Jack - Randolph College

RANDOLPH COLLEGE:
A JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC WRITING
The
Jack
2 n THE JACK
The Jack
Volume 4
copyright 2013
All rights reserved by the authors and artists.
No portion may be reproduced without the
permission of the editor.
The Jack
Randolph College Writing Program
Randolph College
2500 Rivermont Avenue, Lynchburg, VA 24503
Phone: 434-947-8147
E-mail: [email protected]
Cover art by Stormy Clowdis, recipient of the 2013
Rachel Trexler Ellis ’44 prize
“Growing up, antiques were always very important to me
in my home. I loved being able to give old things a new
purpose, so I chose to work on wood primarily for this
reason. Sky Flower is a combination of old and new. It
once served as a tabletop but has now has been transformed
into a work of art to be enjoyed in a completely new way. I
was inspired by Japanese prints because of their use of vivid
colors and unique subject matter, so I wanted to reflect
that in Sky Flower. I want to continue to explore wood in
future artworks.”
Stormy Clowdis
Clowdis was born and raised
in Lynchburg, Virginia. From
an early age, her favorite part
of the day was time spent with
art. Her determination and
drive to create art grew and
continued through her teens,
and on reaching Randolph
College, she majored in studio
art. So began a journey that
enhanced her ability as an
artist in various new ways and eventually allowed her to
contribute a painting of the Red Brick Wall to the campus art
collection. Stormy hopes to continue nurturing her love of art
in the future and will always remember the college where her
art was encouraged and cultivated.
FA L L 2 013 n 3
Introduction
T
his year marks our fourth issue, and I am so
pleased we took the decision to recognize our
students’ excellent work with publication as well as
with praise.
Issue four focusses on character: Elizabeth Delery
suggests that typographic and style choices in
Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s “The Yellow Wallpaper”
chart the central character’s descent into madness;
Julianna Joyce explores the role of the “Manic Pixie
Dream Girl” in television and film; and Sarah Maki
shifts the focus towards men and their portrayal in
situation comedy.
These three papers represent the best of Randolph
writing. However, there were other worthy
nominations, and I am pleased to include a new
section that records each nominated paper and its
faculty nominator. I thank all concerned for their
dedication to the art of scholarly writing.
Professor Bunny A. Goodjohn
Director of the Writing Program and Tutoring Services
4 n THE JACK
Contents
Award for Best Short Paper 2012/2013......................5
“Becoming the Woman in the Wallpaper”
Elizabeth Delery ’14: Biology and Psychology
Award for Best Long Paper 2012/2013.......................8
“Deciphering the Manic Pixie Mythos:
Contemporary Depictions of Alternative Femininity”
Julianna Joyce ’13: Communication Studies
Award for Best Senior Paper 2012/2013..................17
“Laughing at Men: Masculinities in contemporary
sitcoms”
Sarah Maki ’13: Communication Studies
Writing Board Nominations 2012/2013................. 36
Randolph’s “Excellent Writers” 2012/2013.......... 37
FA L L 2 013 n 5
Award for Best Short Paper
Elizabeth Delery for
“Becoming the Woman in the Wallpaper”
T
he Yellow Wallpaper,” published in 1892,
was a social commentary on the suppression
of women and the supposed treatment of their
weakness and mental insanity. During the time
it was written, women’s unrest was mounting
in the United States with the emergence of the
National American Woman Suffrage Association
and the drive for women’s rights to vote (Gilman
32). Also during this time, William James, who is
affectionately referred to as the father of psychology,
published his first book on the subject (32). With
these two impacting events present, there was an
increase in explanations as to why women had gone
crazy by breaking their social norms and striving to
be independent. Many men tried to suppress these
feminists, especially physician S. Weir Mitchell, who
thought women were overworked and needed to stay
at home and rest to cure them of their mental illness
(135–136). Charlotte Perkins Gilman, who was a
short-term patient of Mitchell, used her short story
“The Yellow Wallpaper”
to show that it was not
the feminist movement,
but rather the male
suppression of women’s
rights and creativity that
inevitably led to women’s
depression and insanity.
Through her use of
increasing indentation,
frequent dashes, and
the gradual decrease
in sentence length and
structure, Gilman expertly
manipulates the space of
her short story in order to
show the gradual decrease
of the main character’s
mental sanity as she slowly
becomes the woman in the
yellow wallpaper.
“The Yellow Wallpaper” is divided into twelve
sections. As the sections unfold, there is also a
decrease in the number of lines in the sections,
and an increase in the number of indentations per
section. As opposed to indenting the paragraphs, as
is traditional in the English writing style, Gilman’s
narrator seems to start each new thought with
an indentation. This occurs even if the thoughts
are still along the same topic or subject, and she
gradually increases the number of indentations as
the storyline progresses. This demonstrates the main
character’s slow descent into mania and paranoia as
she becomes the dark woman in the wallpaper.
The number of lines in each section and the
number of indentations were counted and then
a ratio was calculated based on the number of
indentations per section. The ratio shows a pattern
with the fewest number of lines correlating with an
increase in indentations and therefore a decreased
line versus indentation ratio. The ratio of the first
section was calculated at
2.44 with ninety-five lines
in the section and thirtynine indentations (41–47),
as compared to the last
section’s ratio of 1.78 with
eighty-nine lines and fifty
indentations (56–58). This
is significant because the
first section introduces
the main character, the
woman who has just
moved into a vacation
home while her house
is being renovated. She
spends a great deal of time
describing her husband
and the home that they
are now living in, and the
reader is not exposed to
any traces of odd thought
Charlotte Perkins Gilman
6 n THE JACK
processes or behaviors. However, as the storyline
the wallpaper, and the descriptions of it soon begin
progresses, she becomes increasingly obsessed with
to describe her own mental state as she takes on
the wallpaper and her writing becomes more erratic
the character of the woman in the wall, “—a kind
and choppy, demonstrated by the decreasing line
of ‘debased Romanesque’ with delirium tremens—”
versus indentation ratio.
Finally in the last section,
with the lowest line versus
She becomes increasingly obsessed with the wallpaper, and her writing
indentation ratio, the
becomes more erratic and choppy, demonstrated by the decreasing line
narrator is revealed to be
versus indentation ratio.
the woman in the yellow
wallpaper as she tells John
that she has “got out at
last” (58).
(48). The next three, “—I am too wise—” (50), “—I
Em-dashes are often used in literature to add
begin to think—” (50), and “—I always watch for that
emphasis to a specific line or to show an abrupt
first long, straight ray—” (52), show the narrator as
thought change (“Dashes”). Gilman uses a double
the woman in the wallpaper because they all begin
em-dash to show the main character’s erratic
with the pronoun “I,” illustrating her possession
thought processes and mania as well as her gradual
of the persona. It is especially evident in the last
transformation into the woman in the yellow
example because up until this point, the woman in
wallpaper. The first double em-dash appears on
the wallpaper was only said to come out at night,
page 41 when the narrator says, “—(I would not
and the line reads that she is always watching for the
say it to a living soul, of course, but this is dead
first sign of the sunrise. Finally, the reader sees the
paper and a great relief to my mind)—” (41). This
utter disarray of the main character’s mind as she
illustrates the narrator’s opinion on the paper and
has become the woman in the wallpaper as “—round
that she finds the paper to be dead, which starkly
and round and round—” (55) she spins into this new
contrasts the remainder of the story in which she
world of delirium and mania (55).
gradually begins to see
As the short story
the wallpaper coming to
progresses, the length of
life; this is the birth of the
each section decreases
woman in the wallpaper.
which demonstrates how
It is later discovered
much the main character
that the narrator also
is in touch with her
has “—a slight hysterical
inner-self. The gradual
tendency—” (42), and that
decrease of sentence
she feels that “—there is
length and complexity also
something strange about
illustrates her slow mental
the house—” (42). Gilman
decline and insanity as
is gradually unfolding
she transforms into the
the narrator’s insanity
woman in the wallpaper.
as she is described as
The length of each section
hysterical and paranoid
decreases exponentially
about the house. It is later
with the first two sections
revealed that the cause of
containing ninety-five and
all her unrest lies within
then one hundred and six
“—the paper—” (43).
lines respectively (41–44),
The narrator gradually
while the ninth, tenth, and
becomes obsessed with
eleventh sections contain
S. Weir Mitchell
FA L L 2 013 n 7
sixteen, twenty-two, and seventeen lines (55–56).
Space is also manipulated with the increased
usage of the pronoun “I.” While the usage of that
pronoun shows an increase in self-centered thinking
and simple sentences, it also demonstrates space
because as a single letter it takes up less space on a
page as opposed to all the other double and triple
letter pronouns. In the first section, sentences are
extremely long and descriptive and barely contain
the pronoun, while the tenth section contains short
choppy sentences, with ten out of sixteen of the
sentences beginning with the pronoun “I.” Take for
example the first line of both sections: “It is very
seldom that mere ordinary people like John and
myself secure ancestral halls for the summer” (41),
and “I think that woman gets out in the daytime”
(55). The first sentence of the first section is long
and complex with eighteen words and the nine letter
adjective of ancestral, while the first sentence of the
tenth section contains nine words with the longest
being the simple “daytime” (55). This demonstrates
how the narrator has lost touch with her inner-self
from the beginning of the story and has gradually
become obsessed with and transformed into the
woman in the wallpaper.
Gillman is gradually unfolding the
narrator’s insanity as she is described
as hysterical and paranoid about the
house.
In conclusion, through the use of frequent
indentation, dashes, and the gradual decrease in
sentence length and structure, Gilman expertly
manipulates the space of her short story in order to
show the gradual decrease of the main character’s
mental sanity as she slowly becomes the woman in
the yellow wallpaper. Gilman had the audacity to
send a copy of “The Yellow Wallpaper” to Mitchell to
show him that his rest cure did nothing but increase
women’s depression and insanity and that forcing
this cure upon women would only trap them in their
minds and their own mental wallpapers.
Works Cited
“Dashes.” Punctuation Rules. Grammarbook.
com, 2012.Web. 8 Oct. 2012. <http://www.
grammarbook.com/punctuation/dashes.asp>
Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. The Yellow Wallpaper. Ed.
Dale Bauer. Boston: Bedford Books, 1998. Print.
Elizabeth Delery A member
of the class of 2014 and a
biology (B.S.) and psychology
(B.A.) double-major at
Randolph College, Elizabeth
Delery hopes to attend
medical school while pursuing
her hobbies in the fine arts.
Her time at the college has
included participation in
Campus Outreach, Science
Fest, Student Government,
the Peer Mentor Program, Psi
Chi Honor Society, and TriBeta Honor Society. She would
like to thank her parents for all their unconditional love and
support, her sister, Blair, for her beautiful photography skills,
and for the wonderful English teachers who have greatly
influenced her along the way, most notably Kitty von Gohren
Graf, Jane Ard, Chris Erickson, Sarah Congable, and Mara
Amster.
Nominated by Mara Amster,
ENGL 111
8 n THE JACK
Award for Best Long Paper
Julianna Joyce for
“Deciphering the Manic Pixie Mythos:
Contemporary Depictions of Alternative
Femininity”
“I think if there’s a truly seductive quality about
Clementine, it’s that her personality promises to take you
out of the mundane. Like an amazing, burning meteorite
will carry you to another world where things are exciting.
But what you quickly learn is that…it’s really an elaborate
ruse.”
—Joel Barish, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless
Mind (Michel Gondry, 2004)
U
nnaturally colored hair, alternative style,
an affinity for the Smiths, and just socially
awkward enough to be lovable, the alternative
girl has found her way out of the high school and
college hallways and directly onto the silver screen.
Television and film have, particularly in the last
twenty years, begun to feature the quirky, alternative
female alongside the usual female characters who
embody homogenized ideals of feminine beauty.
Television shows such as New Girl, Girls, and even
NCIS have featured the alternative girl as either a
protagonist or an important secondary character.
The acceptance of diverse or more alternative
female characters into mass media represents a
move towards drawing in the “Indie crowd,” a
now marketable demographic made viable by
the hipster movement. The increase of the use of
alterna-girl characters has created notable character
tropes within the labeled classification. Despite
the character’s alternative label, the trope assigns
specific attributes to the character, therefore
homogenizing any notion of difference. For
example, the sub-trope of the Manic Pixie Dream
Girl has gained notoriety particularly in the last
twenty years. Despite the alternative appearance,
the Manic Pixie Dream Girl trope is well situated
within the constructed female image in modern
cinema; an image which is progressive enough to
fain feminism but at its essence perpetuates postfeminist rhetoric. This character is depicted as a
quirky, fun-loving, alternative girl whose life is
devoted to the male protagonist. The Manic Pixie
Dream Girl perpetuates the care giving stereotype,
in which women exist simply to cater to men, with
her mythos and subsequent characters existing in
a realm of post-femininity which subverts female
progress by glorifying the role of the caretaker and
typical women’s roles . The Manic Pixie Dream Girl
shows no true desires of her own, does not have
any real aspirations, and is simply there to help the
male protagonist. She is easily amused, childlike in
her social interactions, and seemingly incapable of
truly taking care of herself without the male lead.
i.e. her childlike ways give her the uncanny ability
to raise the brooding (usually white) male from
his failure-induced depression. Her inability to
function separately from a male lead or her constant
need for male attention, in addition to her childish
ways, again feeds into the negative that undermine
women’s intellectual ability. Her character exists
within the post-feminist masquerade working
to “re-secure the terms of submission of white
femininity to white masculine domination.”i While
off-beat plots and characters provide audiences
with a different voice and an option outside of the
mass-produced “shoot-em-up blockbusters,” films
including the Manic Pixie Dream Girl character tend
to follow many of the same plot lines and perpetuate
many of the same negativities as those criticized
within traditional mainstream film. Although it
seems that the inclusion of the alternative girl
speaks to a changing view of women to a more
encompassing and vaguely feminist understanding
FA L L 2 013 n 9
of diverse body type appreciation, many of the films
featuring the alterna-girls perpetuate the same
regressive stereotypes.
