The Social Construction of Gendered Space

Brittani Crawford
HON ENG 313

The Social Construction of Gendered Space

While watching the “Speed dating” episode of Sex and the City, the main point of the short clip was obvious: men are not attracted to women who attempt to fit in to a typically masculine career. In this scene, Miranda is a thirty four year-old bridesmaid searching for a date to a wedding, so she desperately tries a speed dating event in New York City. She would find men interested in her, until she revealed that she was a lawyer, recently promoted to partner. They were uninterested in her power and ability to achieve such status on her own, and were rather turned off by her line of work, as it is a typically male career. Finally, Charlotte gives in to these social constructions and typical female stereotypes and lies about being a stewardess. Of course, the man she tells is instantly interested, and she is satiated in her hunger for male attention.

In Barker, Massey argues that ‘the social construction of space will be gendered’. Furthermore, Massey states that the ‘classical western gendering of space is manifested in the division between ‘home’ [female] and ‘workplace’ [male]. This suggests that women tend to be unwelcome in the workplace, as it has traditionally been a place of ‘toughness, hardness, comradeship and reality’ while a women’s place has inexorably been cemented in the home, ‘connoting the secondary values of caring, love, tenderness and domesticity’.

I feel that Miranda, in this scene particularly, is emphasizing the futility of attempting to gain male acceptance in a man’s space. Though the stereotypes are not necessarily as harsh nowadays, women continue to be less valued and respected in the business world, and are more accepted when following traditionally female roles. The fact that she submits to the gender classification and social construction of her sex by assuming a traditionally female role to gain gratification from males emphasizes, in a satirical manner, that females may not have progressed very far from our ‘gender space’ at all. These social classifications of ‘women in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant’ still hold some sway over how we view women as a gender today. The simple truth is that we are not yet equal to men in the eyes of society, and works such as Sex and the City simply emphasize this.



Works Cited:

Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies Theory and Practice. Minneapolis: Sage Publications Ltd, 2008. Print.

Sex and the City. Dir. Darren Star. Perf. Cynthia Nixon. HBO, 1998. DVD.

The Rules of Attraction vs. American Psycho

Brittani Crawford

October 11th, 2009

Hon. Eng. 313

Response Paper

Throughout the novel The Rules of Attraction and the film “American Psycho”, both by Bret Easton Ellis, ideas of objectification, obsession and lack of identity are ever present. Though the writing style is similar in both works, Ellis takes these concepts and throws them down two very different plotlines: the main character of “American Psycho”, Patrick Bateman, must put on a mask of having some semblance of self identity and sanity to please society, while in The Rules of Attraction every character is raw and unadulterated in their lack of ethics and self responsibility.

Every character throughout The Rules of Attraction has a deep obsession, as does Patrick Bateman in “American Psycho”. These characters view others as commodities rather than people, which makes it easier to objectify, obsess over, or move on from them as soon as they lose interest. This behavior brings to mind the film “10” by Blake Edwards. The main character of the film, George Webber, goes through a midlife crisis and eventually focuses his life on Jenny Hanley, a newlywed, and apparently morally depraved young woman. Webber obsesses intensely over Jenny, only to end up realizing that she is not at all what he truly wants in a woman. As in the film “10”, Ellis’ characters slowly come to realize, to their own chagrin, that the objects of their obsession are not at all what they had imagined them to be. This objectification and deep obsession with each other causes pain for all involved, and leads to naught but emptiness.

In the essay “The Second Sex”, by Simone de Beauvoire, the author poses the question “[w]hy is it that women do not dispute male sovereignty?...women are not a minority.” She goes on to say that women allow themselves to be objectified and subjugated because “the women’s effort has never been anything more than a symbolic agitation. They have gained only what men have been willing to grant; they have taken nothing, they have only received.” Through the entirety of both of Ellis’ works, women are objectified, and consumed, as commodities. They seem to be viewed as nothing more than objects of entertainment rather than people, but they allow themselves to be conquered throughout the novel. They do nothing to gain respect or equality, but instead contribute to their own state of inequality by offering themselves so willingly to the males of the stories. Though some female characters in The Rules of Attraction view the males in much the same way—as sexual objects—they still contribute to the lacking equality between the sexes, due to their inability to behave sensibly.

