Gender as Performance

It is now broadly accepted that gender is a socially based performative act rather than a biological certainty, a notion that is supported by scientific evidence, such as sex-determining chromosome deviations, hermaphroditism, and the recognition of gender dysphoria in the DSM, the classification book of the American Psychiatric Association (2013); intersexuality, transsexuality, gender neutrality, and other gender identifications continue to gain visibility and acceptance in mainstream media.

In terms of broader society, Erving Goffman’s (1956) famed work was the first of its kind to evaluate social interactions and their patterns regarding the calculated and varying presentations of the self. His theories are widely recognized, and they include the notion that persons perform to different roles depending on myriad factors, particularly the location, surrounding people, and intention of the interaction.

Judith Butler (1988; 1990) further specified Goffman’s notions to gendered identities. Butler’s writing posits gender as both its own perpetual performance and one aspect of self-presentation, considered alongside other identity-shaping signs of race, class, ethnicity, sexuality, and culture (1990, pp. 4-5). Gender is a set of temporally based cultural signs grounded in historical authority and perpetually adapted by time, situation, and actor (Butler, 1990). In this way, as Butler said, “gender is in no way a stable identity or locus of agency from which various acts proceed; rather, it is an identity tenuously constituted in time – an identity instituted through a stylized repetition of acts” (1988, p. 519, emphasis in original).

The repetition of the gender performance is such that the actors and audiences alike “come to believe and to perform in the mode of belief” (Butler, 1988, p. 520); a gender performer, any person in society, constructs a gendered identity that adopts the form and feeling of reality. To embody gender poorly, or to not adhere to cultural gender signs, can be considered taboo and may result in social sanction (Butler, 1988).

Traditionally masculine traits include assertiveness, independence, ambitiousness, dominance, and leadership, while traditional femininity is associated with gentleness, warmth, compassion, communalism, and gullibility (Donnelly & Twenge, 2016). These traits are adapted into mediated gender portrayal, which are thus also necessitated on the sociopolitical time and space in which they exist.

In the post-World War II era, for instance, the mediated ideal of manhood was a middle-class husband and father with a house surrounded by a white picket fence, emblematic of the American Dream (Ehrenreich, 1983). With the advent of Playboy magazine in 1953, a new performance of masculinity was born. Playboy’s bachelorhood permitted men to appreciate things that were, at the time, considered more feminine, such as fine art, high culture, and gourmet dining. These ‘playboys’ were able to keep their heterosexual masculinity recognizable through the magazine’s synonymy with the overt sexual objectification of women. Barbara Ehrenreich (1983) said of the 1953 launch of Playboy:

“When, in the first issue, [creator and editor in chief Hugh] Hefner talked about staying in his apartment, listening to music and discussing Picasso, there was the Marilyn Monroe centerfold to let you know there was nothing queer about these urbane and indoor pleasures. And when the articles railed against the responsibilities of marriage, there were the nude torsos to reassure you that the alternative was still within the bounds of heterosexuality.” (p. 51)

The vast popularity of Playboy continued through the remainder of the 20^thcentury, perhaps both because and in spite of feminism, which persisted alongside the Playboy reign.

Postfeminist Media Culture

As the second wave of feminism dwindled in the 1980s, so then rose a new canon of gender with corresponding mediated representations, often described as postfeminism. These representations and their contradictions persist today, transforming in tandem and in tension with one another. In this thesis, I apply Gill’s consideration of postfeminism as a sensibility of media culture, or a lens through which to view the object of study: contemporary media. Utilizing this path allows postfeminism to be contemplated alongside both neoliberalism and feminism (Gill, 2007a, p. 163). Gill (2007a) outlined nine interacting features of postfeminist media culture, which are summarized below.

