Jon & Kate Plus 8 Different Ways to Manage Your Family

Over the past 10 years, reality TV has produced numerous programs dedicated to the family unit. One of the more recent of these programs featured on The Learning Channel is called Jon & Kate Plus 8, which follows the Gosselin Family. What separates the Gosselin’s from the “typical” reality TV family is that Jon and Kate Gosselin have eight children, the result of two multiple births; twins and sextuplets. This reality show attempts to document the hardships that come from trying to raise a family of multiples. However, if this show is viewed through a more analytical lens, it becomes clear that it is offering more than just a voyeuristic look into the Gosselin’s lives. This large family, which consists mainly of children below the age of five, can very easily become chaotic and unruly. Jon & Kate Plus 8 broadcasts the importance of organization, rules, and schedules to keep the family on track. Thus, Jon & Kate Plus 8 uses the Gosselin’s as an example of a heteronormative middle-class family to promote the neo-liberal ideals of individual responsibility and self-management.

This idea of reality TV promoting certain behaviors and ideals is nothing new. As Ouellette explains, ““…a cadre of reality programs have emerged to teach individuals and families how to better manage their children, households, health and leisure time” (86). With all of the makeover and intervention reality shows, there is typically an expert who is giving advice and guidance so that when the show is over the “made-over” individuals can then apply this new knowledge to their everyday lives. This is directly linked to the neo-liberal importance of self-management, because it is the individual’s responsibility to improve their lives; not the government’s. In the case of Jon & Kate Plus 8, the dynamic is slightly different. The all-knowing expert that comes in to “teach” the dysfunctional family is absent. Instead, Jon and Kate Gosselin are often portrayed, and considered by the audience, as expert parents for the mere fact that they run a functional family with eight children. Consequently, although the dynamic is slightly different, the reality program has the same effect. It gives advice on how to run an organized and self-managed family.

It is important to note that the Gosselin Family, like most others on reality TV, is considered heteronormative. Jon and Kate are a heterosexual married couple, who wanted nothing more than to start a family. When Kate could not get pregnant naturally, they turned toward fertility treatments, which was the cause of their two sets of multiples. This fits perfectly within the heteronormative ideal family, because it stresses the importance of raising children. Raising their children in a loving and “normal” environment is of extreme importance to them, as is expected of all heteronormative families. It is also important that Jon and Kate are a heteronormative married couple “…so that techniques for managing the family and the home are situated within the sanctioned ideal” (Ouellette 95). Reality TV families can only effectively be used to provide modeled behavior if they are considered a normative family.

The Gosselin’s status as a middle-class family also has a great importance on both their popularity and ability to spread neo-liberal ideals. The fact that Jon & Kate Plus 8 has become so popular with TV viewers “…may speak to a growing preoccupation with middle-class ‘lifestyling’ practices” (Ouellette 74). Because they are a middle-class family, they are seen as easy to relate to. However, their middle-class status is important not only for their marketability, but also for the promotion of neo-liberal ideals. The Gosselin’s live in the suburbs of Pennsylvania, in a four bedroom house. One episode of Jon & Kate Plus 8, was centered on the re-carpeting of most of their rooms. This was done in order to increase the selling value of their house, so that they could move into a larger one with more land acreage. This promotes the neo-liberal ideal of individual responsibility because the Gosselin’s were proactive in their attempts to move up the social ladder. They, independently, were able to transform their house by simply changing their carpets. This matches the neo-liberal belief that the individual should be constantly vying for improvement as a means of economic advancement.

One of the ways in which the Gosselin’s have decided to best manage their family is to divide the roles of father and mother according to the patriarchy. Johnson describes patriarchy as “about the primary importance of a husband’s career and the secondary status of a wife’s, about child care as a priority in women’s lives and its secondary importance in men’s” (94). This is precisely how Jon and Kate divide their parenting responsibilities. Jon works fulltime as an IT analyst while Kate quit her job as a nurse to become a fulltime mother. Kate’s role is to cook and clean for her family, while Jon is often seen playing with the kids after work. This designation of Jon as the provider and Kate as the care giver not only brings them in alignment with their normative gender roles, but is also portrayed as an acceptable means to manage a family. The success of Jon and Kate as parents by adopting these roles, therefore, validates the patriarchy because it is shown as an effective parenting strategy.