Methods and primary sources
In this paper I hope to further examine the role of
the Manic Pixie Dream Girl within contemporary
film, and her relation to the feminist movement.
Close textual analysis was conducted on two
contemporary “off-beat” films: Scott Pilgrim versus the
World (Edgar Wright, 2010), and (500) days of summer
(Marc Webb, 2009) in order to better understand the
relationship between the male protagonist and the
female supporting role. The close textual analysis
was also used in order to look at the characters’
roles and evaluate if they were stereotypical, and
the dialogue, dress, and general character traits,
as a way to assess the femininity of the characters
and how they are expected to act. The qualitative
analysis helped distinguish particular characteristics
of the manic pixie dream girl, to compare them with
feminist and post-feminist theory. The research was
guided by the main question (1) How and where
does the Manic Pixie Dream Girl situate herself
within feminist theory? And where is she situated
within representations of femininity and feminism?
The research was then further supplemented by
secondary questions: (1) What are the traits of
the Manic Pixie Dream girls? (2) What is her role
within the life of the male protagonist? (3) Does the
character best fit into post-feminism and the idea of
the “new young women” or is the image portrayed
completely outside of feminism?
Theory
The Manic Pixie Ethos fits into Samantha SendaCook’s theory of the Incomplete Woman. Between
the Manic Pixie Girl mythos and the incomplete
woman theory one major difference exists,
the character’s sense of agency. The character
established within the Incomplete Woman theory
has a sense of agency in that she is driven to pursue
a career. The characters are usually fairly successful
within their career, but must choose between career
and the male love interest. Although the plot line
usually involves the female character managing to
keep both job and love interest, there is still the
conundrum of the choice. The situation presents a
form of semi-feminism: she has career aspirations
which give her a progressive feminist edge, but her
willingness or consideration to give up her career
for a man seems regressive. Senda-Cook blames
the “double bind” on patriarchy: “A patriarchal
society expects women to go to college and plan a
career, but forego or amend that possibility when
the opportunity for a family arises.”ii However,
the Manic Pixie Dream Girl doesn’t have to worry
about the “double bind”: her lack of agency, career
aspirations, wants, and desires outside catering to
the male protagonist ensure that she has no choice.
The MPDG fits into Senda-Cook’s argument that
“films explicitly encourage women to complete their
lives by becoming less professional or more feminine
and engaging in a heterosexual romance.”iii The
MPGD’s complete abandon of personal aspirations
is regressive and represents a move towards the more
traditional understanding of femininity. Angela
McRobbie’s theory of post-feminism can also be
applied to the project given the role the women play
in a relationship setting and in the larger context of
the film itself. McRobbie sees the current trend in
post-feminist media as engaging in a post-feminist
masquerade, which she explains “is a new form of
gender power which re-orchestrates the heterosexual
matrix in order to secure, once again, the existence
patriarchal law and masculine hegemony, but this
time by means of a kind of ironic, quasi feminist
staking out of a distance in the act of taking on
the garb of femininity.” Her discussion of the postfeminist masquerade continues to encompass the
role of young women as they establish themselves
within a world which has fought past feminism,
won, and now can reap the benefits. The young
women of whom the author speaks are those who
have come of age through the struggles of recent
feminist movements. They often reject the school
of thought because of its unpopular or rather
strict stipulations. They now exist within a feminist
masquerade which gives the pretense of feminism
without tangible equality. McRobbie discusses
three figures within the masquerade and their
relation to what she calls a “new sexual contract:
1 0 n THE JACK
against them and their immediate family.vii
Although the character is fictional and her traits are
relatively harmless, it is important to consider her
role as subordinate to the male lead. Not only do
MPDG play the secondary character, their frequent
use has made them a trope—a common pattern
in a story or recognizable attribute in a character
that conveys information to the audience. A trope
becomes a cliché when it’s overused. Sadly some of
these tropes perpetuate negative stereotypes. The
Manic Pixie mythos and its subsequent characters
exist in a realm of post-femininity which subverts
female progress by glorifying the role of the
caretaker and typical women’s roles. Women play
a secondary role to male protagonist within the
trope in a way which speaks to a more traditional
role for women and ignores feminism and women’s
What defines a Manic Pixie Dream Girl?
progressive rights. Although there are glimpses
The Manic Pixie Dream Girl manifests herself as
of feminist discussion intermixed into the female
the dark brooding protagonist’s eccentric love
character’s dialogue, the glimpse only provides a
interest. The character stands as the new form of
bit of luminosity on the subject rather than a full
the muse, which has existed in literature, art, and
examination or argument in favor of women’s
science seen as early as the Ancient Greeks’ nine
rights. Despite the alternative appearance, the Manic
Muses. Much like the Muses, the Manic Pixie Dream
Pixie Dream Girl trope is well situated within the
Girl lives in a world where her sole purpose is to
constructed female image in modern cinema; an
cater to and inspire the male protagonist. The term
image which is progressive enough to fain feminism
but at its essence
perpetuates postfeminist rhetoric.
… the Manic Pixie Dream Girl lives in a world where her sole purpose is
the phallic girl, the working girl, and the global
girl.”iv McRobbie’s phallic girl stands to represent
the sexual freedom provided by the feminist struggle
in a young female who now treats her sexual life in
a way similar to that of her male counterpart. She
sees sex as sport, and adopts many of the habits of a
male “drinking, swearing, smoking, etc”v Although
she challenges gender and Judith Butler’s theories of
gender performance, the phallic girl and her actions
don’t call male hegemony into question, and are
actually “disparaging of feminism.”vi Ultimately the
phallic post-feminist construct of the phallic girl
represents a move away from traditional feminism
in order to give women enough freedoms to placate
them but within a limit which still fits patriarchy’s
agenda.
to cater to and inspire the male protagonist.
was originally coined by film critic and blogger
Nathan Rabins in his discussion of Kirsten Dunst’s
character in the film Elizabethtown. Rabins defines
the MPDG as
existing solely in the fevered imaginations of
sensitive writer-directors to teach broodingly
soulful young men to embrace life and
its infinite mysteries and adventures. The
Manic Pixie Dream Girl is an all-or-nothingproposition. Audiences either want to marry
her instantly (despite The Manic Pixie Dream
Girl being, you know, a fictional character) or
they want to commit grievous bodily harm
(500) Days of Summer
Following the life of
protagonist Tom—
played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, (500) Days of
Summer—chronicles the pre, post, and during
periods of an amorous off-beat relationship between
the protagonist and the girl of his dreams. In this
film, the MPDG trope is visible in Tom’s dream girl,
co-worker Summer—played by Zooey Deschanel.
The two characters meet at a greeting card company
where Tom works as a writer, and Summer is an
assistant/secretary. The female character’s job as a
secretary plays into power dynamics often seen in
films from the 1940s–60s and now in retro-based
shows like Mad Men, where men play dominant
roles in the work place. Women were often hyper
FA L L 2 013 n 11
sexualized within these roles on screen, showing
a subservient, sexualized image of women in the
work place. By sexualizing the career-minded
women, the images enfeebled women’s struggle to
gain employment and the fight for equality, thus
normalizing patriarchy as the correct dominant
force. Summer’s job as a secretary plays into this
role, even though Tom is not her boss. Simply by
being a secretary and because of their frequent
copy room escapades, Summer plays into the
subversive role. Therefore Tom is established as
more dominant, despite how their non-traditional
relationship unfolds.
The traditional sequence of the off-beat plotline
involving the trope is inverted in this film. Instead
of moving from a place of despair into happiness
with the help of the MPDG, the character finds
himself destroyed by her absence and must rebuild
himself on his own. Despite her non-traditional
participation in the well-being of the character,
Zooey Deschannel’s character, Summer, still
embodies the MPDG trope, particularly in aesthetic
qualifications. Particularly during the positive
period of their “relationship,” Summer dresses in a
vintage style, bows in her hair, high waisted pants,
and classic 1950s dresses. To complete the aesthetic
image of 1950s or vintage, Summer sports what
Tom refers to as a “1960s haircut.” Her total image
is similar to a modern pin-up, an image embraced
in hipster and alternative circles. Summer’s love of
The Smiths and Belle and Sebastian also places her
as a consumer of indie or alternative music, thus
completing her alternative image.
Despite dressing according to the alternative
fashion style, Summer’s personality is not
completely representational of the MPDG trope.
In contrast to the rather vapid opinion-less Claire
whom Rabins critiques in Elizabethtown, Summer
is not afraid to express her views on relationships
and her role within them. The film offers a view of
the character’s more feminist side in a scene where
Summer, Tom and another co-worker have all gone
to the bar after work. The co-worker asks Summer if
she has a boyfriend, to which Summer answers no,
leaving the two men baffled.
McKenzie: [drunk] So do you have a boyfriend?
Summer: No.
McKenzie: Why not?
Summer: Because I don’t want one.
McKenzie: Come on; I don’t believe that.
Summer: You don’t believe that a woman could
enjoy being free and independent?
McKenzie: Are you a lesbian?
Summer: [laughing] No I’m not a lesbian. I just,
don’t feel comfortable being anyone’s girlfriend.
I don’t actually feel comfortable being anyone’s
anything
Summer: Ok. I, like being on my own. I think
relationships are messy and people’s feelings get
hurt. Who needs it? We’re young, we live in one of
the most beautiful cities in the world; might as well
have fun while we can and, save the serious stuff for
1 2 n THE JACK
later.
McKenzie: You’re a dude. [to Tom] She’s a dude!
Tom: Ok but wait—wait. What happens, if you fall
in love?
Summer: You don’t believe in that, do you?
Tom: It’s love, it’s not Santa Claus.
The film has in a way reversed the traditional
understanding of love and relationships, placing the
female as less receptive to amorous life and the male
character as more of a hopeless romantic. Summer’s
retort to being perceived as strange or a lesbian
speaks to the feminist movement. Summer is in
control of her sexual life and does not substantiate
her own worth within male companionship. The
reluctance to become seriously involved with the
male protagonist and sexual freedom aligns the
character with McRobbie’s post-feminist figure
of the “phallic girl.” Summer is both aesthetically
and emotionally feminine, while exhibiting more
masculine traits. In the scene previously described,
the character speaks out against love, right after
happily accepting a beer, which the drunken friend,
McKenzie, as evidenced through his insistence
on switching her drink because she’s “a chick,”
sees as a more masculine beverage. Although it
seems ridiculous to assign gender performativity
to alcoholic preferences, the gendered image
usually associated with marketing campaigns for
beer is largely male oriented. Her desire to keep
her relationship with the male protagonist casual
seems to contradict the understanding of the
nurturing, loving, mother figure, which women are
expected to become. Instead she conducts herself
and her sexuality in a more masculine way, focusing
more “recreational sex” over “reproductive sex.”viii
Summer even takes on a masculine role when
describing her relationship with Tom by saying that
she is the Sid Vicious of the relationship, leaving the
male protagonist to be Nancy, the feminized victim.
Summer therefore establishes herself metaphorically
as the “phallus bearer”ix by assigning the masculine
role to herself. Her sexual morality and tendency
towards traits deemed more masculine (such as
willingness to watch and reenact adult films) further
establish her adoption of the phallus as her own.
The character’s choice to dress in vintage 1950s
style takes on a more playful role, when the Tom
and Summer take a trip to an Ikea and play house
in a showroom kitchen. Summer plays the role of
a housewife, and pretends to prepare a meal for
Tom. During the scene, Summer mockingly praises
Tom for being so smart, pretending to reward him
by waiting for him in bedroom. The scene makes
a mockery of 1950s social constructions of gender
expectations in the household. The mockery
implies that both Summer and Tom understand
the absurdity of the assigned roles. Additionally,
because the non-relationship they share is inversed
according to gender perceptions, the acting out
of traditional roles seems to speak to the “new
backlash” in the feminist movement which points
out “the ridiculousness and unnatural nature of
our contemporary gender relations.” By mocking
traditional gender roles, the film attempts to
normalize Tom and Summer’s gender switched
relationship.
Summer as a character sits in a place of feminist
ambivalence. She is both subversive and progressive,
in ways that situate the character best within postfeminist rhetoric. Despite her short burst of feminist
rhetoric, the character’s “phallic girl” understanding
of relationships and sex as well as her ultimate
decision to get married, seems to undermine the
initial burst. In fact the feminist rhetoric which
she discusses may best be represented by Merri
Lisa Johnson’s argument for female pleasure and
third wave feminism. Summer appears content
in the “relationship” because it functions in her
control. She is in control of the pleasure received
from the relationship, rather than simply catering
to the sexual needs of the male character. Like a
Third Wave Feminist, she is empowered through
her own control of pleasure rather than controlled
by patriarchy.x However, Summer never raises
herself from the secondary role she plays to Tom,
she appears to have no real aspirations of her own,
and despite establishing herself as having strong
opinions on relationships, she ultimately falls into
traditionalism thus undercutting the strength of her
initial argument. Because she does benefit from her
control over her own pleasure and sexual life, but
FA L L 2 013 n 13
still plays a secondary role with no agency, Summer
best embodies post-feminism
Scott Pilgrim vs The World
Based on the graphic novel by the same name, Scott
Pilgrim vs the World chronicles protagonist Scott
Pilgrim’s—played by serial indie-film protagonist
Michael Cera—battle to win the love of his dream
girl Ramona Flowers—played by Mary Elizabeth
Winstead. Scott is a thin, white 22-year-old male
whose love life takes a turn for the worse after his
girlfriend “breaks his heart and turns into a super
bitch.” The male character is girl obsessed (to the
point of skipping band practice to go on a date),
unemployed, and living in a one-room basement
apartment with his gay roommate. Scott does not
initially seem to fit the traditional characteristics of
the male protagonist within the Manic Pixie Mythos,
mainly because he is not visibly depressed. However,
the audience quickly learns that his break up, which
occurred over a year ago, has left him a bit unstable,
romantically and emotionally. Additionally, Scott
has created within his mind an image of a perfect
female, who manifests herself into his life. Thus the
protagonist has his dream girl.