• Feminism and anti-feminism: The “post” in postfeminism refers to the contradictory pre-feminist, feminist, and anti-feminist perspectives that flow through contemporary media discourse. It is somewhat commonly believed that sexism has been ‘solved,’ while other perspectives support a natural hierarchy of male dominance. Both of these positions imply that today’s quest for gender equality is unnecessary, with the result being that feminism is seen as “part of common sense yet also feared, hated, and fiercely repudiated” (Gill, 2007a, p. 161).
• Femininity as a bodily property: Postfeminist media culture has an “obsessive preoccupation” with the female body (Gill, 2007a, p. 149). Within this culture, femininity must be explicitly proven through the physical form rather than constructed through societal, structural, or psychological means. The process of attaining or maintaining a youthful and sexy female body through self-surveillance and discipline is the perpetual work of women. However, there is always the possibility to fail to meet this (unrealistic) standard, particularly because youth is fleeting.
• Sexualization of culture: An obsession with female bodies means their increasing eroticization in public and mediated spaces; male bodies are also sexualized, but to a much lesser degree. Furthermore, there has been a noticeable increase in discourses on sex and sexuality, and the unraveling of this taboo has likely contributed to societal changes such as declining teen pregnancy rates (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017). However, sex is not presented to the genders equally. As Gill highlighted, magazines for young men have discussed sex “through a vocabulary of youthful, unselfconscious pleasure-seeking,” while for young women, sex demands “constant attention, discipline, self-surveillance, and emotional labor” (2007a, pp. 150-1).
• Sex object to sexual subject: Women were once shown as sexual objects, characterized as passive recipients of the male gaze (e.g., Playboy). Nowadays, however, this objectifying male gaze and its power have been inverted, such that it is taken on by women in the form of a “self-policing, narcissistic gaze” that may represent “a higher or deeper form of exploitation” (Gill, 2007a, pp. 151-2). Women are shown as actively sexual beings who have chosen this course through their own individuality. The only acceptable alternatives to this sexual subjectification are non-sexuality or prudishness, which are available primarily to older, bigger, and less confident women.
• Individualism, choice, and empowerment: This facet is intrinsically tied to neoliberalism such that experiences and ideologies are personalized, and thus depoliticized. Then, while using the feminist language of empowerment, feminist concerns in society and politics are refuted as solitary happenstances. While this focus may encourage personal improvement, it also wholly removes social, political, structural, and cultural responsibility from all situations. It is essential to understand the social construction of this narrative: if all choices are freely made from individual aspirations, desires, and tastes, then there is no explanation for the overwhelming consistency in the standards and executions of beauty.
• Self-surveillance and discipline: Women in particular are encouraged (perhaps required) to monitor and manage all aspects of the self, including grooming, clothing, attitude, the body’s fitness, and all aspects of femininity. Gill (2007a) noted the vast expansion of possibilities for self-surveillance to new matters of life, such as psychological improvements; the whole female self is an area of constant work.
• Makeover paradigm: This issue refers to the trend of self-improvement but speaks specifically to when a woman is so out of touch with her potential (i.e., Western ideals of life and beauty), that there must be an intervention based on advice from professionals in the field, be it love, fashion, beauty, or otherwise. This trend has foremost appeared on reality television shows, which begin by shaming a woman’s current life and later applauding her conformity to predefined standards as an expression of her individuality; alas, this is one of postfeminist media culture’s many contradictions.
• Reassertion of sexual difference: In opposition to feminism’s quest for equality and Butler’s conceptions of constructed gender, postfeminism reasserts natural differences between the sexes. This focus stems in part from scientific developments, such as genetics research, but it is also used as a means of explaining how men and women differ without exploring impacts of society and socialization. Consequently, gender differences are justified as inevitable or unchangeable, thereby invalidating the feminism and cementing existing power structures as ‘just the way things are.’
• Irony and knowingness: Irony is frequently used in postfeminist media to express a belief in order to distance the speaker from the belief, which is generally an undesirable, especially anti-feminist, sentiment, in such a way that the orator can dismiss the idea as non-serious. This approach renders criticism increasingly difficult, as a disapproving voice may be considered unreasonable or uptight. However, to consider that these sentiments are not just for laughs or may be taken seriously by others, then there is an abundance of media texts, both online and offline, that is “chillingly misogynist” (Gill, 2007a, p. 160).

Postfeminist Masculinities

In the 20^th century, traditional gender roles were being tested and the sociopolitical atmosphere was transforming into a seemingly more egalitarian setup (Gill, 2007b). From the feminist prompting for new masculinities and as commercialized interests began to target men in the 1980s, the figure of the New Man emerged, particularly in advertising campaigns. This archetype was depicted as “sensitive, caring, and nonsexist,” while also being “affluent, narcissistic, and preoccupied with fashion and consumption” (Gill, 2007b, p. 205). The New Man was unafraid of his emotions, and many hoped his prevalence in media signaled a broader acceptance of feminine qualities in men. However, New Man was also found to be contrived, and accusations of his inauthenticity grew.

