Competing Narratives: Another look at the "Rosie the Riveter" of Gay Rights

In 2005, Helene Shugart analyzed “poster child” logic surrounding Rosie O’Donnell’s coming out and subsequent support of equal rights adoption. Shugart concluded that the mass-mediated interpretations of O’Donnell’s projected narratives—that of being simultaneously a maternal figurehead, as well as a childlike presence in popular culture—in conjunction with her politically charged stance on adoption, worked to reify an ideological division between heterosexual and homosexual parents. Shugart argues that the public’s understanding of O’Donnell as an outsider—a “misfit with a heart of gold”—who is concerned with the care and safety of similar misfit children, categorically marginalizes both these broken children and their gay (adoptive) parents. Essentially, because both are already in the margins of society, it establishes a view of gay parents as the only suitable “beasts of burden” capable of parenting troubled youth.

Shugart’s conclusion, however, relies on a particular reading of O’Donnell’s narratives. While I agree with Shugart’s analysis and conclusions, I feel compelled to voice my concern for the supposed totality of this reading. Personally, at some points in the article, I perceived a disconnect with the author’s interpretation, and my own recollections about O’Donnell. As Shugart noted, O’Donnell’s performance

“could be understood as presentational, in a mediated context, it, too, ultimately is rendered representational, available for consumption and interpretation … by multiple audiences.”

It is this flexibility in interpretation that allowed (apparently) a large portion of the American population to perceive O’Donnell as a kind and caring figure. Many of the adults by whom I was surrounded in my youth did not share this view. Constantly, I can remember Rosie being talked about as a “loud bitch” who “used her celebrity to butt into people’s lives.” Shugart was right in some respect here, in that O’Donnell’s sexuality was “absorbed” by the context of her coming out—very rarely was her sexuality mentioned in these critiques. These acquaintances and family members to which I am referring were more traditionally conservative, and so O’Donnell’s tireless efforts to increase governmental regulations, including gun control, did not sit well with them.

            As I read Shugart’s article, I found it eye-opening as I lacked the frame of reference necessary for this interpretation of Rosie O’Donnell. However, as I continued to read, I was able to follow—and agree with—Shugart’s analysis quite well. I feel it should be made apparent that although this analysis is sound, without the reading of O’Donnell’s narratives that Shugart describes, it changes her whole argument. When she claims that the

“characterizations of O’Donnell as opportunistic, greedy, and deceptive were so far afield from her mainstream persona … that they quickly fizzled as fodder for discourse,”

it must be understood that not everyone felt these characterizations were completely off the mark. Therefore, this then deconstructs the “misfits caring for misfits” marginalization Shugart had established. To people, consumers, who do not share in Shugart’s narrative interpretation of O’Donnell, this application of heteronormative logic does not ring so assuredly true. This results in a separation of O’Donnell, and the parents for which she was fighting in the first place. O’Donnell, to some, was marginalized because of her highly publicized, brash, exploitative and “opportunistic” behavior.

            Granted, this interpretation is very possibly the viewpoint of only a few, but it altered how I read this article from the onset. What is interesting to note is that in the seven years since Shugart penned this piece, the visibility of queer bodies in the mainstream media has increased. While Shugart expressed a very real concern for the secondary and diminishing nature of queerness as represented by the media, we are seeing growth today. A cursory Google News search for “gay parents” resulted in over 2,000 results that trended more towards the positive. Research supporting family units—regardless of any member’s sexuality—as the key to happiness and positive development is becoming more widespread. Public discourse, especially with recent debates about the institution of marriage, is giving more attention to queer issues. While this does not necessarily change the media’s representations of queer individuals, it provides room for change. Maybe now, seven years later, is when we need a “poster child” as Shugart established O’Donnell, to rally the troops.

Vavrus and the Mediated "Mr. Mom"

Through the fascinating, and often disheartening, case studies discussed in John Sloop’s book, Disciplining Gender, we critics were given insight into how society has a tendency to try and dictate for us the gendered meanings of our innate behaviors, our actions and our choices. For example, in the “John/Joan” case considered in the book’s first chapter, a young male baby was born, had his genitals accidentally mangled by the physician, was surgically reassigned as a female, and raised in a way that forced him to perform what society recognizes as the female sex. Despite the doctor’s and his mother’s seemingly positive reports of the child’s reassignment, it would later be revealed that the child railed against his manufactured femininity, and ultimately decided to be re-reassigned as a male. David, as he was later called, reflected on how it never seemed right for him to be a woman, notwithstanding every pigeon-hole in which his mother, doctor, and society attempted to place him.

In both Sloop’s book, and the Brenda Cooper’s article from this week’s reading, we saw an idea similar to this in the case of Brandon Teena. Teena, who was physically defined by his female genitalia, was ultimately killed because of the discrepancy between what he portrayed himself as, and what society thought he should be. Brandon, who was quite the ladies’ man, caused confusion amongst those he knew when it was revealed that he was supposedly a woman acting like a man. The outrage over Brandon’s enactment of his own identity was so shocking to the public that it cost him his life and—according to the national media—his reputation. Framed as a “deceiver,” the memory of Brandon’s life is muddled by society’s seemingly unshakable heteronormativity. Apparently, no one can rest easy until everyone is categorized into one of two types: heterosexual male or heterosexual female.