The dream girl, Ramona Flowers, is an American
native, dyed hair, hipster girl who moves to Canada
in order to escape her past. Her fashion aesthetics
connect her strongly to the alternative or hipster
scene, an aesthetic which the movie’s dialogue
addresses frequently. Her fashion and hair closely
resemble many of the styles seen within the riot grrrl
movement in the early 90s. Steam punk goggles
on her head, brightly colored tights under plaid
pleated skirts, and combat style boots, seem to be
the character’s general aesthetic. The steampunkxi
and riot grrrlxii styles add an edgy level to the
character’s personality. Her clothing is feminine,
but strongly alternative, which aside from edginess
also lends a more masculine air to her persona.
Her bomber jackets and a-symmetric haircut take
away from the traditional sense of female beauty
because of its historically male perception and
appropriation by the character. To add to her
alterna-girl aesthetic, Ramona’s ever changing hair
color mimics that of fellow Manic Pixie Dream girl
Clementine, in The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless
Mind. The wildly colored hair is a fashionable trend
within alternative scenes, particularly within emo
and scene kid aesthetics. Her involvement with the
music scene and frequency in dating musicians also
aligns her with a more alternative scene, given that
most alternative scenes tend to align themselves
with particular genres of music, i.e. punk, emo,
etc. Ramona’s alternative style and tie to the music
scene aligns her with several Manic Pixie Dream Girl
aesthetics.
Aside from her aesthetic identity within the
MPDG, Ramona’s character plays a secondary role
to the male protagonist, despite showing herself to
hold more power in the relationship. In a telling
scene, Scott, the male protagonist is shown wearing
an apron and cooking dinner for Ramona. He
speaks to his roommate, about all of the emotions
and anxieties he is having about Ramona coming
over. His banter seems very stereotypically female in
the way that he quickly becomes over emotional and
worries about his body image. This scene places the
relationship dominance in the hands of Ramona
and masculinizes her character. Additionally,
Ramona clarifies early on that all sexual power is
hers to control. This is established after Ramona
and Scott’s first date once they end up in Ramona’s
bed:
Ramona V. Flowers: I changed my mind.
Scott Pilgrim: Changed it to what? From what?
Ramona V. Flowers: I don’t wanna have sex with
you, Pilgrim. Not right now.
Scott Pilgrim: Okay.
Ramona V. Flowers: It’s not like I’m gonna send
you home in a snowstorm or anything. You can sleep
in my bed. And I reserve the right to change my
mind about the sex later.
Much like Summer in 500 Days of Summer,
Ramona embodies the characteristics of McRobbie’s
“phallic girl.” Ramona is both in control of her
sexual life, as evidenced by the first date scene,
and willingness to use violence when necessary.
According to McRobbie, the “phallic girl,” besides
engaging in a sexual lifestyle which is reminiscent
of patriarchal male prowess, will also engage in
masculine habits such as “smoking, swearing getting
1 4 n THE JACK
into fights, having casual sex...”xiii Ramona is shown
to have several battle scenes where she defends
herself and/or the male protagonist. Although this
show of strength and power is a more masculine
trait, there isn’t true equality between the male and
female characters. Ramona only fights the female
characters, which gives the impression that women
would be unable to fight against a male. The male
protagonist expresses this idea when fighting
Ramona’s female ex from her “bi-curious” or as
Scott calls it her “sexy” phase. When informed that
he would have to defeat the female ex, Scott insists
that he can’t fight a girl because “they’re soft.”
The image of the strong fighting woman who is
willing to defend herself and those she cares for is
undermined by the female-on-female battles which
insinuate women are too soft to fight men.
To further align the Ramona character to the
phallic girl, it is important to note the character’s
previous relationship with another female. Because
Ramona discredits the relationship by calling it
simply a “phase,” she is aligning herself with the
more taboo side of the phallic girl, “who is not
averse to having sex with other girls.”xiv However,
like the phallic girl, the relationship is just a
fling rather than an acceptance of bisexuality or
homosexuality. By calling it a bi-curious phase,
the relationship still accepts heterosexuality as the
normative orientation, and thus does not take away
from patriarchal power. Were Ramona to accept the
validity of the relationship and her possible feelings,
the relationship may have been a threat to her
potential heterosexual relationships. She is therefore
still an object that is conquerable for males. The
fling fits into a more “sexy” understanding of lesbian
desire, which is perpetuated by modern media.
Additionally, her sexual life, which she appears to
be in control of, is expressed to be more focused on
“recreational sex” rather than “reproductive sex.”
When her past relationships are discussed she speaks
of them without any real attachment or regret. Her
relationships seem to be based on recreation rather
than any level emotional attachment.
This taken into account, it can be said that
the Ramona character fits into views of sexuality
and third-wave feminism. Not only does she
fit into Johnson’s argument in favor of female
pleasure being empowering for women, she also
can be aligned with Naomi Wolf’s argument
on promiscuity. Although McRobbie might see
recreational sex as outside of feminist rhetoric,
Naomi Wolf argues that by embracing one’s
“shadow slut”xv one is embracing one’s own power
of patriarchy. Wolf argues against the policing of
female sexuality and how by embracing the often
shunned promiscuous aspects of one’s personality,
women are actively fighting against standard
ideologies of female sexuality. Ramona is shown
to be unabashed in her sexual freedoms as well as
in the number of relationships she has accrued.
By embracing her “shadow slut” i.e. not acting
accordingly to standard perceptions of female
chastity, Ramona fights against it.
However, Ramona’s ultimate decision to return
to her possessive ex-boyfriend takes away from
the power she has gained personally and in her
relationship with Scott. By returning to her ex she
is therefore undermining her feminist power and
feeding into hegemonic patriarchal constructs
of traditional relationships. The character’s style
aesthetic changes when she returns to the ex. This
is expressed by her change from more masculine
clothing to a revealing dress and a choker. She is
more feminized than any other time the audience
has encountered her, symbolizing a transition to
a more traditional female role as submissive to a
man. Despite her earlier show of power, Ramona’s
immediate seeking of an ex-boyfriend after a break
up with Scott, shows her dependence on an amorous
other. This indication of a lack of agency as well
as her alignment to the views of the “new young
woman” within post-feminism ties her to the Manic
Although McRobbie might
see recreational sex as outside
feminist rhetoric, Naomi Wolf
argues that by embracing one’s
“shadow slut” one is embracing
one’s own power of patriarchy.
FA L L 2 013 n 15
Pixie Dream Girl trope. Again, as in in 500 Days of
Summer the character initially appears to sit in a
place of ambivalence. There are glimpses of feminist
rhetoric, particularly third wave notions, but,
ultimately the characters regress into roles which
leave them as secondary to the male protagonist and
more involved with a heterosexual relationship than
with themselves.
Conclusion
In both films, it is possible to see how the trope of
the Manic Pixie Dream Girl can sit in a liminal space
between feminism and post-feminism. Despite the
ephemeral glimpse of strong feminist rhetoric by
both of the characters, the ultimate decisions to give
up personal morals and desires for a heterosexual
relationship delegitimizes their feminist argument.
Because the trope has established itself as placing
the male lead as the protagonist, it is difficult to
argue its feminist power, regardless of the strength
of the supporting female role. This can be seen
within 500 Days of Summer and Scott Pilgrim vs the
World, since both of the characters give a glimpse
of feminist rhetoric, but ultimately adhere to
patriarchal notions of feminine comportment.
Because they adhere to the gender power
distinctions perpetuated within the Manic Pixie
mythos, both characters set themselves as subversive
characters. Their lack of true agency in favor of
inspiring the brooding male protagonist further
depicts their character as secondary and almost less
important to the male. This need to care for the
male protagonist emulates the antiquated notion of
women as caretakers or homemakers. Ultimately, the
trope best situates itself within post-feminism and
the theories of the new sexual contract as discussed
by Angela McRobbie. The characters do benefit from
the past struggles of feminism as noted by their
enjoyment of sexual freedoms and pleasure without
many repercussions. They also show themselves
to be more traditionally feminine, wearing girly
clothing and worrying about their future within a
committed heterosexual relationship. The trope’s
placement within the alternative scene aligns it with
an expectation of greater leeway within the freedoms
of the female body and femininity. However,
femininity as a construct and the female body,
regardless of the labeled perception (i.e. mainstream,
riot grrrl, feminist, post-feminist) when depicted on
screen, must adhere to the patriarchal concept of
idealized femininity.
Notes
iAngela McRobbie, The Aftermath of Feminism:
Gender, Culture and Social Change (London: SAGE
Publishing Ltd, 2009), 28.
iiSamantha Senda-Cook, “Modernizing Two
Double Binds: How Six Contemporary Films
Perpetuate the Myth of the Incomplete Woman,
“National Communications Association (2009): 1828, http://sendacook.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/
postfeminist-double-binds.pdf.
iiiIbid.
ivMcRobbie, The Aftermath of Feminism, 83.
vIbid.
viIbid.
viiNathan Rabin. “The Bataan Death March
of Whimsy Case File #1: Elizabethtown,” A.V. Club
(2007): http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-bataandeath-march-of-whimsy-case-file-1-eliza,15577/.
viiiMcRobbie, The Aftermath of Feminism, 64.
ixMcRobbie, The Aftermath of Feminism, 83.
xMerri Lisa Johnson, “Ladies Love Your Box:
The Rhetoric of Pleasure and Danger in Feminist
Television Studies,” Third Wave Feminism and
Television : Jane Puts It in a Box (London: Taurus,
2007): 392-410.
xiSteampunk is a sub-genre of science fiction
that features steam-powered machinery. There is
also a fashion statement associated with the subgenre, which includes 19th century aesthetics and
steam powered machinery accessories.
xiiThe Riot grrrl movement is an underground
feminist punk rock movement that originally
started in the early to mid-1990s. The movement
is often tied to Third Wave feminism and its bands
often deal with issues such as rape, domestic
abuse, sexuality, racism, patriarchy, and female
empowerment. In addition to a music scene and
genre, riot grrrl is a subculture: zines, the DIY ethic,
1 6 n THE JACK
art, political action, and activism are part of the
movement.
xiiiMcRobbie, The Aftermath of Feminism, 89.
xivIbid.
xvNaomi Wolf. Promiscuities: The Secret Struggle for
Womanhood (New York: Random House, 1997).
Bibliography
Ang, Ien. Dallas and the Ideology of Mass Culture.
Harlow: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Bell, Crystal. “75 years of Manic Pixie Dream
Girls.” The Huffington Post. Last modified July
26, 2012.
http://www.huffingtonpost.
com2012/07/26/manic-pixie-dream-girlsvideo_n_1705312.html.
Helford, Elyce Rae. “The Stepford Wives And The
Gaze.” Feminist Media Studies 6, no. 2 (2006): 145156.
Johnson, Merri Lisa. “Ladies Love Your Box: The
Rhetoric of Pleasure and Danger in Feminist
Television Studies.” In Third Wave Feminism and
Television : Jane Puts It in a Box. London: Taurus,
2007.
McRobbie, Angela. The Aftermath of Feminism: Gender,
Culture and Social Change. London: SAGE, 2009.
Nikandam, Noya. “Gender is Performative in Illusive
Beliefs.” English Language & Literature Studies 2,
no. 2 (2012): 84-88.
Rabin, Nathan. “The Bataan Death March of
Whimsy Case File #1: Elizabethtown.” A.V. Club.
Last modified January 25, 2007. http://www.
avclub.com/articles/the-bataan-death-march-ofwhimsy-case-file-1-eliza,15577/.
Rakow, Lana F. Feminist Approaches to Popular Culture:
Giving Patriarchy its Due. Harlow: Pearson Prentice
Hall, 199-214.
Senda-Cook, Samantha. “Modernizing Two Double
Binds: How Six Contemporary Films Perpetuate
the Myth of the Incomplete Woman.” National
Communications Association 6, no. 2 (2009): 18-28.
http://sendacook.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/
postfeminist-double-binds.pdf.
Thornham, Sue. “Starting to feel like a Chick” Revisioning romance in “In the Cut”. Feminist Media
Studies 7, no. 1 (2007): 33-46.
Vint, Sherryl. “The New Backlash: Popular Culture’s
“Marriage” with Feminism, or Love Is All You
Need.” Journal of Popular Film and Television 34.
no. 4 (2007): 160-169.
Wolf, Naomi. Promiscuities: The Secret Struggle for
Womanhood. New York: Random House, 1997.
Julianna Joyce is a 2013 graduate. Originally from
Mayagüez, Puerto Rico, Julianna began her studies
at the college in 2009, where she finished a degree in
communication studies. Within the major she chose to focus
on cinemas studies from both theory and filmmaking stand
points. Her theoretical approach focuses on the role of cinema
in the depiction of marginalized or little visible peoples, with
a strong inclination towards Hollywood and Third Cinemas.