Consequently, early 1990s media offered the New Lad as a direct reaction against New Man, feminism, or both (Gill 2003; 2007a; 2007b; 2009; 2014).The correlation between New Man and New Lad, and the transition from media dominance of the former to the latter, was highlighted in Lad mags’ printed obituaries for the New Man, most of which also announced the birth of the New Lad (Gill, 2003; 2007b).

New Lad was described as an “honest, open, and authentic” type of guy (2007b, p. 211) and exemplified “an unashamed celebration of true masculinity, liberated from the shackles of ‘political correctness’” (2007a, p. 158). Political correctness, in this sense, directly refers to, and scorns, feminism, while explaining feminism as a hindrance to the expression of authentic masculinity.

Gill (2009b) has proposed that Lad culture took the strongest hold of all postfeminist masculinities due to its appearance across many media, especially television, radio, literature, and magazines (“Lad mags”). Regardless of the format, Lads seemingly held nothing back, particularly the sexualized and “enthusiastically predatory” manner in which women were discussed and depicted. Lad mags navigated these problematic depictions by targeting “men who should know better” (Loaded in Gill, 2007b, p. 209); this ‘knowingness’ was essential to New Lad’s characterization.

Following shortly after the crux of the New Lad era grew another media-based figure of masculinity: the metrosexual. During the metrosexual’s reign in popular and consumer culture, he was characterized as a 21^st century urban heterosexual trendsetter with a taste for aesthetics who was unafraid to embrace more the feminine pursuits of shopping, self-care, fine dining, and culture (Flocker, 2003; Anderson, 2008; Shugart, 2008). Furthermore, young men in the United States reportedly considered the metrosexual to be a type of man to whom women would be attracted (Pompper, 2010); all such descriptors are largely the same as the New Man. The metrosexual trend was strong in media everywhere, yet some still believe this figure was less of a refraction of real life and, instead, simply an advertising strategy (Anderson, 2008). This potential inauthenticity again mirrors accusations against the 1980s’ New Man.

Moreover, beginning in 2004, the metrosexual too found himself confronted by a new foe: the retrosexual. The retrosexual discourse essentially describes a longing for a historical sense of manhood, akin to men returning to their ‘roots.’ Katherine Noel Anderson (2008) described the retrosexual as “the cliché strong, virile, hairy, uncouth, homophobic, misogynist man who is a cross between classic icons of the marauding frat boy, the caveman, the football linebacker, and the regular Joe” (2008, p. 5).

The retrosexual was linked to a marked renouncement of present-day technology in all of its forms (Peretti, 2004; McKay 2010). In 2014, retrosexuals were said to “build shrines to early 1980s technology…praying for the resurrection of laserdiscs and Xerox” with the sole reason being, “it’s retro” (Peretti, 2004). While a more explicit explanation for his technophobia has not been specified, it is possible that “retro” refers to a time before feminism. Indeed, retrosexuals’ instructions for dealings with women are reminiscent of gender traditions:

• Pay on a date and pay with cash.
• Open doors for women because it is chivalrous.
• Cook nothing more complex than prepackaged food. Cooking is a woman’s job, but men always carve meat; perfectly.
• Let women talk, but only pretend to listen – they cannot tell the difference.
• Have sex with women but do so without emotion.
• Women want commitment, real men do not. If a woman mentions commitment, real men leave immediately.
• Televised sports are more important than all women (Daily Mail Online, 2008).

Several sources (e.g., Lipke & Thomas, 2010; Banet-Weiser & Miltner, 2016) attributed the prominence of the retrosexual to the financial crisis of 2008 and the resulting economic anxiety: as working men felt the effects of the recession, they also felt a threat to their masculinity. While the recession may have had a role, a news article describing the rise of retrosexuality (Daily Mail, 2008) told a familiar tale: “Once, men were simply men. But then feminists decided they were chauvinist pigs who didn’t spend enough time doing the dishes. So along came the guilt-ridden New Man, swiftly followed by sensitive, moisturizing Metrosexual Man. Of course, women soon missed the whiff of testosterone and were calling for the return of Real Men.”

Both the retrosexual and the New Lad represent similar reactions against feminism and softer masculine figures in media, albeit manifested in different temporalities. The New Lad and retrosexual occupy two strategies of reinstating traditional masculinity in media, seemingly with the purpose of preserving sociopolitical power structures. The contradictions inherent in postfeminist media culture has rendered it possible for such toxic masculinity to continue alongside a vague acceptance of feminism.