This gendered division of family labor can also be seen in the behavior of the Gosselin children. Children tend to model their parents’ behavior because, as Newman explains, “… [parents] serve as observational models with whom the child can identify and ultimately imitate” (112). Thus parents, like Jon and Kate, who use the normative divisions of gender to organize and manage their family are further promoting the patriarchy’s ideals to be used in future generations. For example, one of the sextuplet girls, Hannah, is repeatedly referred to as very maternal and as “Mommy’s Little Helper.” She is shown helping Kate with her daily chores such as cooking, cleaning, and doing the laundry. She is also referred to as the “Mom” of the sextuplets, because she is often seen in a nurturing role; taking care of her brothers and sisters when they are upset. The socialization of children to the normative gender roles is not only important for the patriarchy and so that the children can be viewed by society as “acceptable” men and women, but it also supports the promotion of neo-liberal ideals to future generations. It implies that living within the patriarchy is the preferred way to organize a family.

By stressing order and organization in their family, the Gosselin’s also promote the neo-liberal ideal of self-management. Raising eight children is an extremely difficult task, and it is not hard to imagine how chaotic it can get. However, on Jon & Kate Plus 8, this obstacle becomes manageable and attainable through proper organization. As Ouellette asserts, “reality TV promotes stable, functioning families by circulating regimens, skills, and rules related to household organization, cleanliness, time management, and parenting” (92). The Gosselin household is extremely organized; each child has clearly labeled seats, bibs, toy bins, walking partners, etc. This hyper-organization is seen as essential to maintain a stable, functioning family. The belief that the neo-liberal ideals of self-organization are crucial to carefully maintain order in the household is clearly reinforced. The benefits of this orderly and organized lifestyle are also displayed. The Gosselin’s go on many family trips, however, it is evident that they are only possible through careful planning and organization.

The importance of order and organization is also portrayed through Jon and Kate’s strict adherence to a daily schedule. Nearly all aspects of their daily lives are designated to a specific time of the day, in a particular order. Enforcing this schedule is seen as an important part of managing a family in an orderly and organized manner. All of the kids’ activities, from waking up, eating, playing, naps, and going to sleep, are performed at a specific time, every single day. Any deviations from this schedule are considered as threats to the overall order of the household.

Discipline is represented as crucial to manage a family and maintain order on Jon & Kate Plus 8. Just like their daily schedule, Jon and Kate follow a strict protocol as to how to deal with unwanted behavior. They are consistent and standardized as to how they teach their children right from wrong. Many reality TV shows promote the importance of discipline “…to ‘prevent bad habits’ from breeding and show kids that the ‘adults are in charge’” (Ouellette 96). Discipline is, thus, essential to parent within the neo-liberal world in order to uphold the managing position as a parent. Discipline is not only a way to manage the family, but also a way to justify the parent’s position as the “manager” by correcting the unwanted behaviors of the children.

Discipline not only provides parents with a way to manage their children, but it also helps instill neo-liberal ideals in the minds of the children themselves. Through disicipline, the Gosselin’s aim is to teach their children to become obedient and responsible individuals. The Gosselin children are expected to follow their parent’s orders and rules. When they do not follow the rules, they are then expected to take responsibility for their actions, apologize, and willingly take their punishment. This model of parenting teaches children to become responsible self-governing citizens in the neo-liberal world. They are expected to control and edit their behaviors in order to avoid being punished or to be rewarded. This level of self-control and self-management are extremely important to achieve success in the neo-liberal world.

While Jon & Kate Plus 8 has a different style than most interventional reality TV shows, it still promotes the same neo-liberal messages. Because Jon and Kate Gosselin run a fairly organized and functional family with eight children, they are taken to be parenting experts. Thus their parenting styles and decisions are promoted as expert parenting advice, which is then broadcast to a wide audience. The importance they place on organization, individual responsibility, and self-management clearly promotes the neo-liberal agenda. By using the Gosselin’s as a relatable family unit (being heteronormative and middle-class) the neo-liberal belief that it is the responsibility of the individual for his/her improvement is spread to the viewers at home.

Works Cited

“Carpeting the House.” Jon & Kate Plus 8. The Learning Channel. 6 Aug. 2008.