Under the guidance of Jennifer Gauthier and Chad Beck,
Julianna has conducted research in a variety of cinematic
fields, including First Nation’s Cinema, Animated Disney
Films, and Middle-Eastern Arabic Cinema. She has had
the opportunity to present her research at the Mid-Atlantic
Popular & American Culture Association conference,
twice at the Randolph College Symposium of Artists and
Scholars and twice at the Student Undergraduate Research
Forum’s annual conference where she received 2nd place
in 2012. Juliana is a member of both the Lambda Pi Eta
Communications Honor Society and Sigma Delta Pi Spanish
Honor Society and the recipient of the James Carey/Marie
Nichols Award for Excellence in Communications.
Nominated by Chad Beck,
COMM 425
FA L L 2 013 n 17
Award for Best Senior Paper
Sarah Maki for
“Laughing at Men: Masculinities in
contemporary sitcoms”
Introduction
The situation comedy, or the “sitcom,” is an
established part of daily television. Prime time is rife
with them; some are considered classics (All in the
Family, The Cosby Show, Cheers), and others are quoted
long after they are off the air (Friends, Seinfeld, Will
and Grace). Because of its common use, the word
‘sitcom’ assumes a definition—many scholars allow
the term to define itself without constructing the
genre to develop a “map” of how the characters and
narratives have developed over the years into what
they are on contemporary television. The study
of these character developments, specifically the
development of masculinities within sitcoms is the
purpose of this study.
A study of the portrayal of masculinities in
sitcoms is relevant in a society that struggles
with defining masculinities (and consequently
male sexualities) every day. The recent media and
political discussions surrounding the definitions
of “marriage” and “family” create opportunities
for prime-time television series to address these
issues in a way that may challenge the dominant
ideologies of Americans—what a “man” is, who a
man “should” be with, what a man “should” do.
The sitcom is successful because its characters and
episodes’ subjects are rooted in the social, cultural,
and political discourse of its time—it not only
reflects American ideology but also works to shape
ideology. Its audiences are allowed to laugh at the
challenging or uncomfortable situations regarding
masculinities because they take place within the
context of comedy. These comedic moments often
coincide with the widely and fiercely debated role of
masculinity in America.
An analytical comparison of masculinities
between How I Met Your Mother and Modern Family
initially felt like an arbitrary choice; the first
follows a group of friends who live in the city
and the second follows three families who live in
suburbia. It is the unexpected similarities in the
development of the wide range of male-characters
in each show that were subject to analysis that acted
as the determining factors. How I Met Your Mother
includes bachelors and “bromances”; Modern Family
includes men on their second wife, and homosexual
relationships; and both shows include married men
with families. Because both shows comically present
men in traditional gender roles, and men challenging
these roles, this analysis aims to determine if these
characters maintain, challenge, or ambiguously
debate the traditional masculine, heteronormative
roles.
The Sitcoms
How I Met Your Mother first aired on CBS in
September of 2005, and since then has established
itself as a sitcom of recognizable characters and
catchphrases [i.e. Barney Stinson’s “Legen-wait for
it-dary!” or “Suit up!”]. The series has been running
for eight seasons, but I will only work with the
first seven. The three male characters of the series
are Ted Mosby (Josh Radnor), Marshall Erikson
(Jason Segal), and
Barney Stinson (Neil
Patrick Harris). The
The sitcom is successful
two female leads are
because its characters
Lily Aldrin (Alyson
and episodes are rooted
Hannigan) and Robin
in the social, cultural,
Scherbatsky (Cobie
and political discourse
Smulders). The series
of its time…”
focuses on an older
Ted, in the year 2030,
telling his children
the story of how he met their mother; this includes,
but is not limited to, his romantic relationships,
his business ventures, his friendships, and his
adventures. Since its debut, the series has been
1 8 n THE JACK
nominated for two Golden Globe awards and won a
Primetime Emmy in 2012, as well as eight other wins
and fifty nominations.i The show is produced by
20th Century Fox Television and in the 2011–2012
season television viewer statistics, ranked 45th with
the total viewership being 9.673 million.ii
Modern Family debuted on ABC in September
of 2009, and since then the show has become a
popular family sitcom. Presented in mockumentary1
style, the show follows the storylines of three very
different families living in suburbia. One family
is “traditional”; Claire Dunphy (Julie Bowen) is
married to Phil Dunphy (Ty Burrell) and they have
three children, twin girls Haley and Alex (Sarah
Hyland and Ariel Winter) and son Luke (Nolan
Gould). The second family is interracial; an older
man, Jay Pritchett (Ed O’Neill) is now married to
a Latina woman, Gloria Delgado-Pritchett (Sofia
Vergara), and she brought into the marriage one
son, Manny (Rico Rodriguez). Claire is Jay’s grown
daughter by his first marriage. Jay’s other child,
Mitchell Pritchett (Jesse Tyler Ferguson) is gay
and committed to partner Cameron Tucker (Eric
Stonestreet), and they have recently adopted a
Vietnamese baby, Lily (Aubrey Anderson-Emmons).
The series follows the relationships within and
between the three families. Since its premiere, the
series has won one Golden Globe (2012) and received
another 50 awards and 101 nominations. The show
is produced by 20th Century Fox Television and in
the 2011–2012 season television viewer statistics,
ranked 17th with the total viewership being 12.93
million.iii
Literature Review
As an introduction to the situation comedy, Jane
Feuer’s article “Genre Study and Television” (1992)
serves as an in-depth analysis of both genre and
character development. Feuer refers to the work
of television scholars to offer three differing
insights into the sitcom genre: David Grote, Horace
Newcomb, and David Marc. Grote presents a
negative definition of the sitcom—it is the most
basic genre on television that is both conservative
and static in its form. Newcomb reiterates the
basic structure of the sitcom, citing the simple and
reassuring nature of the problem/solution formula
for its audience. David Marc interprets sitcoms as
having the subversive potential of a social critique
with the ability to challenge social norms. In his
book Comic Visions (1997) Marc developed a formula
for the situation comedy and how it confronts social
norms; each episode features a familiar status quo,
a ritual error made, and then a ritual lesson learned
that returns the family to that familiar status
quo. By steeping each episode in familiar social or
cultural contexts, audiences can relate to and find
the humor in the “crises” of each episode. Within
this context of a general “formula” for the situation
comedy, in his book Television Style (2010) Jeremy G.
Butler wrote that the majority of sitcoms are limited
to recurring interior and in-studio exterior sets;
characters spend a substantial amount of time in
a living room, dining room, or kitchen. These sets
emphasize situations in the home and workplace
and encourage dialogue rather than action. These
applied guidelines create the structure for the
sitcom.
In the article “Sitcoms” (1987), Ronald
Berman alleges that “good comedy has a way of
breaking away from ideology.” Berman discusses
the challenges that arise with a willingness and
opportunity to critique and address social problems;
create a show that is too socially forwardthinking
and the networks lose interest, too conservative and
there is the risk of losing a thinking audience. He
suggests that comedy as a genre corresponds to the
actual world rather than to the ideal world, which is
echoed in the application of hegemonic masculinity
to real men; the ideal is not necessarily achievable or
1The ‘mockumentary’ style is seen in contemporary television shows such as The Office, Arrested Development, and Parks
and Recreation. The style uses cinematography elements of documentary films such as interviews, jumpy camera work,
high resolution media, etc. Brett Mills and Ethan Thompson have both offered the term “comedy verite” as a label for
this style of sitcom (Jeremy G.Butler, Television Style 214). This “comedy verite” branches away from the classic cinema
verite style documentary because it includes talking heads, the filmmaker is not only observing the events that happen
around them, but have an obvious physical presence within the set and interact with the actors via interviews, etc.
FA L L 2 013 n 19
applicable to actual men or to the men in sitcoms.
television reproduces the larger ideologies of society.
In Robert Hanke’s article “The ‘Mock-Macho’
The characters that sitcoms show their audiences’
Situation Comedy: Hegemonic Masculinity and its
are rooted in the world around them and with
Reiteration” (1998) he describes one of the stock
whom they are already familiar.
characters in a sitcom, the “mock-macho” man.
Continuing the scholarly discussion of
Hanke charts the development of the “macho” male
inadequate male characters is David Buchbinder
character who is comedic because of a previously
in his article “Enter the Schlemiel: The Emergence
established concept of masculinity; these characters
of Inadequate or Incompetent Masculinities in
attempt to attain a certain masculinity and fail to
Recent Film and Television.” Buchbinder (2008)
do so. He identifies these sitcoms and characters
applies the characteristics that have been reserved
by the jokes that are written (and at whose expense
for the construction of Jewish Masculinity to the
they are written), their correspondence to “true life,”
incompetent male character present in television.
and what kind of masculinity they identify with: the
The “Schlemiel” character struggles to meet
“Wild Man” or the “New Father.” The “Wild Man”
gender norms; despite efforts to achieve the
is hyper-masculine (81); he is created in the clichéd
desired masculinity, he may be clumsy, awkward,
model of a modern cavemen. The “New Father” is
or physically lacking. Buchbinder summarizes this
assertive in his paternal responsibilities within the
character concisely as the “incompetently masculine
structure of clichéd masculinity; he prefers sports
male,” a man who tries to meet the norms of culture
to the arts and encourages “natural” aggression (i.e.
and fails. His discussion of the growing anxiety
roughhousing, wrestling, etc.), particularly if he has
around masculinity applies Judith Butler’s notion of
sons. Hanke argues that because these characters
performativity to the development of masculinities
foreground the question of what the definition of
in television characters. Inadequate male characters
a “man” is, their parodic discourse of masculinity
in a comical context, or such as the male characters
acknowledges the precariousness of hegemonic
discussed by Miller, Hanke, or Sharrer, allow
masculinity (88).
audiences to relax in the portrayal of characters they
Father characters in television, be they new
can relate to or who are exaggerated.
fathers or father experts, are discussed in Erica
Sitcoms and their male characters, according to
Sharrer’s article “From Wise to Foolish: The
Diana Miller in her article “Masculinity in Popular
Portrayal of the Sitcom Father, 1950s–1990s” (2001).
Sitcoms, 1955–1960 and 2000–2005” (2011), rely “on
Sharrer’s hypothesis is rooted in the notion that
stock characters and stock humor”(144) that create
men who are taking on traditionally female roles
basic formulas and coding systems for identifying
in the sitcom have become “fair game” for lighttheir masculinities. The uncertainty surrounding
hearted humor and this is particularly
pronounced in working class television
family households. The modern
The uncertainty surrounding masculinity in the
sitcom about these families is expected
latter half of the twentieth century, the context for
to offer foolish portrayals of fathers;
contemporary sitcoms, has added the “hen-pecked
Mark Crispin Miller, in his article
husband,” the “childish man,” and the “metrosexual
“Prime Time: Deride and Conquer”
man” to the ongoing list of stock characters.
(1987) concurs with this idea, mapping
the development of the sitcom father
from its original state as a patriarchal
figure who was not considered a laughing matter
masculinity in the latter half of the twentieth
to this “fool dad” who originates from the
century, the context for contemporary sitcoms, has
disappearance of the patriarchal emphasis in society.
added the “hen-pecked husband,” the “childish
Both Miller and Sharrer relate these character
man,” and the “metrosexual man” to the ongoing
developments to the social system of the era because
list of stock characters. The “hen-pecked husband” is
2 0 n THE JACK
“fearfully respectful” of his wife; popular characters
like Ray Barone of Everybody Loves Raymond and Hal
of Malcom in the Middle are mindful of their poor
decision making because they fear punishment,
belittling, or anger from their wives. The “childish
man” refuses to function as an adult; he may reject
marriage, avoid responsibility within the family
life, and/or behave like an overgrown child. The
“metrosexual man” promotes an urban, polished
masculinity that equates manhood with personal
care, fashionable clothes, and other luxuries often
associated with femininity.
As masculinity develops and the male charactertype changes they are categorized into three coexisting types of men by Tim Edwards in his article
“Sex, booze, and fags: masculinity, style, and men’s
magazines.” Edward (2003) created the “Old Man,”
the “New Man,” and the “New Lad.” The “Old
Man” is defined through the ideal of marriage
or promiscuity and he pursues a standard career
(138); the character Ross Gellar of Friends is created
within this form with his established career as an
archeologist and his multiple marriages throughout
the series. The “New Man” has a career with fluidity
and is caring, loving, with an ambiguous sexuality;
written within this category is character Chandler
Bing (Friends)—he has an unidentified corporate job
and changes careers and is occasionally mistaken
for being gay.2 The “New Lad” is created as a man of
one-night stands whose career is unimportant and
he is not defined through financial independence
(138); the character of Joey Tribbiani (Friends)
epitomizes Edward’s “New Lad”—a womanizer
with an unstable acting career. Male characters are
created within, but not confined to, the structures of
these archetypes.
These archetypes result from the development
of masculinity over time because the characters are
products of their social and cultural environment.
The career emphasis of a male sitcom character is
rooted in the traditional role of a man in the home.
In Jessie Bernard’s article “The Good-Provider
Role” (1981), she outlines the place of men in
the home as the “providers.” Bernard wrote that
a serious cost of the inherent good-provider role
was the identification of maleness within the work
site, specifically in success within the career (207).
Success in this good-provider role comes to define
masculinity itself; the role became a competition
among men. The good provider needed to be smart,
strong, and capable in the workplace if he was going
to be considered a man.
