Blog 9

The dehumanization of the male characters in House is a questionable occurrence. These male characters are not necessarily dehumanized but rather consistently tormented by House. This can be seen as a socializing message of the show; if one does not exude the degrading patriarchal dominance represented by House, then one is the object of degradation. Thus, this aspect of the show serves to perpetuate patriarchal values by playing on people’s desire to avoid degradation and tormenting. In summary, the dehumanization of the male characters is not as apparent as is how they are used to portray the supremacy of dominant patriarchal characters. They are not the object of sexist acts and sexist, objectified depictions (clothes, etc) to the extent that the female characters are. In addition, the male characters outnumber the female characters on the show, adding a visual confirmation of patriarchal male dominance illustrated throughout the show.

Cuddy’s relationship with House has connections to patriarchal ideals as well. Although Cuddy is the supervisor, she is not respected and holds little sway over House. Therefore, the relationship between these two portrays patriarchy and the idea that women, although possibly having a higher position of work authority, are still not worthy of male deference.

Also, as stated in my sixth blog, the actions depicted in the fan video (House grabbing Cuddy’s butt) allude to a possible attraction. This also displays, however, House’s dominance, control, and objectification of Cuddy and her body. This occurs both in obvious means, such as the grabbing of Cuddy’s butt, and through House’s comments. Thus, House portrays “systematic inequalities…that maintain women’s second-class status – culturally, economically, and politically” (Kirk and Okazawa-Rey 249). Such ideals, perpetuated by this show, have far reaching connections and implications for women. These ideals and socializing aspects contribute to the ‘normalization’ of abuse and degradation of women. In essence, “when we hear or express sexist jokes and other forms of misogyny [such as from shows like House], we may not recognize it” (Johnson 36) and in fact normalize it, thus leading to abuse and harassment.

Johnson, Allan G. “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us.” Women’s Lives: Multicultural Perspectives. Ed. Gwyn Kirk and Margo Okazawa-Rey. 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2007. 28-37.

Kirk, Gwyn and Margo Okazawa-Rey. “Violence Against Women.” Ed. Gwyn Kirk and Margo Okazawa-Rey. Women’s Lives: Multicultural Perspectives. 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2007. 249-263.

Lililo78. “Dr Cuddy – Bootylicious.” YouTube. 31 July 2007. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay-lvSwAJX0&feature=related>. 2 March 2009.

Peer Review Blog

The blogger, ajandrews, does well at providing various discussions relating to the relationship between Cuddy and House. She addresses Cuddy’s paradoxical position as that of a supervisor but also as a subject of House’s objectification and torment. Ajandrews could have strengthened her arguments, however, by connecting her topics to class readings more often. Instead of providing mainly personal observations, incorporating more quotes and information from class readings on patriarchy, media, and sexism would have bolstered her arguments.

In accordance with this, the blogger could have addressed how House contributes to the spread and perpetuation of patriarchal and oppressive ideals of dominant U.S. culture. In addition, the romantic relationships that have appeared and/or been alluded to over the course of the show would have been a good topic to discuss in greater detail. This topic could have been connected to various subjects discussed in class including sexuality, patriarchy, and gender expectations.

The blogger’s third blog best exemplifies topics we have discussed thus far in class, specifically Cuddy’s relationship with her foster baby and the problems faced by working mothers. This topic was often discussed in class and alludes to the lack of societal support systems available for working moms.

The blogger focuses mainly on the areas of patriarchy and gender stratification and associated roles. Race is another system of inequality apparent in House but not addressed in this blog. In addition, drawing from House and readings, a more in depth analysis of gender roles and sexism could have been included in order to make a more solid argument.

You (blogger) address that Cuddy wanted a child, but what about the problems she had loving the baby? How may this relate to dominant negative stereotypes of single motherhood and images professional women?

How do the romantic relationships that have emerged or that have been hinted to on the show play into gender stereotypes and patriarchy?

Do you think this show is a reflection of patriarchy in dominant society, a mechanism to perpetuate patriarchy, or both? How is this so?

ajandrews. House. 23 March, 2009. Blogger.com. <http://www.ajandrews-house.blogspot.com>/. 4 April 2009.