The characters of The Rules of Attraction, as well as Patrick Bateman, build their lives and relationships on nothing but lies, or mendacity. As stated by the character ‘Big Daddy’ in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, “Think of all the lies I got to put up with!—Pretenses! Ain’t that mendacity? Having to pretend stuff you don’t think or feel or have any idea of?…I’ve lived with mendacity!—Why can’t you live with it? Hell, you got to live with it, there’s nothing else to live with except mendacity, is there?” (pages 110-111) Ellis portrays this constant deception through his writing style by showing how differently each character views the other characters—and how much differently they believe they are viewed by one another. These perceptions make up their realities, and they thrive on the constant deceit, the permanent emotional walls built up around them that never let anyone in, so that no one can ever really know anyone else. They thrive through mendacity because they never have to get too close to another person, which allows them to use and abuse one another for selfish pleasure.

A prominent theme in both “American Psycho” and The Rules of Attraction is a lack of self identity. Patrick Bateman seems to be capable of no more emotion than rage and envy, and is only able to emulate the values and traits of those around him. He lives his life according to yuppie 80’s society, and is incapable of defining himself as a person. Likewise, characters in “The Rules of Attraction” live their lives day to day, but not one has any true individual thoughts, values, or goals. They live the same lives as those around them, and seem to have no ambition other than to have sex and be constantly inebriated. Ellis’ writing style is meant to reflect the varying subjectivity of each character: each of them experiences themselves in a manner that does not coincide with how others experience them. As in Cultural Studies Theory & Practice, by Chris Barker, the characters of both of these works conform to their social identity, ‘the expectations and opinions that others have’ of them. Furthermore, their lack of ‘taste, beliefs, attitudes, and lifestyles’ leads the reader to conclude that these characters are devoid of any true identity.

To conclude, Ellis’ works reflect one society whose animalistic instincts are constantly met, who expect instant gratification on a daily basis, and a society where diplomacy seems to reign, but perverse instincts are secretly indulged behind the closed doors of each member of this quasi-perfect society. Both works emphasize the importance of having an individual identity by emphasizing the flaws of characters that lack even a basic knowledge of self. Ellis’ work is a critique of human nature that should help us all to see that we are, sadly but inevitably, flawed.

Works Cited:

10. Dir. Blake Edwards. Prod. Tony Adams. Perf. Dudley Moore, Julie Andrews and Bo Derek. Warner Bros. Entertainment, 1979. DVD.

American Psycho. Dir. Mary Harron. By Bret Easton Ellis. Perf. Christian Bale. Columbia TriStar Egmont Film Distributors, 2000. DVD.

Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies Theory and Practice. Minneapolis: Sage Publications Ltd, 2008. Print.

Beauvoir, Simone De. "The Second Sex." The Second Sex. New York: Vintage, 1989. Print.

Ellis, Bret Easton. The rules of attraction. New York: Vintage Contemporaries, 1998. Print.

Tennessee, Williams. Cat on a hot tin roof. New York: New Directions, 2004. Print.