Theoretical Approach
Masculinity theory is necessary to understanding
development of the male character in sitcoms. In his
study Cultures of Masculinity (2006)iv Tim Edwards
refers to a three-phase or ‘wave’ model of critical
studies of masculinity. The first phase or wave refers
to the development of the sex role paradigm in the
1970s to apply more direct questions to the concept
of masculinity. These studies sought to demonstrate
the socially constructed nature of masculinity and
its reliance on socialization, sex role learning and
social control (2). This primary sex role paradigm
was the most dominant set of masculinities
exerting influence and control—hegemonic
masculinity. The second phase developed in the
1980s out of immense criticism for the first wave,
and is concerned with the power struggle within
gender and society. The third phase of studies of
masculinity defines gender in terms of normativity,
performativity, and sexuality.
Hegemonic masculinity is explained by Mike
Donaldson as the pattern of practice that allows
men’s dominance over women to continue. These
patterns create the ideal man and in a contemporary
society men still position themselves in relation to
it. Donaldson refers to Patricia Sexton’s suggestion
that “male norms stress values such as courage,
inner direction, certain forms of aggression,
autonomy, technological skill, group solidarity,
adventure and considerable amounts of toughness
in mind and body.”v These concepts of masculinity
are framed within a heteronormative concept of
gender, which is based on the dichotomization of
sex (biological) rather than gender (cultural) and
2Friends, season one, episode eight; “The One Where Nana Dies Twice.” November 10, 1994.
FA L L 2 013 n 21
subsequently naturalizes the body. Because the
heteronormative ideal is “logically” rooted in the
biological notion of reproduction, heterosexuality
and homophobia are the bedrock of hegemonic
masculinity. The conformity of men to the demands
of this masculinity rewards homophobic behavior
in the form of social support and reduced anxiety
about their own manliness.vi
Connell and Messerschmidt reformulate
Donaldson’s original conception of hegemonic
masculinity. Their analysis includes male and female
gender categories within the concept of masculinity;
they recognize that masculinity is not limited to the
biological definition of man, but is a configuration
of practice that is accomplished in social action.vii
Their reformulation also concludes that the notion
of hegemonic masculinity as it is constructed does
not correspond closely to the lives of actual men.
The hegemonic ideal is not necessarily achievable or
applicable to actual men or to the male characters
in sitcoms. Connell and Messerschmidt argue that
“masculinity” does not represent a certain type of
man, but instead represents a way that men position
themselves through discursive practices; men can
strategically adopt or distance themselves from
hegemonic masculinity.
This idea of performance and the maintenance
of masculinity are rooted in the work of Judith
Butler. Butler dislikes identity categories; she
recognizes them as limiting “guidelines” for
expected behavior. These identity categories create
a compulsory heterosexualityviii; society is obligated
to perform the heteronormative expectation
because social norms and behaviors derive from it.
Butler refers to the phenomena of drag to explain
her idea of the abstract gender performance; she
alleges that every person is in their own socially
acceptable normative version of drag every day. The
hegemonic heteronormative ideology exposes itself
through repetitive performances every day and the
performance has to be repeated daily because it is
constantly being challenged. The manly man has to
be manly every day for fear that should his behavior
change he would face criticism or accusations of
not falling within the heteronormative identity
category. Her theories demand that we recognize
the ambiguity of sexual identity and of the
performances enacted daily by everyone to maintain
his or her sexual identity.ix
Constructed masculinities do not correspond
with the lives of actual men, or characters. Instead
Sharon Bird’s models express the fantasy, the
desire, and the ideals of masculinity that men
hold themselves to. Bird’s theory of homosociality
references the nonsexual attractions held by men
(or women, but for the sake of this study men will
be the sole focus of discussion) for other men.
Bird argues that “homosocial interaction, among
heterosexual men, contributes to the maintenance
of hegemonic masculinity norms by supporting
means associated with identities that fit hegemonic
ideals while suppressing meanings associated with
nonhegemonic masculinity identities.”x There are
meanings that are crucial to this perpetuation of
hegemonic masculinity: emotional detachment,
competitiveness, and sexual objectification of
women. Although these understandings characterize
hegemonic masculinity they are not necessarily
internalized by an individual person; they are about
how men behave, not necessarily what men believe.
Methods
The focus of this study will be an analysis of seasons
one through seven of How I Met Your Mother and
seasons one through three of Modern Family to
create a broad commentary and then focus on the
masculinities of the characters in specific scenes
from these episodes. The broad commentary will
allow for the analysis of the character development
within the situation comedy genre. I will examine
how the lead male characters are defined by
their female counterparts (looking for love, close
friendship with a female, and marriage), the
relationships between the male characters (love
interests, “bromances.”), and how their masculinity
is defined by the series.
My analysis of the television series will be
rooted in Feurer’s three approaches to genrexi—
the aesthetic, the ritual, and the ideological. The
aesthetic approach would approach the sitcom
as a conventional genre and it would include
defining it in “terms of a system of conventions
that permit artistic expression” and then determine
if the series discussed fulfilled or transcended the
2 2 n THE JACK
generic characteristics. The ritual approach views
genre as an exchange between the audience and
the industry—a cultural relationship. This analysis
discusses how the genre, or the series within the
genre, maintains the social order and adapts to
cultural changes to remain relevant. The ideological
approach sees genre as an instrument of control.
This analysis would review how the genre or series
reproduces the dominant ideologies of a capitalist
system. Approaching these sitcoms from these three
angles will create an in-depth analysis of these series
as examples of the sitcom genre.
I will investigate how each character conforms
to, deviates from, and/or challenges these “standard”
male characters found in sitcoms. To analyze the
characters I will examine the narratives and misen-scene of the episodes with attention to setting,
lighting, costume, and behavior of the characters.xii
These details create the effect of comic exaggeration,
understated beauty, and realisms—the mis-en-scene
helps to create and emphasize details that develop
throughout each narrative.
Analysis: The men of How I Met Your Mother
The comedy in How I Met Your Mother is rooted in
real-life, real-world situations to which an audience
can relate: dating, marriage, friendships, and careers.
These familiar situations are the epitome of why
a sitcom is successful and what makes a sitcom a
‘situational comedy.’ These moments of comedy
that an audience can relate to happen within the
recurring sets that Jeremy Butler mentioned; the
majority of the show is filmed in Ted/Marshall/
Lily/Robin’s apartment(s) (specifically the living
room with little time being spent in the kitchen or
bedrooms), the bar McClaran’s that the characters
frequent, the streets of New York, or an office
building. Just as Butler suggested, the series’
emphasis on dialogue between the characters rather
than action or great movement solidifies How I Met
Your Mother’s structure as a sitcom. The development
of the masculinities of characters Barney, Ted, and
Marshall are all found within the structure of the
show’s sitcom genre.
Suit up!
Barney Stinson is, by Diana Miller’s definition, a
metrosexual man. He confidently recognizes his
personal interest in his appearance and his own
narcissistic confidence; his laughably ostentatious
behavior negates any negativity the audience may
have towards a character so callously self-invested
and judgmental of others whose standards for
appearance do not match his own. He encourages
other men to take pride in their appearance and
confidently approaches the notion of judging other
men based on their appearance without hesitation.
In a homosocial situation defined by the accepted
standards of heteronormativity and masculinity
if a man judges another man solely based on his
appearance, more specifically his fashion sense
and level of physical attraction, he would likely be
ostracized. Alternatively it would be seen as a point
of competition—who looks better, and, by that
standard of appearance, who gets more girls?
The emphasis of Barney’s character on exploits
with women gratifies Bird’s means of masculinity
perpetuation—the blatant sexual objectification of
women. His lack of interest in developing legitimate
relationships with any of the women he sleeps
with maintains his promiscuous sexual identity;
his heterosexuality is made obvious. An important
marker of Barney’s sexual objectification of women
is his “Playbook.” The Playbook is a collection of
characters and pick-up lines that Barney uses over
the course of the series to successfully get woman
after woman into his bed, or him into their bed. The
plays include everything from “The One Week to
live” to “The Olympian.”xiii An amusing character
quirk, this book immediately marginalizes women.
Women are to be used as objects and “played” with
until Barney is satisfied; the women Barney uses his
plays on are not expected to call his bluff or turn
him down because they should not have the mental
capacity to question his character’s claims. This
contributes not only to his hegemonic masculinity
as defined by his dominance over women, but it also
promotes competition. Barney tracks the statistics
of various plays, determining their success rate.
Barney is making plays and running numbers to
achieve the maximum amount of promiscuity that
he can and treating relationships like we would treat
a competitive sport.
While his sexual identity with women is
perpetuated in his Playbook, his identity in
homosocial situations is maintained by his “Bro
FA L L 2 013 n 2 3
Code.” The “Bro Code” is a book/blog written by
Barney that are guidelines to outline the acceptable
behavior in particular situations as well as the
behaviors that will result in being ostracized or the
questioning of sexual identity; these guidelines tend
to align with Bird’s characterizations of masculinity
(emotional detachment, competitiveness, and/or
sexual objectification of women), for example:
Article 1: Bro’s before ho’s. The bond between two men
is stronger than the bond between a man and a woman
because, on average, men are stronger than women. That’s
just science.
Article 25: A Bro doesn’t let another Bro get a tattoo,
particularly a tattoo of a girl’s name. The average
relationship between a man and a woman lasts 83 days.
The relationship between man and his skin lasts a life time
and must be nurtured because the skin is the largest and
second most important organ a man has.
Article 77: Bros don’t cuddle.xiv
The man who adheres to the bro code dominates
women and establishes his dominance in
homosocial situations. This man is confident
enough in his masculinity and sexual identity to
develop close enough relationships with other men
to consider them ‘bros.’ Barney is fervent in his
dedication to the rules of the Bro Code.
His masculinity established and unwavering,
Barney is hesitant to alter his patterns of behavior
in any way. One of Barney’s primary qualities is
his avid disgust towards any serious relationship,
particularly those headed towards matrimony,
until Robin. Barney and Robin have a one nightnight stand (after she and Ted have broken up),
which temporarily decimates his relationship with
Ted because he broke Article 150 of his very own
code, ““No sex with your bro’s ex. It is never, EVER
permissible for a bro to sleep with his bro’s ex.
Violating this code is worse than killing a bro.”
Barney, unaccustomed to enjoying the company
of a woman with whom he is emotionally close
finds himself developing feelings for her. This
realization arises during the season three finale,
but no relationship is pursued until season five.
Barney feels a social compulsion, as Butler would
theorize, to maintain the masculinity that he
has been “performing” for so many years. He
cannot handle his sudden urge to conform to
heteronormative behavior and he does not want to
risk the loss of his status as a “playboy” by entering
into a monogamous relationship. This reluctance
to enter into a relationship allows him to maintain
the masculinity that he has established within his
2 4 n THE JACK
own specific guidelines. Following Barney’s attempt
to have a “normal” relationship is an episode that
exaggerates Barney’s (and Robin’s) unhappiness
in their relationship together. The increasingly
overweight and unhappy Barney that is created from
his participation in a monogamous relationship
completes the maintenance of his masculine identity
as the anti-relationship, promiscuous man.
The Barney character is at once a representation
of Miller’s “childish man,” Edward’s “New Lad”
and “New Man.” Barney’s aversion to commitment
within any romantic relationship and his continued
participation in certain activities develop his
childish masculinity; he rejects marriage in its
entirety and is frequently trying to harass one
of his friends to play laser tag with him, a game
intended for children. Barney as the “childish man”
correlates to his identity as a “New Lad”; although
he is financially independent, his series of onenight stands and resolution to live the “legendary”3
life coincide with the concise philosophy of this
“New Lad”: get drunk and get girls. It is Barney’s
metrosexuality that adds the “New Man” to his list
of character attributes; this “New Man” created
some anxiety because it left room to question a
man’s sexuality because of his narcissistic focus
on appearance and self-maintenance,xv definitive
qualities of Barney. Because Barney cannot
achieve the entire hegemonic ideal (Connell and
Messerschmidt note that this is impossible) he
positions himself as closely to the ideal as possible
through these character behavioral practices.
Have ya met Ted?
Ted Mosby is an optimistic romantic striving to
find the love of his life to whom he can get married
and start raising a family. Because the narrative
is told from the year 2030 and he is already
married, with children, the audience is privy to the
ultimate end of the series: yes, Ted finally finds a
woman to marry. The inclusion of Ted’s eventual
heterosexual nuptials from the pilot episode of the
series automatically establishes the sexuality of
his character leaving little room for an audience to
seriously question it. With his sexuality established,
His building design could influence
the skyline of New York…He, for all
intents and purposes, is constructing
giant penises, the very body part that
participates in the act of reproduction
in which heteronormative ideology is
rooted.
Ted’s character has the opportunity to engage in
romantic antics that would not be associated with
the men who align themselves with the hegemonic
ideal. When Ted and Robin go on their first date,
Ted tells her he loves her.4 Ted wears the same
Halloween costume each year for his apartment
complex’s rooftop party in the hopes that the
“slutty pumpkin” will recognize him because he lost
her phone number after they made a connection
four years ago.5 When Ted is trying to romance his
dermatologist he grows a mustache, reads a self-help
book, and then plans the perfect first “two-minute”
date for them to share in her busy schedule.6
His ostentatious acts of romance are essential to
establishing Ted’s heterosexuality; they establish
his masculinity and sexuality similarly to the
notion that Barney establishes his via promiscuity.
Barney’s promiscuity defines his character in the
same way that Ted’s serial dating defines his. In the
3“Legendary” is a recurring catchphrase of Barney’s; it epitomizes his character’s desires to live life with frequent
adventures, sex with attractive women, and being well-dressed at all times.
4How I Met Your Mother, season one, episode one. September 19, 2005
5How I Met Your Mother, season one, episode six. October 24, 2005.
6How I Met Your Mother, season three, episode thirteen. March 24, 2008..