Episodes from season one (“Honeymoon”) and five (“The Softer Side”), although differing in terms of new characters, continue to portray patriarchal ideals in various ways. In seasons one and five the male to female ratio of main characters, especially within House’s team is skewed, giving men the majority position. Additionally, in both episodes analyzed, the sole female member of the team is depicted as ‘wrong’ in her ideas, actions, and/or conclusions. In “Honeymoon”, Cameron’s diagnosis is admonished by House and ultimately proved wrong. In “The Softer Side”, Dr. Hadley otherwise known as thirteen, goes against instructions in revealing information to a patient. She is subsequently proven wrong and chastised by the patient’s parents and Cuddy. This speaks to Allan Johnson’s concept that, according to patriarchal society, “females can’t be trusted” (35). It also relates to the patriarchal idea that men are, according to dominant society, considered more intelligent and competent in professional matters. Thus such a media portrayal attempts to legitimize the gender segregation that exists in professional occupations. In addition, the fact that Dr. Hadley is called thirteen, a dehumanizing term that objectifies her existence as a person, further bolsters the shows overall male dominant orientation.

Both episodes also feature a theme of relationships concerning the sole female team member. In season one this involves Cameron and House and in season five it exists between Dr. Hadley and Foreman. This not only portrays the heterosexist stereotype held by dominant society but also bears another subtle connection to patriarchy. In both cases the male is a work authority figure and holds more ‘power’ over the woman. This heterosexist ideal, appearing in both seasons, is connected to our class lecture on February 11, 2009 in which “what is your body expected to do?” (Feb. 11, 2009) was discussed. During the discussion one of the expectations of people is that they “be heterosexual” (Feb. 11, 2009). Shows such as House thus perpetuate the idea that heterosexual relationships are expected and pervade many areas of life, including work.

Abad, Erika G. Washington State University, Pullman, WA. 11 Feb. 2009.

“Honeymoon.” House: Season Two. Exec. Producer Katie Jacobs. FOX. DVD. Universal Studios, 2005.

Johnson, Allan G. “Patriarchy, the System (1997).” Women’s Lives: Multicultural Perspectives. Ed. Gwyn Kirk and Margo Okazawa-Rey. 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2007. 28-37.

“The Softer Side.” House. Co-Producer Allen Marshall Palmer. FOX. 16 Feb. 2009. 9 March 2009 <http://www.fox.com/fod/play.php?sh=house>.

Blog 6

The You Tube video chosen, “Bootylicious”, consists of a collection of clips featuring Cuddy and is an obvious example of the objectification of women’s bodies that occurs in media. Among other scenes, the video contains clips of Cuddy in low cut clothing, night gowns, and clips that focus more on her butt and her walking away. These scenes and the entire video as a whole, used in conjunction with its theme song “Bootylicious” by Beyonce, are symbolic of how “women are systematically objectified and commodified in the media” (Gwyn and Okazawa-Rey 251). By doing this the video negates the professional standing, skills, and abilities of Dr. Cuddy and portrays not only how the show, but “dominant culture often reduces women to bodies, valuing us only as sex objects” (Gwyn and Okazawa-Rey 121). This negation of Cuddy’s professional image in light of her beauty/sex image favors “the separation of body and mind as a fundamental element of Western thought” (Gwyn and Okazawa-Rey 124). This can be combined with the idea that “the main use of any culture is to provide symbols and ideals out of which to construct a sense of what is real” (Johnson 34). Thus, according to this view and ideal media works to show that “what is real” (Johnson 34) is that women are expected to be judged foremost by their bodies, not by any professional position or accomplishments they’ve achieved.

The video also has an obvious connection to the idea that equates “women’s attempts to be thin [to being] a third job” (Gwyn and Okazawa-Rey 123). The opening scenes of the You Tube video depict Cuddy exercising and then putting on make-up. This provides a subtle connection to what Gwyn and Okazawa-Rey depict in their discussion of the efforts women take to live up to beauty ideals put upon them by dominant society.

The end depicts House grabbing Cuddy’s butt and making a joke while Cuddy laughs. This is especially concerning in terms of what it symbolizes about male-female interactions. The fact that this scene is not only a part of a popular TV show but also included in a fan video shows the impact it has on a wide audience. It appears that the creator of the fan video included this scene not to critique its demeaning undertone but to further emphasize the part of Cuddy that serves as the focus of this video, her butt. This supports the idea that such portrayals of women are instilled and ingrained into culture in such a way that “when we hear or express sexist jokes…we may not recognize it, and even if we do, we may say nothing” (Johnson 36).

“Dr Cuddy – Bootylicious.”: Lililo78. YouTube. 2007. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay-lvSwAJX0&feature=related>. 2 March 2009.

Johnson, Allan G. “Patriarchy, the System (1997).” Women’s Lives: Multicultural Perspectives. Ed. Gwyn Kirk and Margo Okazawa-Rey. 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2007. 28-37.

