Monstrous Regiment of Women

Yesterday in my Mass Media and Cultural Studies class, we viewed the film "The Monstrous Regiment of Women". It has won awards at an independent Christian film festival, and is becoming increasingly popular within certain Christian communities. Before I give my reactions, I just want to help you get a general idea of the film's content with this trailer:




Just to begin, I want to make clear the position from which I write this blog post. I am a committed Christian, and my understanding is that Christ's life and calling for his followers resists injustice and oppression in the world. I consider myself a feminist in that all women should have equal opportunities, education, and the ability to fulfill their own individual potential, which is DEFINITELY not limited to being a wife and mother (although I have ZERO problem with a woman who finds joy and fulfillment in that life). I see sexism still ingrained in cultures around the world (including America), I see this damage the lives of innumerable women.

Anyway, in regards to the film...

I decided to pick three main ideas and then explain how each is presented in the film, along with my own reaction to that point. There will be times where it sounds as though I am exaggerating the views of the filmmakers and those interviewed in the film. THESE ARE NOT EXAGGERATIONS (although I wish they were):

I. Feminism ideas are consistent throughout all those who ascribe to that label.

The filmmakers were very careful to only interview certain feminists that either appear irrational or exhibit (seemingly) radical ideas. Then, they apply that stereotype to ALL feminists and subsequently condemn them. For example, in the section on abortion, they interview a reformed employee of Planned Parenthood who explains that she used to encourage students into an active sexual lifestyle so that she could make money off of abortions. This is not realistic or representative of even a respectable minority of feminists...I can honestly say I have never met a single woman that would applaud horrific actions such as those.

The film concludes that all feminists support the choice to have an abortion, want more women to have abortions, and literally hate children. This then leads to a discussion on how these views are against Christian beliefs.

I wish I could even address the debate of abortion and Christianity, but all their premises for this "argument" are without any substance. Not all feminists are pro-choice, most wish women never had abortions, and I don't think its possible to find any person on the earth that actually hates children (although they equate not wanting to have children as hating their presence).

II. The practice of Feminism is unbiblical. (Their website, http://www.monstrousregiment.com, states that the film was created with the intention of "admonishing women and men for their role in the unbiblical practice of feminism")

Again, they do not state a case clearly enough to really argue. What is the "feminism" they are talking about? Education of women? Abortion? Women in leadership roles? Women with careers? Single women? Radical feminism? Liberal feminism? Socialist feminism?

They film makes it clear that the Christians involved in the production never accurately researched the history or development of "feminism", and therefore make ignorant generalizations. They interview a few radicals (or former radicals) which happen to fit into their stereotypes then generalize that the other millions of men and women that call themselves feminists would agree.

Granted, most feminists believe in having equal political, social, and cultural rights for women. However, there are many internal debates among feminists, especially about issues such as abortion. How can these filmmakers wage a war against feminist thinking if there isn't a consensus on most issues? I can't even address these arguments because I will not speak for all feminists. I could write full blog posts on every single issue, but only from my own point of view.

III. A woman's only and highest "calling" in life is to be a wife and mother. Her value is only as a homemaker, and women with careers or in any leadership position are abominations.

This was definitely THE overarching theme of the film. All the non-feminist interviewees were married women with multiple children, and used imagery suggesting that the most abhorred position for a women would be alone and/or without children. They referred to the institution of marriage as a protection for women (This was stated without reasoning as a throw-away comment. It was treated as a generally accepted claim, and the thought that marriage could be an equal partnership was not even considered).

Christian women in the film said that when feminists in the 1960s encouraged females to pursue careers they wanted women to abandon their families and destroy society and Christianity. They did not mention that most women just think women should have the choice to pursue a career. It was a reaction to an imaginary "monstrous regiment" that is forcing women into slavery of some kind.

Towards the end of the film, there was a comparison of the number of children totaled among the feminist interviewees and the Christian interviewees (there was never any overlap. No one was interviewed as far as I know that was a Christian and a feminist). Anyway, they said the seven feminists, combined, only totaled 10 children, while the Christian women interviewed had a total of 60 children. This was intended as measuring the "womanliness" or "Godliness" of the Christians in the film.

Therefore, the conclusion was that (1) no woman finds joy in being single, having a job, or being married without children, (2) God would never approve of a single or childless woman, and (3) there is a giant conspiracy among ALL feminists to make everyone miserable and ungodly.