FA L L 2 013 n 2 5
first seven seasons of the series, Ted has five serious
relationships (not including the mother, who has
yet to be introduced), has a dating relationship with
six women, goes on at least one date with sixteen
women, and casually sleeps with three women (that
the audience is made aware of; others are briefly
mentioned but never confirmed); Ted is entirely
uncomfortable being single. Where Barney defines
his masculinity and sexual identity in the number of
sexual encounters he has, Ted’s masculinity is rooted
in his search for the perfect woman. With each
girlfriend, Ted reestablishes his heterosexuality, his
masculinity, and his heteronormativity; each man is
obviously heterosexual because of his relationships
with women although Ted’s is more rooted in the
socially established heteronormative ideal.
Bernard having established the correlation
between masculinity and a man’s ability to fulfill the
“Good-Provider” role via his career, Ted’s successful
career as an architect is inherently masculine. His
building design could influence the skyline of New
York, he is creating something from nothing, and
he is creating large, vaguely phallic skyscrapers. He,
for all intents and purposes, is constructing giant
penises, the very body part that participates in
the act of reproduction in which heteronormative
ideology is rooted. In doing so he helps to cement
his own masculinity. The masculine and
virile appeal of his career is only further
confirmed when Barney, masquerading as
Ted, uses the line, “Ted Mosby, Architect,” to
pick up women. The abundant success that
Barney achieves solidifies the masculinity
(and hetero-sexual appeal) of his career. The
relevancy of his career does not end with its
sex appeal, but continues with the influence
his career has on his role as a future “Good
Provider” for his family. The importance
of this future role for Ted is obvious in the
twentieth episode of the fifth season, “Home
Wreckers,” when Ted buys a house after
he watches his mom get married a second
time before he has been married once.
During this episode Ted is single, without
7How I Met Your Mother, season 6 episode 8. November 8, 2010.
any prospects for marriage, but his fervent desire
to provide a home for the family he does not have
yet emphasizes the importance of being a “Good
Provider.” As Bird suggested, Ted’s ability to be
strong, smart, and capable in the workplace defines
him as a man in both his career and his home.
Lawyered!
Marshall’s heterosexuality is as obvious as Ted’s
from the beginning of the series. Marshall’s
engagement and eventual marriage to Lily not only
establishes Marshall’s sexuality but also roots the
series in stable heteronormativity; the situations
the couple experiences are representative of the
socially constructed norm of a healthy and stable
heterosexual relationship (and the very relationship
of Ted hopes to attain some day).
Marshall’s role in his relationship provides
stability for his masculinity rooted in hegemonic
masculinity’s notion of the ideal man. Lily is a
kindergarten teacher with a modest income and
Marshall’s employment as a corporate lawyer allows
him to provide the primary income for the two.
This position perpetuates the alpha-male ideal:
the man has the economic power over the woman.
Marshall is the epitome of Bernard’s “GoodProvider” role, even willing to continue to work at
2 6 n THE JACK
a corporation that he cannot morally stomach so
he can continue to support Lily and their future
child.7 In “Natural History,” season six episode
eight, Marshall informs Lily that he has been offered
a five-year contract with the corporation that he
has been working for (Goliath National Bank) and
that he has every intention of signing the contract
even if environmental law is what Marshall would
really like to pursue. Lily is offended by the fiveyear contract because the man she married wanted
to save the environment and she believes that he is
selling out for money. Marshall, on the defensive,
says that it is the financially secure career that he
thinks he should have to properly provide for his
growing family. Notably, Marshall’s dominance
is limited to his monetary value: while his career
supports his family his character is still reminiscent
of Miller’s “hen-pecked husband.” Marshall has
been avoiding telling Lily about the contract because
he knew that she would be disappointed so each
time she has asked him about when he plans on
leaving Goliath National Bank he has answered in
made-up legal-sounding jargon to avoid having the
conversation. Marshall fears making Lily angry and
is/was careful to avoid the argument until it was
absolutely necessary, but while he is reminiscent of
the fearfully respectful sitcom husband, Marshall is
more willingly devoted than miserably married.
An optimistic gentle giant standing at six foot
four inches, Marshall’s size initially could become
a point of Donaldson’s biological male-dominance,
but his demeanor negates from this biological
“manliness”; it is his relationship with his family
that assists in the solidification of his masculine
identity. Marshall is an inherently kind person who
was raised in Minnesota with two older brothers.
The “small” kid in the family, it is assumed that
Marshall endured the aggression that occurs
between male siblings.8 But it is not until the
tenth episode of season four that it is revealed how
aggressive Marshall can be. Entitled “The Fight,”
this episode centers on the masculinity and sex
appeal men fighting. After Ted and Barney are both
given credit by their bartender, Doug, for helping
win a fight that neither of them participated in,
neither man admits the truth because they would
risk losing women’s sudden interest in them (i.e.
Robin overtly flirting with and hitting on each
of them) and admitting it would reduce their
masculinity. Marshall is skeptical that his two
friends actually took part in the fight, but they
stick to their story up until the moment they are
sued by the man Doug knocked out. The pending
lawsuit requires Ted and Barney to approach Lawyer
Marshall for help. Marshall informs the two men
that they need to admit that they did nothing in the
fight or they would face legal repercussions. After
agreeing to legally admit that they were not involved
in the fight, Doug becomes the sole person named in
the lawsuit. Doug’s response to becoming the only
prosecuted man is to fight Ted and Barney. Once Ted
has been knocked out and Barney has run away, it is
Marshall who steps forward and knocks Doug out.
Afterwards it is revealed that he and his brothers
would spend nights aggressively participating in
their own version of a fight club when their parent
would go away. Robin, whose sexual interests in
Barney and Ted waned as soon as it was revealed
they had not fought, is suddenly interested in
Marshall. Even though he is consistently with Lily,
Robin’s attraction re-establishes the sex appeal of
fighting. This particular episode broadens Marshall’s
masculine identity; having established himself as a
relatively harmless character, this episode revealed
the “Wild Man” part of Marshall.
Analysis: The men of Modern Family
The subjects that the families and different episodes
deal with as the series progresses, and how they are
dealt with, are reminiscent of David Marc’s sitcom
formula; the men (and their families) face a conflict
that an audience can relate to and they, comically,
8In episode nine of season one Marshall and Lily travel to Minnesota to spend Thanksgiving with Marshall’s family.
While they are there Marshall participates in an aggressive game of bask-ice-ball (a game invented by the Erikson’s that
combines basketball and ice hockey) and it becomes generally understood that the family is used to the “normal” boy
aggression.
FA L L 2 013 n 27
resolve their problems all within thirty-minute time
slots. The men handle family pets, proper-child
rearing, birthday parties, emotional support for
children, and a host of other matters that men, and
particularly fathers, may be able to identify with.
Modern Family is undoubtedly a sitcom.
The “cool dad”
Phil Dunphy is first and foremost a family man: he
is happily married and the father to three children,
each of whom define him and firmly establish his
heterosexuality. Phil is a member of a traditional
nuclear family: in the home there is a father, a
mother, and children.xvi This creates a presence for
the heteronormative ideal family within a series
whose title suggests that it is going to challenge this
ideal. Despite the establishment of Phil’s obvious
heterosexuality via his family from the pilot episode
of the series, he continues to re-affirm his sexuality
throughout the series by being clearly interested in
Jay’s wife, Gloria, and reacting to other attractive
women he comes across in the same way. Phil’s
interactions with women other than his wife are the
epitome of Buchbinder’s “Schlemiel; he is awkward
and eager. His fumbling with attractive women at
once challenges his masculinity and re-establishes
his sexuality.
Phil’s father
role is the
pivotal point
of his character
development;
his attempts to
maintain his
status as a “cool
dad” and his role
in childcare often
end in him being
represented as
Miller’s “Fool
Dad.” In the
series premiere
after he gives
oldest daughter
permission to
wear a skirt
that Claire had
already told her was too short for school, Phil says
to the camera, “I’m a cool dad. That’s my thang.
I’m hip, I surf the web, I text. LOL; laugh out
loud. OMG; oh my god. WTF; why the face.” The
ridiculousness of this moment introduces Phil as
the father-figure to laugh at; the episodes where Phil
struggles with parenting continue to re-establish
him in that role. In the twenty-second episode of
season two, Phil and Claire argue over their separate
roles in child-rearing. Claire accuses Phil of treating
parenting as a novel and fun distraction,xvii which
subsequently allows him to be the “fun” parent.
When the two decide to switch roles for the day,
Phil creates a mockery of the original patriarchal
figure in sitcoms; he becomes exaggeratedly
authoritative when he makes his two daughters
clean the bathroom, going so far as to deny them
lunch. His afternoon of parenting is deemed wildly
ineffective when Claire comes home and it is Phil
that gets scolded for not feeding the girls lunch
instead of the girls getting scolded for not cleaning
their bathroom. Phil’s inability to parent the girls
reinforces gender roles within the home and reestablishes his role as the “Fool Dad.”
The development of Phil’s character as a
“Fool Dad” and a “Schlemiel” creates the perfect
2 8 n THE JACK
environment for the sensitive father figure. As he
struggles to perform within the structure of ideal
masculinity, Phil develops his own sense of what
being a “man” is. In his role as a sensitive father, Phil
maintains his masculinity by struggling to articulate
his true feelings or refusing to acknowledge that
he is having an emotional reaction. In season one,
episode six it is the first day back at school for
three children and Phil projects his melancholy at
his children being another year older onto Claire.
Having an emotional reaction to this is acceptable
for a mother and a woman, not for Phil. Phil first
tries to use his role as the good-provider to take care
of his wife and as she refuses each of his attempts he
becomes increasingly frustrated with his inability to
properly take care of his wife, which challenges his
sense of masculinity. This frustration with his own
sense of masculinity culminates with a road race
between Phil and Claire. Claire participates in halfmarathons and runs several miles each day and Phil
does not work out (another poke at his masculinity).
Claire is anticipating an easy win but as they run
she realizes that this is how Phil is coping with his
reaction to the kids’ first day of school and she lets
him win, telling the camera that “He needed the
win more than [she] did that day.” Phil’s restored
sense of masculinity is not negated by the audience’s
knowledge Claire let him win; because he “won” it
back in a physical competition, Phil’s character is
obviously rooted in the social norms of masculinity.
Phil never acknowledged that he was feeling
emotional and he never admitted this “weakness.”
He can be a sensitive father figure because the way
that he reestablishes his masculinity derives from
the cultural norms of what a “man” is and how he
should behave.
“It sounds better in Spanish!”
Jay Pritchett is the established patriarch of his
modern family: he is the grandfather and the
wise, retired man. Jay is introduced during the
premiere sitting next to his exceptionally beautiful
Colombian wife, an immediate establishment of
his heterosexuality and male virility. Jay is what
Edwards would call an “Old Man”: he is married
and financially secure and sexual ambiguity or
homosexuality makes him uncomfortable. Jay’s
sense of masculinity derives from Sexton’s definition
of what the male norms are: courage, aggression,
and technological skill.xviii Jay’s homosexual
son repeatedly provokes instinctual reactions
from Jay because his idea of masculinity is firmly
rooted in hegemonic masculinity which reinforces
homophobia. Jay’s role as the “Old Man” also
develops his role as the “Mock Macho” man: Jay is
trying to maintain a sense of what being a man was
defined as “in his day” in a modern era. He struggles
to adjust to his “modern family” and maintain a
sense of the hyper-masculine, heteronormative sense
of masculinity are what make his character comedic.
Jay’s adjustment to accepting homosexuality
and deterring his homophobia are present during
the thirteenth episode of season one “Fifteen
Percent” when Jay introduces Cameron to his
golfing buddies as Mitchell’s “friend.” Mitchell is
offended by this careful avoidance of identifying
Cameron as his partner because he feels that his
father has never been particularly comfortable with
the fact that his son is gay. Mitchell confronts Jay
and the conversation results in Mitchell implying
that he thinks Jay’s friend Shorty is gay, referencing
his own “gaydar” and Shorty’s sense of fashion as
explanation. Once this idea is in Jay’s head, he begins
to look for clues of his friend’s sexuality; Gloria tells
him that Shorty is the only one of his friends to
never have hit on her which confirms his suspicions.
Jay decides to have a conversation with Shorty about
it when the two men go golfing. Jay struggles to
bring the topic up as the two men play their game
until Shorty tries to assist him with his alignment
which makes Jay uncomfortable and he ends the
game. As the two men are having a post-game drink
Jay confronts him and, trying to be supportive
as possible, tells Shorty that Jay will be there as
his friend no matter what, offering his services
to do anything he can in his time of need. Shorty
misinterprets the gesture as an offer of money
because he was struggling with paying back a loan,
he was never struggling with his sexuality. As Jay
scrambles to explain the miscommunication Shorty
is immediately defensive and offended; Jay has just
questioned his sexuality, and by implying that he
was a homosexual has questioned his masculinity
as well. Because Mitchell planted that seed of doubt
FA L L 2 013 n 2 9
in his father’s head, Jay had to recognize that men
who deviate from his definition of acceptable male
behavior make him anxious; he is Edward’s “Old
Man” character.
As a man whose own obvious heterosexuality is
established from the series’ premiere, the significant
age difference between Jay and Gloria only enhances
the unwavering sense of masculinity around Jay.
Frequently dressed in clothes suitable for his age,
khakis and loose button downs, it is assumed
that Jay either has a lot to offer Gloria financially
or sexually; the audience can assume that his
performance is satisfactory in both departments
after the pilot episode. Gloria is discussing her exhusband with the camera and she says, “My first
husband: very handsome but too crazy. It seem like
all we did was fight and make love. Fight and make
love. Fight and make love.” This establishes Gloria’s
sexual drive, which subsequently implies that Jay is
now the man in her life fulfilling her needs. This,
in turn, helps to establish his masculine within the
biological sphere that Donaldson attributed to the
hegemonic ideal.