Kirk, Gwyn and Margo Okazawa-Rey. “Women’s Bodies and Beauty Ideals.” Women’s Lives: Multicultural Perspectives. Ed. Gwyn Kirk and Margo Okazawa-Rey. 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2007. 121-130.

Kirk, Gwyn and Margo Okazawa-Rey. “Violence Against Women.” Women’s Lives: Multicultural Perspectives. Ed. Gwyn Kirk and Margo Okazawa-Rey. 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2007. 249-263.

Blog 5

The impact of House on the culture of U.S. society can be seen through the feedback it prompts from viewers. Many of these opinions relate to gender and the media’s portrayal of ‘idealized’ women and female bodies. One particular group of comments on the IMDb message boards provides an example of the performance of gender discussed in lecture. This post questions Cuddy’s provocative dress on the show, provoking numerous responses. One, “I really hope she goes back to the skin tight skirts soon it’s part on [of] her persona” (Angelique7), provides insight into how women are expected to portray their gender, in essence by displaying their sexuality. This also depicts how women are defined by society and how media perpetuates and condones this. In addition, one participant commented “if you aren’t overtly sexy you aren’t a woman” (rockethound). This comment reveals an ideology often seen in media portrayals of women and how they are characterized. It also connects with the lectures on January 26th and 28th and February 11th which focused on answering “how is gender performed” (January 26, 2009) and “what is your body expected to do” (February 11, 2009). These lectures discussed how behaviors we deem as acceptable and characteristic of one gender or another are in reality taught to us and how various institutions affect these perspectives. The message board responses and topics indicate that the media is one such institution responsible for instilling these dominant ideals and views of women and men. Gwyn Kirk and Margo Okazawa-Rey further support this impact and connection by describing that “dominant culture [commonly seen as including media] often reduces women to bodies, valuing us [women] only as sex objects” (121).

In addition, as Lorber points out, “human beings produce gender, behaving in ways they learned were appropriate for their gender status, or resisting or rebelling against these norms” (25). Many of the message comments and depictions from House indicate that Cuddy does both in terms of being “overtly sexy” (rockethound) according to U.S. ideals but yet is a female supervisor overseeing numerous employees, an ‘untraditional’ female role. Furthermore, the content of the message boards and the sheer number of participants and topics indicate the impact shows like House have on people’s time, thoughts, and attitudes.

Abad, Erika G. Washington State University, Pullman, WA. 26 Jan. 2009.

Abad, Erika G. Washington State University, Pullman, WA. 28 Jan. 2009.

Abad, Erika G. Washington State University, Pullman, WA. 11 Feb. 2009.

Angelique7. “Re: Cuddy’s Cleavage…………. …” Online Posting. 16 Feb. 2009. “’House M.D.’ (2004).” IMDb The Internet Database. 18 Feb. 2009 < http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0412142/board/thread/130609065>.

catherineursula. “Cuddy’s Cleavage…………. …” Online Posting. 16 Feb. 2009. “’House M.D.’ (2004).” IMDb The Internet Database. 18 Feb. 2009 < http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0412142/board/thread/130609065>.

Kirk, Gwyn and Margo Okazawa-Rey. “Women’s Bodies and Beauty Ideals. Women’s Lives: Multicultural Perspectives. Ed. Gwyn Kirk and Margo Okazawa-Rey. 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2007. 121-120.

Lorber, Judith. “The Social Construction of Gender (1991).” Women’s Lives: Multicultural Perspectives. Ed. Gwyn Kirk and Margo Okazawa-Rey. 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2007. 24-27.

House. FOX. Creator David Shore. 2004-2006.

rockethound. “Re: Cuddy’s Cleavage…………. …” Online Posting. 16 Feb. 2009. “’House M.D.’ (2004).” IMDb The Internet Database. 18 Feb. 2009 < http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0412142/board/thread/130609065>.

Blog 4

“Beauty and the Patriarchal Beast: Gender Role Portrayals in Sitcoms Featuring Mismatched Couples” focuses on comic interactions of heterosexual television couples that depict ‘traditional’ views and ideology. The authors’ description of “mismatched couples” (Walsh, Fursich, and Jefferson, 125) portraying the “myth of beauty and the beast” (Walsh, Fursich, and Jefferson, 124) can be linked with interactions on House where House’s ‘ugliness’ is not necessarily physical but is portrayed through his arrogant demeanor. Although not in a defined couple relationship, House’s interactions with Cuddy can be used to draw connections to these ideals and their relationship to patriarchy.