Ethnography

Brittani Crawford
ENGL 313 HON
Popular Culture
September 12th, 2009

Ethnography

I sat at a Starbucks in the rich area of Valencia, people watching, while I waited for my work shift at Six Flags to near. The first interaction I noticed was between an older couple, male and female in their late fifties. The woman wore a tight jogging outfit and was still slender. The man wore flip-flops and loose clothing. The man and woman sat comfortably, but not intimately, close together, drinking coffee and talking. The man has brought his dog along, which is named “Albus” I noticed with a smile. He is gentle and attentive to his dog, and brought it water in a plastic bowl.
The second interaction was between two mothers, each with two children sitting next to them around a table. One mother is quiet and reserved, and her children are similar in behavior. The other mother is an animated speaker, and does most of the talking in this female friendship. The louder mother yells and threatens her children with punishment if they continue being uncooperative. She is embarrassed by them, and tries not to cause a scene. Her children ignore her and she, in turn, ignores them. The youngest child is content to occupy herself. The two older boys chatter endlessly together while the older girl stares off, neither participating in, nor listening to anyone else while she stares at her own reflection in the window.
A third interaction was between two male friends. They both came laden with laptops and text books. They choose a table outside, and one leaves to buy the coffee. They sit somewhat far from each other, but talk and laugh easily. They are obviously studying, and look to be of college age. Each buys their own coffee. They don’t seem intimate at all, except in a friendly way.
I briefly see a young mother, led by a hand holding her adventurous three year old. She shares her drink with her toddler, and is very content with spending time with him. She is patient and loving.
I see a family leave Starbucks. The father and mother are attempting to keep hyperactive children (a boy and girl, about five or six) close to them. The daughter is loud and playful with the other children she sees outside. Her father, embarrassed by his child’s innocent interest in others, apologizes to other parents for her behavior and attempts to load them into the car without further incident.
Watching all of these people carry on with their normal relationships was an eye opening experience. It became quite evident that, within any relationship, there must be one person that is the aggressor and one that is passive. This balance is not always distinct from the first moment, but it becomes clear as conversation and interaction between two people occurs. Further, in every relationship there was a struggle for power. Not only between males and females, but between a pair of the same sex, between parents and children, between man and dog. As Barker states: "Gender is an organizing principle of social life thoroughly saturated with power relations" (Pg. 377, Barker). Typically between the male and female relationships, the male was dominant and would be the one to go get coffee, or would ask the female to get napkins or a lid. Between the mothers and children, the mother would appear to be giving the child power over a situation (i.e. 'You can go buy another muffin for you and your sister, if you want to?'), though she was the one controlling the situation, in reality. Between same sex relationships with two men, they would each fend for themselves, which showed that neither would accept subjugation from the other, while in same sex relationships between two women, the more masculine or outspoken of the two would impose dominance over the other and buy the coffee for the two of them.
Between some parents and children, as much as a parent might attempt to hide the fact that they have no real control over their children, it is quite apparent. The child seems to know that a parent will not discipline them openly in public because they have shown weakness or embarrassment in a similar situation previously.
It was interesting to see that Tamar McDonald’s statement that, basically, money buys love appears to be true. The idea that the romantic comedy influences us in our daily lives and relationships is quite interesting: “…even now in the twenty-first century, women are still supposed to be more interested in gossip, relationships and clothes than important topics…the romantic comedy possibly encourages the men in the audience to remake themselves as fitter, more glamorous and possessing more and better consumer durables…the ideology with underpins [romantic comedy] seeks to sell love, and products, to everyone.” Pages 16-17, Romantic Comedy, McDonald). While watching the dynamics of the relationships of the people, it became evident that simple rituals, such as having coffee at Starbucks, seem to support this claim that money can buy love. We pay for coffee so that we can enjoy something common together. Coffee, in this situation, is the catalyst of conversation, and somewhat dictates the length of a conversation (I.e. you run out of coffee and the conversation tends to end soon after). While the two mothers were attempting to have a conversation together, their children continued to interrupt, so the louder mother ended up giving the child money to go buy pastries inside, which might give the children a distraction and make them happy.
As Barker notes in Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice, "subjectivity and identity are contingent, culturally specific productions...identities are wholly social constructions and cannot 'exist' outside of cultural representations...personhood is inseparable from a network of kinship relations and social obligations" (Page 216, Barker). It seemed that some of the interactions of relationships that I witnessed were rather forced, perhaps out of habit or even social obligation rather than actual interest in the relationship. Perhaps, in the parts of society where there are no deeper worries than getting the car washed and taking the kids to soccer practice, the people of these relationships have the luxury of being fake and maintaining appearances, thereby improving their reputation as being a nice person. This reminds me of a moment in Ellis' The Rules of Attraction, where Victor goes to an REM concert and smiles at a girl with her boyfriend, who 'made a gagging look and turned back to the band'. Victor then comments, "And I got really disgusted and started thinking, what was this gir's problem? Why couldn't she have been nice and smiled back? Was she worrying about imminent war? Was she feeling real terror? Or inspiration? Or passion? That girl, like all the others, I had come to believe, was terminally numb. The Talking Heads record was scratched maybe or perhaps Dad hadn't sent the check yet. That was all this girl was worried about...Why did she have to act so fucking cool? And that's what it all came down to: cool: I wasn't being cynical about that bitch and her asshole boyfriend. I really believed that the extent of their pitiful problems didn't exceed too far from what I thought. They didn't have to worry about keeping warm or being fed or bombs or lasers or gunfire...but then I came to understand sitting there that these problems and the pain they felt were genuine...Other people might not sympathize with this couple's problems and maybe they didn't really matter in the larger realm of things--but they mattered to Jeff and Susie; these problems hurt them, these things stung...Now that's what struck me as really pathetic." (Pages 273-274, Ellis). As Ellis critiques in this passage of his novel, the superficial members of privileged societies tend to live in a world completely free from actual problems. Many of their relationships are built on nothing more than beneficial social connections, and no actual warmth and affection.