“No slapping your own butt.”
Mitchell Pritchett is a lawyer, a father, a son, and
in love with his partner Cameron. Mitchell’s
homosexuality is prevalent and relevant from the
beginning: it dictates how he reacts to threats of
his masculinity and how he reacts to the issue of
homosexuality in social settings. Mitchell is not a
flamboyant gay man (unless Lady Gaga is involved9)
and he is often uncomfortable with his partner’s
flamboyance because he recognizes it challenges
heteronormative definitions of masculinity.
There is a hyper-sensitivity to Mitchell’s character
because he struggles with his roles as a “man”
and as a “gay man,” which when defined by social
and cultural norms are entirely different. Mitchell
behaves as if displaying any behavior that is not
9Modern Family, season 2, episode 22. May 11, 2011.
10Modern Family, season 1 episode 9. November 25, 2009.
11Modern Family, season 3, episode 1. September 21, 2011.
considered masculine will undermine his various
attempts to establish his hegemonic masculinity.
But because hegemonic masculinity is rooted in
heteronormativity, which is in turn built upon
homophobia (a subject that Mitchell is particularly
sensitive to) Mitchell struggles with establishing his
masculinity within his sexuality.
Aware of his father’s homophobia accompanied
by a desire to bond with his father, Mitchell makes
multiple efforts to impress his father with feats
of “manliness” that he believes will challenge the
image his father has of him. When Cameron and
Jay bond over their love of football,10 a sport that
Mitchell knows nothing about, he makes an effort
to memorize statistics to impress his father (and his
partner). Mitchell’s inability to participate in the
conversation after the players he has memorized
are taken out of the game diminishes his attempts
at establishing masculinity within society’s or
his father’s terms. This is only perpetuated when
Mitchell and Cameron decide to build Lily a
playhouse in their backyard and it is revealed
the Mitchell is incapable of using tools without
becoming a danger to those around him. When
Cameron enlists Jay’s help and the two conspire
to give Mitchell painfully simple tasks, Mitchell’s
masculine pride is wounded and in an attempt to
prove that he is a capable man he puts the roof on
the playhouse by himself and locks himself inside
the castle. Mitchell has to admit to himself that he is
not the “manly man” that he aspires to be.
Regardless of his inability to establish the
hegemonic masculinity in its ideal, Mitchell is
the “Good Provider” for his family: Cameron is
unemployed and with baby Lily in the house it is
left to Mitchell to earn an income for the family.
Although, despite his financial independence,
Mitchell still identifies with the “New Man”: he is
loving, caring, and his open homosexuality does
make some other men nervous about their own
3 0 n THE JACK
sexuality or the sexuality of others. As a father,
Mitch makes the same mistakes that new parents
make: he becomes irrationally concerned after Lily
hits her head on the wall and struggles to adjust to
travel time with the baby in tow. When Cameron
suggests to Mitchell that they adopt a second baby,
a baby boy, Mitchell struggles with the thought of
does not struggle to define himself by the standard
of hegemonic masculinity; he does whatever pleases
him without fearing any challenges to his masculine
identity. This makes Cameron an enigma: he loves
football and is hardware and handyman capable,
identifying characteristics of a man who aligns
himself with hegemonic masculinity. On the other
having to raise a boy because he is gay.11 Mitchell,
as usual, is concerned that his own masculinity (or
lack thereof) might hinder the chance of any son he
may have to be a “normal” boy. During a family trip
to a Dude Ranch in Wyoming, Mitchell attempts to
find his “inner masculinity” to reassure himself that
if he raises a son, his son will be raised the “right
way”: he tries shooting guns but to no avail. The
juvenile exploding of a birdhouse with his nephew is
what reestablished Mitchell’s confidence in his own
ability to raise a son. Mitchell’s identification with
Miller’s “childish man” in this episode establishes a
sense of masculinity that, even if not always present
in his behavior, positions him closer to hegemonic
masculinity.
hand, he loves to dress his daughter up as a pop icon
for photo shoots and has created an elaborate and
ornate scrapbook for her. Cameron is the ultimate
challenge to heteronormative ideology because, even
with brief moments of masculinity that fall within
the established structure, he does not adopt all of
the discursive practices of hegemonic masculinity.
In comparison to the kinds of characteristics
that culturally identify a man as masculine,
Cameron’s daily attire and gestures are all
stereotypical of a gay man—the pink shirts, the
floral shirts, the “limp wrist,” and his flair for the
dramatic. When he exhibits masculine behaviors,
does this establish his traditional masculinity
or does he challenge the hegemonic ideals of
masculinity? Because femininity has not been
defined in this analysis, I will not claim that
Cameron behaves effeminately, but that he does
not fulfill the masculine ideal. Neither Donaldson
nor Connell and Messerschmidt would identify
“No. Pink loves me.”
As his partner, Cameron Tucker is the other half
to Mitchell’s character: he is flamboyant, loud, and
entirely confident in his homosexuality. Cameron
FA L L 2 013 n 31
Cameron as positioning his masculinity with the
hegemonic ideal.
Close male relationships in both How I Met Your
Mother and Modern Family
The Bro Code created on How I Met Your Mother
is applicable to a variety of male character
relationships on various television series including
Modern Family. The condensed collection of
rules and guidelines for men to follow in Bird’s
homosocial situations and in their relationships
with each other creates an outline for how a
character can attempt to achieve the hegemonic
ideal. The Bro Code is a tangible representation how
men position themselves in relation to hegemonic
masculinity; it demonstrates which social practices
distance them from hegemonic masculinity
and which reinforce it. This Bro Code is what
differentiates men in “bromances” from men in
homosexual relationships.
Analysis: How I Met Your Mother, “My best friend
needs me!”
Under the guiding structure of “The Bro Code,”
Barney, Ted, and Marshall have developed their
relationship into a contemporary friendship
called a “bromance.” The “bromance” is a socially
established term used to define particularly
close male relationships that appear to mimic
homosexual relationships.xix These “bromances”
are affectionate, sometimes homoerotic, and
emotional, but never homosexual. The previously
established masculinities of the three characters
create an environment for their relationships to be
affectionate and emotional, if necessary, because
their sexuality is unwavering throughout the series. The season three finale centers on the relationship
between Ted and Stella, his girlfriend throughout
season three, but equally important is the subplot
involving the relationship between Barney and Ted.
To reintroduce the context of this subplot, after
Ted and Robin ended their relationship at the end
of season two, Robin and Barney slept together for
the first time; Barney was in direct violation of the
Bro Code article referring to sleeping with a “bro’s
ex.” This violation inundates Barney with guilt, and
he confesses to Ted in “The Goat.”xx This breach in
trust results in a “break-up” between Barney and Ted
that lasts until this season three finale.
After Ted is in a car accident and taken to the
hospital, Lily makes the executive decision to call
Barney about the accident. She disregards their
“break-up” because she reminds Ted that he would
want to know if the situations were reversed. Upon
receiving the phone call Barney immediately excuses
himself from a business meeting and sprints to
the hospital, accompanied by dramatic music.
The music, and his sprinting, both abruptly end
when Barney is hit by a bus as he prepares to cross
the street to enter the hospital where he is then
admitted to the hospital as a patient, and in far
worse condition than Ted (who suffered minor
injuries).
Concerned, just as Lily said he would be, Ted
finds himself in the room with Barney, who has
broken almost every bone in his body. At their
bedside reunion Barney initially will not admit
that he sprinted to the hospital because of Ted’s
accident and his own concern, claiming instead that
he “was on this side of town.” Actively participating
in this emotional avoidance, Barney implies that
his accident will make for an excellent “play” with
ladies. At this point in the episode, the importance
of Ted to Barney is evident and Ted decides it is time
from him to reciprocate those feelings, regardless of
the Bro Code violations:
Ted: Barney, you…you could have died.
Barney: I’m sorry I broke the bro code.
Ted: No, I’m...I’m sorry.
Barney: Ted, can we be friends again?
Ted: Barney, come on. We’re more than friends.
Barney: [tearfully] You’re my brother Ted.
Ted: [crying] You’re my brother Barney.
Barney: [crying] Did you hear that Marshall? We’re
brothers now.
Ted: Marshall’s my brother, too.
Marshall: [crying] We’re all brothers!xxi
In light of life threatening circumstances, this
emotional reaction not only adds humor to a
serious situation, but it also momentarily highlights
the relationship between Ted and Barney as well
as all three men. These men are close enough
emotionally to cry for each other and reconcile
despite a violation of the Bro Code that is “worse
3 2 n THE JACK
than death.” The men refer to each other as brothers
and maintain their masculinity in a situation
where emotions and affection are, and should
be, acceptable. The tearful scene is still kept brief
because Ted, as the narrator, says, “It got pretty
mushy and embarrassing after that. Let’s skip
ahead”; the emotion is acceptable because of the
circumstances, but that does not make it acceptable
for the episode to linger on the tearful declarations
of “bro love” for each other. This display of emotion
is still a violation of the hegemonic norms of
masculinity.
Analysis: Modern Family, Cam and Mitchell
The comedy found within Cameron and Mitchell
as the homosexual family in Modern Family is
not limited to the quirks and characteristics that
make them different, but there is also humor
in the moments when they are behaving as the
heteronormatively masculine man would behave.
These moments are funny because the characters
are straying from what the audience would
consider “homonormative” behavior. As discussed
earlier, Cam is an avid football fan who was on a
team during his college career. Cam is fulfilling
a masculine norm and behaving as a “mockmacho” character: his behavior as a football fan is
exaggerated and so that it becomes a mockery of
the typical sports-obsessed, heterosexual fan. His
behavior as a stock male character has more comical
value because he is gay.
Cameron and Mitchell also find themselves in
situations where they “act straight.” When their
characters deviate from the “homonormative” they
fulfill a masculine ideal that may be unexpected
for a homosexual man; when the men try “acting
straight” they attempt to achieve some masculine
or heteronormative ideal in an attempt to fit in or
conceal their sexuality. In the second episode of
the first season, right after they have adopted Lily,
they sign up for a play group and Mitchell asks
Cam to control his gay behavior because Mitchell
is concerned about their reception from the other
parents. Cam’s obvious struggle with controlling his
behavior is most comically obvious when it is time
for the dance circle and Mitchell tells him to “dance
straight” and Cam blatantly hates every second of
it. Mitchell is trying to encourage behavior that
coincides with the heteronormative ideal to dispel
the possibility of rejection from their parenting
peers. The conclusion of this episode reveals that
there is another gay couple in the play group already
and Mitchell gives Cam the freedom to dance is
flamboyantly as he chooses which he does not
hesitate to do.
This family’s juxtaposition to two more
traditional families strengthens the ambiguity
of the male sitcom characters’ relationship to
the heternormative ideal. The audience gets to
simultaneously see Cam and Mitchell, Phil and
Claire, and Jay and Gloria struggle with their
parenting. The documentation of these struggles
creates a discourse on the show about same-sex
parenting and different-sex parenting, how they
are different and how they are similar. What makes
those moments with Cam and Mitchell funny is
their relationship with the heteronormative ideal;
adopting it, distancing themselves from it, or
aligning themselves with it. If they experience a
Showing the bromance as an undercurrent
or subplot for the show allows the audience to
comfortably laugh at the situations that may
straddle the dividing line between heterosexual
and homosexual.
situation that any parents, gay or straight, could
experience (i.e. Lily gets a bump on her head),
the audience relaxes; there is nothing unique or
different about this experience and they can laugh
comfortably because a heterornormative family
would experience this parenting panic, too. If Cam
and Mitchell find themselves in a situation that a
heterosexual couple might not be familiar with (i.e.
they are the only gay couple in a toddler class), an
audience can laugh because the situation is different
from the heteronormative situation but not so
wildly different that they cannot relate: new parents
are still going to be uncomfortable the first time
they find themselves in a classroom comparing the
achievements of their child to another.
FA L L 2 013 n 3 3
Conclusions
In both How I Met Your Mother and Modern Family,
the characters are not limited to roles delineated
in previous studies. Their masculinities are hybrids
of the character qualities that are representative
of multiple character-types. Each character fulfills
certain attributes of multiple categories, creating
characters with depth. The male characters on
these two shows are ambiguous, simultaneously
perpetuating the status quo and challenging it.
They are representative of a society with an everchanging definition of what a “man” is and how
his masculinity is defined. Real men, just like our
favorite sitcom characters, are held to a hegemonic
ideal that does not exist. Characters such as
Barney or Phil are funny because their struggles
with and attempts to achieve an ideal masculinity
are also experienced by real men. Sitcoms create
a comfortable parody of Butler’s notion of
performativity: in the narratives, actors undertake
daily “performances” of masculinity that derive from
the fear of questioned masculinity or ambiguous
sexual identity. These fears create relationships like
the ‘bromance’ and cue laughter when situations
deviate from the heteronormative hegemonic
masculinity.
The bromantic relationships and behaviors in
How I Met Your Mother are visible and relevant, but
rarely the sole focus of an episode. Showing the
bromance as an undercurrent or subplot for the
show allows the audience to comfortably laugh at
the situations that may straddle the dividing line
between heterosexual and homosexual. When the
men deviate from the heteronormative ideal, a laugh
track cues the audience to relax and recognize the
comedic quality of men engaging in behavior that
digresses from Bird’s homosocial guidelines, the Bro
Code, or normative masculine behavior. Not only
does the laugh track cue the audience to relax, but
the previously established masculinities of the male
characters leave little room for doubt; the audience
has nothing to be nervous about.