Gill (2009b; 2014) has advocated for masculinity in postfeminist media to be considered as a sensibility in itself, in much the same way as postfeminist media culture. A sensibility allows media representations of masculinity and the experiences of real men to be considered in tandem in order to acknowledge the direct links between culture, media, and individuals. Whereas Gill crafted a masculinity sensibility on the New Lad and its evolution through media, I prefer to view mediated masculinity more broadly to explore relations among temporally coexisting figures, which is important for addressing the balance between male figures that embody softer feminine aspects and those that adopt more hypermasculine traits. Such a sensibility also allows for societal developments to be taken into consideration without extensive manipulation of the 1980s laddishness.

Post-Postfeminism

The continued validity of postfeminist media culture, as a sensibility for analysis, has recently been questioned due to a resurgence of feminism in the last five years. Celebrities, both male and female, have unabashedly proclaimed themselves to be feminists, and ‘feminist’ now indicates being “stylish, successful, and youthfully hip” (Gill, 2016, p. 610). It has become a profitable buzzword, thus signaling the commodification of a political movement (Sarah Banet-Weiser, 2015). With more feminist campaigns and greater attention to women’s representation in business and politics (and more), there is certainly an unprecedented interest in feminist discourses in media (Gill, 2016).

Postfeminist media culture seems, at the surface, incompatible with the recent resurgence of feminist visibilities. In this way, feminism in recent media appears to be a turn towards “post”-postfeminism. In repudiation of these claims, Gill (2016) explained how these new feminist discourses are more akin to postfeminism, as they have little connection with the sociopolitical activism of past waves of feminism. As Gill (2016) noted, this feminism can seemingly be ascribed only to those who are perceived as youthful and stylish, which bears significant resemblance to recent conceptions of femininity as a bodily property available only to young, sexy, and fit women.

Moreover, today’s feminism places strong importance on individual choice as the primary determiner of female empowerment. In particular, sexism or misogyny are often seen as isolated incidences that can be quelled with effort to “work on the self” rather than through affecting systematic change to counter inequality, thereby maintaining the depoliticization of personal experiences (Gill, 2016, p. 617). Consequently, ‘feminism’ has begun to lose its meaning: its use is celebrated, “yet in a way that does not necessarily pose any kind of challenge to existing social relations” (Gill, 2016, p. 619).

While new feminisms tend more towards commodification in pop culture, these visibilities are not entirely sociopolitically baseless. They are specifically important when considered with the similar rise in misogyny, further clouding the contradictions of present-day media culture. Gill explained the current moment:

“The situation seems too complicated for such singular narratives [of linear progress or backlash]: for every uplifting account of feminist activism, there is another of misogyny; for every feminist ‘win,’ an out-pouring of hate, ranging from sexual harassment to death threats against those involved; for every instance of feminist solidarity, another of vicious trolling.” (2016, p. 613)

Sarah Banet-Weiser (2015) deemed these new tensions “popular feminism” and “popular misogyny.” Importantly, popular misogyny is presented as a normative reaction, as it “disguises itself as ‘ethics’ or ‘equality’” (Banet-Weiser, 2015, n.p.).

Naturally, popular feminism and popular misogyny have either been caused or exacerbated by technology. As Julia Cook and Reza Hasmath (2014) noted, computer-mediated communication has the potential to challenge existing gender norms. However, Marwick (2013b) explained that this potential remains untapped, perhaps because of social media’s push to maintain authentic online identities (i.e., corresponding to offline constructions) and the pervasiveness of structural heterosexism in technology; internet technologies not only maintain, but indeed produce, gender as it is known today.

The ability for the layperson to broadcast content to the internet at large and thus shape online spaces is the cornerstone of contemporary media. However, despite its utopic presentation, “at its best, this culture of memes, mashups, and creative political activism allows for civic engagement and fun creative acts. But while this culture may resist dominant paradigms of economics, ownership, or intellectual property, it often hews to conventionally sexist tropes” (Marwick, 2013b, p. 12). In this way, both feminism and sexism have become normalized online, and while online spaces are conducive to uniting likeminded individuals or groups, they have undoubtedly contributed to the contradictions of popular feminism and popular misogyny online today.

The following two cases update this scholarship by exploring how mobile communication and popular feminism have shaped today’s constructions of masculinity.

←Previous: Introduction

Next: Fuckboys→