The analysis of sitcoms in their reinforcement of gender roles is markedly different than that of comedic dramas like House. For instance, the sitcoms in the article (According to Jim and The King of Queens) are set in a more domestic, personal atmosphere while House occurs mainly in a work environment. In addition, these sitcoms portray a heterosexual couple with more obvious connections to ‘traditional’ gender role depictions (e.g. wife is more domestic). House, on the other hand, involves more nontraditional female roles (e.g. Dr., supervisor, etc), yet both types of shows can demonstrate patriarchy. For example, House is the focus of the show, the leader of the team, and gets his way a majority of the time.

Furthermore, the article distinguishes between “’satellite narratives’” (qtd. in Walsh, Fursich, and Jefferson, 127) or what could be seen as obvious character portrayals and the “’kernal narratives’” (qtd. in Walsh, Fursich, and Jefferson, 127) or the latent message. The authors provide a sitcom example which is highly applicable to House as well. They point out that although the sitcom may “portray Carrie [the wife] as dominant: She orders Doug around, threatens him” (Walsh, Fursich, and Jefferson, 127) in reality the opposite is true. This is exemplified by the fact that “Doug routinely goes against what Carrie asks of him” (Walsh, Fursich, and Jefferson, 127) which portrays that “Doug is in charge” (Walsh, Fursich, and Jefferson, 127).

Because House incorporates more non-traditional gender roles (e.g. professional women) and interactions (e.g. workplace) the “’kernal narratives’” (qtd. in Walsh, Fursich, and Jefferson, 127) involving male dominance requires slightly more effort to uncover, yet ultimately portrays the same patriarchal understanding. The sitcom example is reminiscent of the interactions between House and Cuddy, who although is the hospital supervisor and makes requests of House is not respected by him and often gives into his desires. Constant exchanges like this “encourage viewers to accept patriarchy as a ‘natural’ male trait” (Walsh, Fursich, and Jefferson, 124).

Walsh, Kimberly R., Elfriede Fursich, and Bonnie S. Jefferson. “Beauty and the Patriarchal Beast: Gender Portrayals in Sitcoms Featuring Mismatched Couples.” Journal of Popular Film and Television 36.3 (2008): 123-132. Academic Search Complete. EBSCOhost. Washington State University Lib. 27 Jan, 2009 .

House. FOX. Creator David Shore. 2004-2006.

Overall, House is strongly related to the concept of patriarchy as described in Allan Johnson’s piece “Patriarchy, the System”. House, like many television shows can be considered a means of socialization by which the system of patriarchy or “patriarchal culture” (Johnson 34) becomes fixed into Western society. Johnson points out “the main use of any culture is to promote symbols and ideas” (34). As such, TV shows like House and its dynamics and characters serve as those symbols and socializing components. For instance, Dr. Cameron is often portrayed as an empathetic member of the team, depicting the patriarchal concept “of female caring, cooperation, and subordination” (Johnson 34). This is specifically seen the episode “Acceptance” when Dr. Cameron becomes more emotionally involved with a cancer patient than anyone on the team. Additionally, her subordinate status is shown when she must acquire House’s permission for testing of the patient. Furthermore, in newer episodes female subordination is portrayed through the character Dr. Hadley, the only female on House’s current team. House produces such subordination by ascribing a dehumanizing numerical label to her.

Actions such as these support what Johnson explains as “patriarchy’s defining elements” (34) including “its male-dominated, male-identified, male-centered, and control-obsessed character” (34). The show exemplifies these in numerous ways. For instance, the majority of the medical team is male and is led by an arrogant male (House). Although the hospital supervisor (Cuddy) is female House constantly subverts her ‘power’, showing a lack of respect and “control-obsessed character” (Johnson 34). In addition, Dr. Cuddy is continuously depicted wearing tight and/or low cut clothing, as in the episode “TB or Not TB.” This also negates her supposed supervisory role, subtracting from the appearance of female power and supporting patriarchal “standards of feminine beauty” (Johnson 34).

In addition, House’s interactions with Dr. Cuddy, Dr. Cameron, and Dr. Hadley lend to “misogynist images of women” (Johnson 36). For example, in one episode House calls Dr. Cuddy a “media whore” (“TB or Not TB”) and makes reference to her make-up. House says such derogatory language so consistently and nonchalantly that it lends to desensitization. Therefore, “when we hear or express sexist jokes and other forms of misogyny, we may not recognize it” (Johnson 36). This combination of factors, stereotypes, and derogation lends to the socialization of patriarchy through the media. Thus House, like other media sources, can be seen to perpetuate and serve as a mechanism through which societies can pass on their characteristics/system of patriarchy. Johnson points out that “how we perceive people who occupy such positions and what we expect of them depend on cultural ideas” (36). House affects these perceptions and the meanings applied to these.

