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>.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
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>.
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>.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