Its hard to restrain my reactions to this relatively short blog post (relative to my ideal response), but I would definitely like to hear other peoples' reactions in the comment section. Has anyone else seen this movie yet? Do you think Christians can be feminists? If so, what should that look like? What is a woman's role according to the Bible? Is there only one godly path for all women?

How the Media Interprets Feminism

Media has reacted to feminism with interesting representations that create or maybe even perpetuate negative stereotypes. There are multiple forms of feminism, such as radical, liberal, or socialist feminism that shouldn't be confined to these assigned roles in society.

Liberal and radical feminism, for example, has become the mainstream understanding of feminist thinking and this negativity has been perceived by the media. Advertisements sometimes portray businesswomen as androgynous and could equate a feminist's struggle for equality in the workplace with attempting to be "masculine". The audiences could react either by believing women have to have certain "masculine" qualities in order to succeed, or the feminist movement could be dismissed as a bunch of crazy androgynous women.

An article titled "Feminist Perspectives on the Media" states that media reactions to liberal feminism by creating "a new stereotype of 'Superwoman'...magazines and advertisements portray her as an independent and assertive career woman, a successful wife and mother, who is still beautiful and has kept the body she had as a girl in perfect shape. Real women trying to live up to this image, end up suffering from serious burn out symptoms".

How can we accurately depict feminism and encourage women without forcing them into narrow stereotypes or forcing them to "burn out"?

What does television tell us about women?

Television is a very common medium through which individuals can learn about society and their role within it. Some studies reveal that by the age of 15, most children have spent more hours in front of the television than in the classroom. So if approximately half the human population is "symbolically annihilated" by condemnation, trivialization, and sexualization within television programs, it probably should raise some alarms.

Women have been historically misrepresented, or underrepresented in media, as a reflection of unfortunate dominant social values ("The Symbolic Annihilation of Women by the Mass Media" by Gaye Tuchman). But the values represented in television shows or advertisements are lagging behind factual truths about our current economic system...even while more women began entering the American workforce, television continued to depict them as confined to traditional roles of wife and mother. A good example of harmful stereotypes supported by television in its early days is the show "I Love Lucy". Lucy's only successful role was in relation to her husband, as a stay-at-home wife, and she only got into trouble if she attempted to venture out into the workforce.



Another serious symbolic annihilation of women in television is sexualization, which is a form of trivializing a woman's presence by belittling her into a sexual object to be used by men. Advertisements are clear examples of this, specifically those aired by companies such as Miller beer and Axe body spray. Here is one such advertisement:



This is an extreme example, but similar forms are far too common on television screens today. Television shows portray women mainly as either sexualized, successful only within the home, or as important only in relation to their male coworkers or relationships. Tuchman summarized it well by saying: "What can the preschool girl, the school girl, the adolescent female and the woman learn about a woman's role by watching television? The answer is simple...To be a woman is to have a limited life divorced from the economic productivity of the labor force."

Are Disney Movies Good For Your Kids?

The Disney corporation has an influential role in our culture, with an almost monopolistic hold on children's entertainment. Over the past few decades, it has evolved beyond production of films to what some call "public pedagogy". Henry Giroux, in an article titled "Are Disney Movies Good for Your Kids?", wrote that "these films appear to inspire at least as much cultural authority and legitimacy for teaching specific roles, values, and ideals as more traditional sites of learning such as public schools, religious institutions, and the family". Should we be allowing an animated film company to fill the niche of teaching authority, given the controversial messages relayed in these well-known movies?

Many people view Disney films such as Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, Pocahontas, and Beauty and the Beast as harmless stories with some great soundtracks. I would argue that this could actually be harmful given the racist and sexist overtones, which could possibly become part of the children's enculturation. I want to take a critical look at some of these Disney films and their promotion of negative stereotypes:

Beauty and the Beast is considered a Disney "classic" and is often cited as a favorite especially among young girls. On the surface level, Belle might appear as an independent and ambitious female, destined for a life outside of the "provincial town". She rejects a stereotypical chauvinistic man in search of her unknown dreams, so she MUST be a feminist!

However, there are problems with this shallow analysis if you attempt further interpretation. She is basically still reduced to female stereotypes since her "ambitious" plans still include a dreamy romance with a handsome prince (as portrayed in the song where her favorite literary passage is about such a future). Giroux, in his article, points out that this notion of Belle as a progressive woman is slightly skewed. "In the end, Belle simply becomes another woman whose life is valued for solving a man's problems". He is referring to how Belle's role basically consists of reforming the Beast by turning him "into a model of the 'new' man, who is sensitive, caring, and loving".