“Acceptance.” House: Season Two. Exec. Producers Marcy Kaplan and Steven Heth. FOX. DVD. Universal Studios, 2006.

Johnson, Allan G. “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us.” Women’s Lives: Multicultural Perspectives. Ed. Gwyn Kirk and Margo Okazawa-Rey. 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2007. 28-37.

“TB or Not TB.” House: Season Two. Exec. Producers Marcy Kaplan and Steven Heth. FOX. DVD. Universal Studios, 2006.

Blog 2

The House episode “Skin Deep” relates with many of the concepts presented in Kate Borstein’s “Naming All the Parts.” This episode focuses on a female teenage supermodel whose aggressiveness and collapse on a runway brings her under House’s care. Tests revealed the patient is chromosomally a male whose testes are internal. A potential reversal of roles then takes places to account for the ‘abnormal’ behavior of the patient.
Borstein’s piece discusses what can be seen as the focus of this episode, the concept and identification of gender in dominant Western society. As a newborn, the patient had been identified as female according to Western standards of what external genitalia signify. This classifying procedure is addressed by Bornstein as an initial factor in gender construction.
The article’s description of “gender attribution” (Bornstein) provides understanding to the contradiction that develops on the episode. According to Western standards the patient’s observable characteristics are attributed to be feminine. The contradiction arises when the patient displays aggression as an initial symptom, which is a characteristic generally attributed to males. This aggression conflicts with the initial female attributions and leads to suspicion because it is ‘abnormal’ according to constructed characteristics of women in Western society.
In addition, although it is consistently recognized that externally the patient is stereotypically female, the gender category and label immediately change upon the identification of testes and a Y chromosome. This identifies the centrality of genitalia above all else in gender determination. Thus it supports, as described in the article, the observation that “in our Western civilization, we bow down to the great god Science” (Bornstein) in terms of gender categorization. Doing so leaves little credence for individual self identity.
Another commonality to the article is associated with the author’s statement “as a culture, we’re encouraged to equate sex (the act) with success and security” (Bornstein). The patient in the episode is a supermodel which, in Western society, is often objectified as a highly sexualized figure. House plays into this by constantly referring to her body parts in derogatory, sexualized ways. In conjunction, the episode also can be seen as portraying a stereotype that depicts women as being manipulative seductresses because it is revealed that the patient has used sex to ‘benefit’ herself.

“Skin Deep.” House: Season Two. Exec. Producers Marcy Kaplan and Steven Heth. FOX. DVD. Universal Studios, 2006.

Bornstein, Kate. “Naming All the Parts.” ITPeople.org. 2003. 17 Jan. 2009 <http://www.itpeople.org/namingallparts.php>.

House is considered a dramatic-comedy television show that “first went on air four years back in November of 2004” (Diaz) and is now in its fifth season of production. House has proved very popular and appeals to a wide audience base, reaching teenagers and college students up through the baby boomer generation. This show is based on the life and work of Dr. Greg House, who is a brilliant yet arrogant and rude diagnostician. Each episode details at least one mysterious medical case about which Dr. House (commonly referred to as House in the show) and his team of doctors attempt to diagnose and treat. House’s personality and antics are truly what set the show apart however, and are the primary reason I have chosen the show as my blog topic. The comedy aspect of this show is almost solely based on House’s inappropriate and often demeaning comments. His constant insults and derogatory remarks often revolve around race, gender, culture, and many other groups and/or people that often are the target of discrimination and bias. Thus, because this program contains aspects of many topics we will likely be discussing in Women Studies (racism, sexism, etc.) it will prove as a source rich in material available for analysis. In addition, even clothing of the characters (especially the sometimes provocative clothing of the female advisor) is thought and discussion provoking as it can be connected to the bias and sometimes discriminatory views of women and others. Another feature of this show which impacted my interest and ultimate decision was its popularity. Initially it seems that followers of this show may see comedy in House’s attitude and remarks not despite their derogatory nature but possibly because of them. This brings up the question of “why?”. I seek to look closer at this hypothesis throughout the semester as I gain the tools for analysis.

Diaz, Glenn L. “House: Premiere Details.” BuddyTV. 15 Sept. 2008. 19 Jan. 2009 < http://www.buddytv.com/articles/house/house-premiere-details-22744.aspx>.