Homosexual characters make audiences
nervous because they do not follow the same rules
as Bird’s guidelines of homosocial behavior (and
are sometimes considered incapable of homosocial
relationships). When they are shown within a
heteronormative setting their application of Butler’s
performativity is altered because their masculinity is
already challenged by their sexuality, and they do not
hold themselves to the hegemonic ideal, regardless
of whether it is biologically or culturally established.
The presence of a homosexual couple, particularly
a homosexual family, in Modern Family presents
the sitcom audience with a concept that is still
relatively new to television and its mere existence is a
challenge to the standard heteronormative ideology.
However, on the other hand, Mitchell, Cameron
and Lily share the storylines with two straight,
nuclear families and their obvious deviation from
this norm is what is funny. When Cam is creating an
ostentatious scrapbook for Lily or having a mural
of himself and Mitchell painted on newly adopted
Lily’s wall, or when Mitchell is obsessing over how
to attend a Lady Gaga concert or over-dramatically
trying to fight off a pigeon that found its way inside
the house, these behaviors are funny to an audience
because they are different from what “most men”
would do, but not so different that they make an
audience uncomfortable. When these moments are
funny to an audience, are they funny because the
show has created a new norm that Cam and Mitchell
are held to because they are gay? Or do we laugh
because they are a nontraditional family surrounded
by traditional families?
Both Berman and Marc theorize that sitcoms
can critique social standards and challenge social
norms; however Newcomb and Grote argue that
sitcoms are static perpetuators of the social context
they are situated within. What this cultural study
aimed to do was examine how the television
situation comedy is “produced within, inserted
into, and operated in the everyday life of human
beings and social formations, so as to reproduce,
struggle against, and perhaps transform the existing
structures of power.”xxii The contemporary sitcom
carefully challenges heteronormativity with its
introduction of bromances and homosexual families
and simultaneously perpetuates the heternormative
ideal by creating laughter where characters deviate
from the norm. Barney, Ted, Marshall, Phil, Jay,
Mitchell, and Cameron are all held to impossible
standards of hegemonic masculinity and when
they fail to achieve the ideal, audiences find them
3 4 n THE JACK
laughable. When these men overcompensate for
their (and our) masculinity insecurities, audience
members laugh even harder. These men are the
exaggerated representations of real-life men to
whom audience members can relate; and even
when they deviate from the “norms” the characters
are careful to align themselves with familiar
heteronormative behaviors.
I find the ambiguity of television sitcoms
frustrating because audiences today want a show
that challenges the “old” heteronormative sitcoms
and the ever-increasing presence of homosexuality
creates opportunities for bromances and
homosexual families to be featured on the small
screen. However, what are these shows challenging
if characters and relationships are funny because
they do not line up with the heteronormative
ideal? Their mere presence may be a challenge
to the heteronormative, but is part of why they
are amusing because the audience is laughing at
them through a heteronormative lens? Can the
sitcom transform the heteronormative ideal?
This frustrating ambiguity does not originate
in the sitcom but from the culture’s definitions
of masculinity. Today’s society is struggling to
determine what a “man” truly is; the minimizing
of the biological definition of gender roles and
the difficulty in defining hegemonic masculinity
in multi-sexuality society creates a space for
masculinity to be ambiguous. As noted by Feuer,
sitcoms reflect changes in society; my research here
suggests the same. Masculinities in sitcoms develop
simultaneously with masculinities in the real world.
Today they are amusingly ambiguous because today,
in society, there is no true definition of masculinity.
End Notes
i“How I Met Your Mother” (2005) - Awards.”
IMDb - Movies, TV and Celebrities. http://www.
imdb.com/title/tt0460649/awards.
ii“Complete List Of 2011–12 Season TV Show
Viewership: ‘Sunday Night Football’ Tops, Followed
By ‘American Idol,’ ‘NCIS’ & ‘Dancing With The
Stars’ - Ratings | TVbytheNumbers.” TV Ratings,
TV Nielsen Ratings, Television Show Ratings |
TVbytheNumbers.com. http://tvbythenumbers.
zap2it.com/2012/05/24/complete-list-of-2011–12-
season-tv-showviewership-sunday-night-footballtops-followed-by-american-idol-ncis-dancing-withthe-stars/135785/
iii“Complete List Of 2011–12 Season TV Show
Viewership: ‘Sunday Night Football’ Tops, Followed
By ‘American Idol,’ ‘NCIS’ & ‘Dancing With The
Stars’ - Ratings | TVbytheNumbers.” TV Ratings,
TV Nielsen Ratings, Television Show Ratings |
TVbytheNumbers.com. http://tvbythenumbers.
zap2it.com/2012/05/24/complete-list-of-2011–12season-tv-showviewership-sunday-night-footballtops-followed-by-american-idol-ncis-dancing-withthe-stars/135785/
ivTim Edwards. Cultures of masculinity. London:
Routledge, 2006.
vP. Sexton, The Feminized Male (New York:
Random House, 1969), 15.
viMike Donaldson, “What is Hegemonic
Masculinity?,” Theory and Society, 22, no. 5 (1993):
643–657, http://www.jstor.org.
viiR.W. Connell and James W. Messerschmidt.
“Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept.”
Gender and Society. 19. no. 6 (2005): 829–859. Jstor
viii Judith Butler. Imitation and Gender
Subordination. In Storey, Cultural Theory, 224–238.
ixJudith Butler. Imitation and Gender.
xSharon R. Bird . “Welcome to the Men’s Club:
Homosociality and the Maintenance of Hegemonic
Masculinity.” Gender and Society. p. 121
xiJane Feuer (1992): ‘Genre study and television.’
In Robert C Allen (Ed.): Channels of Discourse,
Reassembled: Television and Contemporary Criticism.
London: Routledge, pp. 138–59
xiiDavid Bordwell, and Kirstin Thompson, Film
Art: An Introduction, (McGraw Hill, 2010), 118–119.
xiiiMatt Kuhn, The Playbook: Suit up. Score Chicks.
Be awesome., (New York, New York: Touchstone,
2010).
xivMatt Kuhn, The Bro Code, (New York: Fireside,
2008).
xvTim Edwards, sex booze fags, 140
xvihttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
nuclear%20family
xviiScott Coltrane, “Fathering: Paradoxes,
Contradictions, and Dilemmas,” Men’s Lives, ed.
Michael S. Kimmel and Michael A. Messner (Boston:
Pearson, 2013), 394–410
FA L L 2 013 n 3 5
xviiiP.
Sexton, The Feminized Male (New York:
Random House, 1969), 15.
xixMatthew Stern.”Dudes, Bros, Boyfriends and
the Bugarrones: Redsitributing the Stigma of Same-Sex
Desire.” Trans. Array Sprinkle: A Journal of Sexual
Diversity Studies. Elizabeth J. Meyer. Montreal,
Quebec, Canada: The Paulo and Nita Freire
International Project for Critical Pedagogy, 2010.
144–153. Web.
xx”The Goat.” How I Met Your Mother. CBS. 28
Apr. 2008. Television.
xxi”Miracles.” How I Met Your Mother. CBS. 19
May 2008. Television.
xxiiLawrence Grossberg, “The circulation of cultural
studies.”
Sarah Maki graduated
from Randolph College in
May of 2013 with a degree
in communications studies.
Sarah’s written works have
received academic acclaim
during her four years of study,
and her creative work has
been published in on-campus
newspapers. Her work on
‘Bromances’ and masculinities
had been ongoing for one year
prior to her completion of
her piece “Laughing at Men: Masculinities in contemporary
sitcoms” as her senior thesis.
Nominated by Jennifer Gauthier,
COMM 493
3 6 n THE JACK
Writing Board Nominations 2012/2013
Best Short Paper
“A Reason for Hedda’s Nastiness” by Maddy Carmain (nominee Mara Amster: ENGL276)
“Becoming the Woman in the Wallpaper” by Elizabeth Delery (nominee Mara Amster: ENGL111)
“Character Study: Hedda Gabler” by Cindy Chance (nominee Mara Amster: ENGL276)
“From Transistors to Pandora: The Modern Evolution of Radio and its Cultural Impact” by
Brandon Wood (nominee Chad Beck: COMM204)
“Revenge in Titus Andronicus and The Merchant of Venice” by Karen Rose (nominee Mara Amster:
ENGL277)
Best Long Paper
“Deciphering the Manic Pixie Mythos: Contemporary Depictions of Alternative Femininity” by
Julianna Joyce (nominee Chad Beck: COMM425)
“The New Digital Platform and the Struggle Over Meaning Between Corporations and
Anonymous” by Phuong Tran (nominee Chad Beck: COMM204)
Best Senior Paper
“Food Security as Rooted in Freedom: Correlations Between Freedom and Food Security in Africa
in 2002—2007” by Risa König (nominee Jennifer Duggan: POL496)
“Laughing at Men: Masculinities in contemporary sitcoms” by Sarah Maki (nominee Jennifer
Gauthier: COMM494)
“The Construction of Gender on Facebook” by Catherine Godley (nominee Jennifer Gauthier:
COMM494)
“This is the True Story of Representations of Race, Gender, and Sexuality on The Real World” by
Samantha Wittie (nominee Jennifer Gauthier: COMM494)
FA L L 2 013 n 37
Randolph’s “Excellent Writers”
The following students have received writing skills evaluations of “Excellent” from two or more faculty
members during the 2012/2013 academic year:
Seniors
Connor Adams
Stephen Allman
Jessica Andersen
Conrad Bailey
Christopher Battaglia
Steven Blackwell
Joanna Bourque
Jenna Brown
Treasa Bryant
Christina Budd
Madeline Carmain
Lis Chacon
Kelsey Cline
Cameron Colquitt
Rachel Cox
Lauren Dees
Dorji Dema
Nicholas DiLodovico
Kim Do
Lauren Dowdle
Adam Eller
Ashley Gardner
Catherine Godley
Megan Hageman
Cameron Hall
Danielle Haney
Victoria Harris
Colton Hunt
Julianna Joyce
Risa Koenig
Leah Lagesse
Kate Lively
Emily Lockhart
Susannah Lukens
Sarah Maki
Samuel McGarrity
Tamara McKenzie
Marisa Mendez
Cory Morgan
Kevin Mulé
Lily Noguchi
Lee Nutter
Jonathan O’Hara
Jeremy Patterson
Wyatt Phipps
Salvatore Quattrocchi
Karen Rose
Brianne Roth
Benjamin See
Melanie Sexton
Eve Shrader
Crispen Stanbach
Lauren Stevenson
Samantha Thacker
Morgan Thompson
Katharine West-Hazlewood
Thomas Whitehead
Kendreck Williams
Brittany Willingham
Samantha Wittie
Laura Word
Qi Zhang
Juniors
Vicki Bonner
William Dede
Elizabeth Delery
Adam Fabirkiewicz
Cameron Garrison
Caitlin Glennen
Glenna Gray
Olivia Groff
John Grundy
Sydney Henson
Ainsley Hoglund
Kristen Hutchinson
Amy Jacobs
Mahareen Khalid
Noosheen Khayam
Jonghui Kim
Anthony Mangano
Margaret Murray
Tra My Dinh doan
Teague Nelson
Binh Nguyen
Mi Dan Nguyen
Maximilian Niketic
Helen Phillips
Ryan Purrington
Katherine Riedel
Andrew Schaeffer
Shreya Sharma
Samantha Suzuki
Claudia Troyer
Caitlin Unterman
Elizabeth van Noppen
Brittney Via
Robert Villanueva
Tsubasa Watanabe
Brandie Witt
Sophomores
Auzeen Abbassi
Daniel Baker
Bonnie Bishop
Amanda Boucher
Cynthia Chance
Hannah Cohen
Sarah-Elizabeth Cottone
Brier D’Arcy
Savannah Edwards
Alexander Fella
Grace Gardiner
Hartzel Gillespie
Christopher Hollingsworth
Jensen Hoover
Destinii Kendall
Yoana Kichukova
Lauren King
Samantha Lawrence
Katherine Lesnak
Brianna Lowry
Anita Martin
Vanessa McBean
Ellen Meadows
Lana Mehiar
Dara Niketic
Clayton Orshoski
Ashley Peisher
Abigail Smith
Evan Smith
Logan Sneed
Laura Snell
Kathleen Taylor
Sally Taylor
Kathleen Taylor
Jordan Templin
Phuong Tran
Anne Tran
Diep Trieu
Laura Walsh
Luke Weierbach
Stephany West
First Years
Brittany Andrews
Margaret Berry
Kathryn Boyer
Lindsay Brents
Florence Cummins
Elizabeth Dean
Teague Elliott
Hagay Haut
Leah Helsel
Cassandra Joe-Louis
Bentley Kennedy-Stone
Ariana La Grenade-Finch
Georgia Logan
David Lopez
Gretta Marino
Lauren Mason
Jessica McIntosh
Tahan Menon
Eric Morris-Pusey
Elaine Newton
Riya Patel
Benjamin Peck
Ngoc Pham
Samuel Powell
Anura Ranasinghe
Haylee Reynolds
Emily Richards
Renée Russell
Lynne Sauer
Shawn Simmons
Amanda Sims
Ivy Smith
Laura Speake
Miranda Stumpf
Tsenu Tamrat
Emily Terlizzi
Samantha Terry
William Webb
Emma Williams
Neil Wilson
Brandon Wood
Sara Woodward
Randolph College
2500 Rivermont Avenue
Lynchburg, Virginia 24503-1526
www.randolphcollege.edu