Another problematic Disney film is Pocahontas, which is commonly praised for its cross-cultural love story. In fact, racism "is a powerful but subtle structuring principle" throughout this beloved movie. The writers reshape the horrendous exploitation of Native Americans (which led to the genocide of millions) and "colonial barbarism into a sentimental romance", disregarding most historical truths. In reality, John Smith was a violent and imperialistic racist that exploited the Native Americans for wealth. Now, it is not necessarily unethical to stretch the truth in order to make a good film, but the cultural implications of another inaccurate portrayal of Native Americans is not a good message for children. Public schools barely mention the genocide, and are fed lies through films like Pocahontas without any critical filter.

Giroux writes in his article that "the messages offered in Disney's animated films suggest that social problems such as racism, the genocide of Native Americans, sexism and crisis of democratic public life are simply willed through the laws of nature". The solution is not necessarily a ban on Disney movies, but rather approaching the films with a critical mindset. Children should not simply absorb a film's message without questioning the implications, and hopefully their schools and parents can offer guidance on interpreting those beloved stories.

The Beatles as Popular Culture

In the field of cultural studies, there have been disagreements over the definitions of culture and its implications for society. In the past, the lifestyles and art of the general public were dismissed by elitist scholars as inferior to "high brow" culture of the upper class. According to Barker's Culture and Cultural Studies (that I mentioned in the last post), the term "popular culture" has been used to "refer to that which is 'left over' after the canon of high culture has been decided upon" and "to the mass-produced culture of the culture industries" (page 51). Some involved in cultural studies see this as damaging to an authentic culture on the grass-roots level of society, but others argue that this is simply "romantic nostalgia'. The author states that "contemporary popular culture is, primarily, a commercially produced one...however, it is argued that popular audiences make their own meanings with the texts of popular culture. They bring to bear their own cultural competencies and discursive resources to the consumption of commodities"(page 52).

I would suggest that there are many cases where popular culture is a compromise between the commercial manufacture of a media product onto which the public then accepts and projects their own meaning. A perfect example is the phenomenon of The Beatles and the world-wide frenzy they inspired. Watch this video of the band performing "Long Tall Sally" to a vast and perpetually screaming audience:



The band began as four leather-clad Liverpudlian "teddy boys" that got into fights and sustained themselves with alcohol and Preludin. Before they became internationally famous, however, they were molded by their manager and record company into clean-cut (minus the shocking hair-dos) pop group that wore matching suits and bowed politely at the end of every number they performed. So, in a major way The Beatles were commercially produced to appeal to mass audiences across the globe. However, the millions of hysterical teenage girls (as well as well-educated music lovers) clearly have added cultural meaning of their own to the band. The Beatles are a hybrid of commercial success and deeper cultural meaning. In this case, the Beatles did not lose their most creative freedom in writing music (although earlier their more pop-y singles were created with the intent of appealing to the masses). Their outward appearance was the most dramatic change and made them appropriate to present to audiences outside their own hometown. But as soon as the band began playing music, the masses were free to put their own meaning into the product and took possession of it.

"Politics of Difference"

I thought I would start off this new blog with a little bit of an introduction to the subject matter. I will be writing about media's role in portraying culture and identity in our society, with a heavy emphasis on race, gender, and class. Images and texts in our media convey a certain message about who we are, and here I will be examining that information and critiquing it with a "cultural studies" focus. In Chris Barker's book Culture and Cultural Studies, he discusses questions of race and gender (which will be significant themes in this blog) that I will later apply to media criticism later on. About feminism he states that the "subordination of women is argued to be evident across a range of social institutions and practices, that is, male power and female subordination are structural". I think our mass media is definitely one of those institutions that uphold female subordination. As an example, here is an advertisement for Skyy Vodka that I think is an obvious visual portrayal of male domination in our society:
(http://www.usask.ca/art/a31701/site/britski/alcohol.html) Not only is the woman a sexualized object, but there is a domineering man literally standing over her, "keeping her down".

Another topic I want to introduce in this blog is racism, another commonly portrayed cultural practice in our media. How about this ad for Intel: (http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2007-08-10-IntelRacistAd.jpg) The bowing down of the African atheletes to the professional white male is a blatant representation of the racism embedded in our society. This is a serious problem if Barker's claims that "races do not exist outside of representation but are formed in and by it in a process of social and political power struggle".

Later on, I will be dealing with more specific issues of identity and our mass media, but this has just been a sampling of what the blog will be discussing.