene we watched in class when they are all in the bridal shop.

Post-Feminism for Men

            I don’t watch a lot of television, and I watch even fewer movies. It is safe to assume that many of the names or titles thrown around in this class go straight over my head. However, I am an avid fan of Friday Night Lights and got extremely excited when I could relate to this article! I love a television show with characters I can root for, and it wasn’t until reading this article that I realized just why I find the characters to be so honorable and likable. I must admit, before enrolling in this course, I was rather oblivious to the compulsory messages of heterosexuality and gender norms being funneled to the public every second. Sure, I could point out overt sexist images or commentary, but it was the more subliminal messages that went unnoticed. I love the characters on Friday Night Lights because they maintain respect no matter what issue presents itself. The article states that “Friday Night Lights had become, arguably, not just an examination of masculinity but a show with an overt feminist agenda”. While reading this I thought how this could be perceived as a sort of post-masculinism. While tough, strong, handsome, rugged, and jock are all stereotypical connotations of masculinity, they can be possessed without also representing the traditional ideals of “manhood.” Eric Taylor is a definite “man’s man” (I can attest, my older brothers are obsessed!) but in the same vein, he goes against many typical “manly” gender norms as he takes on a female assistant and ultimately lets his wife lead the family out of Texas.  

            In another article, Do Young Men Need a New Kind of Masculinity?, Courtney Martin argues for a positive, masculine gender identity. She presents an idea for masculinity that seems very post- structualist as she writes that men, “have built identities that they see as "masculine," and these identities are satisfying for them. But the idea of a top-down "masculinity" for men to aspire to, of "models," just seems restrictive. Yes, young men need to see thoughtful, feminist men, especially if they're not yet truly comfortable with women. But said thoughtful, feminist men don't necessarily have to offer a new masculinity — rather, they can simply teach that how men understand their gender is up to them, and that they shouldn't feel the need to fit themselves into any particular mold.”

            While on Facebook last week I saw a photograph of a Marine sergeant kissing his boyfriend after returning from a six-month deployment to Afghanistan. I think that this picture presents a new form of masculinity that needs to be embraced. No one can argue that a Marine does not invoke traditional ideas of masculinity. However, this picture shows that what is masculine does not have to mean heterosexual thus changing what it means to be a man in this world.