In this week’s reading of Mary Douglas Vavrus’ article, “Domesticating Patriarchy: Hegemonic Masculinity and Television’s ‘Mr. Mom,’” we encounter this same idea of society’s insistence to define specific gender roles. Vavrus discusses the “Mr. Mom” phenomenon—so named because of the successful Michael Keaton movie—in which stay-at-home fathers are put in the spotlight. Vavrus’ claim is that the idea of a Mr. Mom does less to expand dominant, narrow gender ideologies, and more to naturalize existing stereotypes of gender roles in the household.

In the movie “Mr. Mom,” the main character, played by Keaton, gets fired from his manly occupation (being Batman… or was it an autoworker?) and is forced to stay home with his kids while his successful wife maintains her job and supports them all monetarily. This movie marked one of the first pieces of pop culture to deviate from the engrained gender roles of male bread-winners and women child-raisers. And at first glance (as was the case when I first saw this movie as a boy) this seemed like a great tool for showing equality among men and women: it was okay for men to do housework and child-rearing. However, as the Mr. Mom phenomenon started to spread to real people, and at-home dads became more common, the light in which these stories are cast is bleak, in that it does the opposite of what made Mr. Mom seem so ecumenical. Vavrus argues that in published news stories about the Mr. Moms of the world, the rhetoric used leads to three harms:

“they privilege a narrow definition of family by only featuring heterosexual, married parents; they valorize men for learning parenting skills and adapting to stay-at-home paternity; and they repeatedly reinforce the message that the duties of a stay-at-home father are properly masculine activities.”

By conforming to these frames of reference for how we should view these fathers only reinforces a divide between the two dominant genders in our culture, possibly creating backwards momentum in the push for total equality.

            First, Vavrus asserts that the narrow point of view from which these stories are disseminated to multiple news outlets provides a skewed vision of the realistic situations. Because only married, middle-class-or-above couples were featured prominently in these news stories, it casts all at-home dads as able to do the housework and child-rearing without concern for where the next paycheck is coming from. Essentially this “normalizes the very narrow field of these dads’ attributes,” providing unrealistic attention to particular cases.

            Second, these stories valorize men for learning to do household tasks. In this way, Vavrus argues, a new cultural understanding of the masculine identity is formed—one in which “what it means to be a real man” is framed as someone well-rounded and capable of housekeeping and raising children. With this newly forged identity of masculinity, society can view an at-home dad as some mythical, ecumenical savior; not only is he manly, but he’s so manly he can sweep the floor, too!

Third, while this view of a stay-at-home dad’s duties as acceptable male behavior does work with the feminist critique of “traditional household divisions of labor,” it simultaneously undercuts this notion. By affirming the dads’ abilities and manliness, these news stories highlight a male who is perfectly capable of both male and female responsibilities—making females, again, seem lesser by comparison. An example of this point can be found in the Tide detergent "Dad Mom" commercials, and hopefully these will stimulate thoughtful discussion in class: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1qW7Po-1KI&noredirect=1  &

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M28l-6LUp3w 

At this point in the article, Vavrus finally gets rolling with her analysis and critique, as she points to more flaws with the Mr. Mom phenomenon. The majority of news stories Vavrus researched portrayed the at-home dad’s counterpart as the successful, job-wielding woman. Because she makes more money than her husband, she gets the right to not have to do the housework, and not have to deal with the kids. Simply, this is a straight-up reversal of the gendered roles we are used to. While it seems positive that the males can pitch in by being “Mr. Moms,” it only allows for the wife, the bread-winner, to don the dominant patriarchal role of the household.

Continuing the critique, Vavrus deftly points to how the media frames these relationships to illustrate her point. Instead of explaining the father’s new at-home situation as one of circumstance, it was majorly framed as a choice by the dad to do so—“even when the reason for the ‘Mr. Mom’ arrangement is a layoff.” This was a really interesting twist on the media’s part, and Vavrus used it to bolster he argument that “media representation is constitutive.”

The strengths of Vavrus’ article lie in her research. By utilizing a wide selection of these heteronormative news stories, she was able to peel back the veil on the Mr. Mom phenomenon. A strongly-written piece critiquing the fallacies behind the Mr. Mom fad culminated with the author’s conclusion. Because these news stories relied heavily upon the trope of a heteronormative nuclear family for the basis of its claims about stay-at-home dads, it cannot break away from “disciplining” these gender roles onto the public. As a result, men only see their problems with being at-home dads in the context of their sex, and not because of their innate abilities. Personally, as someone whose father was an at-home dad for a while, my only critique of Vavrus’ article is that it does not weigh more heavily on the actual testimonies of real at-home dads. However, because this is a class on media and gender, my desire to stick up for these fathers may not need to be explored.