“Day in the Life.” Jon & Kate Plus 8. The Learning Channel. 6 Aug. 2008.

Johnson, Allan G. “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us.” The Gender Knot: Unraveling Out Patriarchal Legacy. Temple University Press, 1997.

Newman, David M. Identities and Inequalities: Exploring the Intersections of Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality. New York: McGraw Hill, 2007.

Ouellette, Laurie and James Hay. Better Living through Reality TV. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2008.

Beauty: Plain and Simple

Magazines targeting women are a perfect medium to study the feminine beauty ideal as promoted by the mass media. While perusing these magazines, women are bombarded with a multitude of images and sayings, such as “Keep it Simple,” “Be a Natural Beauty,” and “Better with Less.” Thus, young girls get the message that the simple, natural look is what is considered beautiful, and that the less time they put into their looks, the better. However, these same magazines then have dozens of advertisements for new make-up and cosmetics and even more tips about how to use them. They also glamorize the use of make-up by showing celebrities and models that use a lot of cosmetics to enhance their physical appearance. These images are then celebrated as being “Sexy” and “Beautiful” as well. So what, then, is the feminine beauty ideal: natural or commercially enhanced? This conflicting message of attaining natural beauty by using an excess of beauty products gives women an ideal of beauty which is near impossible to achieve.

This contradiction between natural beauty and the use of cosmetics can be seen in many different areas in mass media. Despite having an article about celebrities who look better without make-up, magazines include even more articles about make-up tips and how to achieve certain looks. Although it promotes the importance of a fresh and clean face, the beauty industry does not make money off of that ideal. Instead, advertisements are used to convince women that they can achieve this vision of natural beauty through the use of their product. Advertisements for cosmetics tap into feminine insecurities about their physical appearance, and “these images play into the American belief of transformation and ever new possibilities …via the purchase of the right product” (Kilbourne 260). These products are seen as having “magical” properties; transforming women into the true natural beauties they were meant to be. The advertisements send the message that make-up can be used to make any girl beautiful, no matter what nature has given them.

Despite the amazing power of these beauty products, they are also very dangerous. Women and young girls must be very careful as to how much make-up they use, or they risk being ridiculed for going overboard. Although it is acceptable for women to use cosmetics, their make-up is meant to blend in and be unnoticeable. They are never to forget that their beauty is supposed to seem effortless, no matter how much time, effort, and money they spend to achieve this image. It is not hard to imagine the dilemma that women face when, as Hesse-Biber explains, “the food, diet, fitness and beauty industries, aided by the media, have systematically pressured many girls…into believing their salvation lies in self improvement, self-control, and achieving the ultra-slender body ideal” (22). It is very difficult to rely on their natural beauty when women are being attacked on all fronts with ads saying that that they need help from beauty products. Consuming these products is a way to attain the beauty ideal, despite the inconsistency that they produce with the natural and simple ideal. This contradiction between striving for natural beauty by using unnatural and commercial products makes the feminine beauty ideal that much more illusive.

Works Cited

Hesse-Biber, Sharlene Nagy. The Cult of Thinness. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc, 2007.

Kilbourne, Jean. “The More You Subtract, The More You Add: Cutting Girls Down to Size.” Gender, Race, and Class in Media: A Text Reader. Ed. Gail Dines and Jean M. Humez. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2003. 258-267.

Collage Sources

Cosmopolitan. August 2008.

InStyle. August 2008.

People. June/July 2008.

Redbook. July 2008.

Little Heroes

My little cousin’s birthday is coming up soon, so I wanted to get him a toy that he would enjoy. Like most 5 year olds I know, Jason is obsessed with superheroes: his favorite is Superman. As I started to peruse the toy offerings that Amazon.com had to offer, I started to notice a pattern. All of the action figures and toys marketed to young boys contained images of these “heroes” as tough, strong and aggressive men. This not only applied to superheroes like Superman, but also to toys involving police officers, firefighters, and the army. It is not hard to see that these images and figures can have a large impact in shaping a young boy’s perception of their gender. These hero-based toys and action figures teach young boys to define their masculinities as strong, aggressive protectors and defenders of society.

Societal norms and expectations are not innate. Children must be taught what actions are acceptable and expected for people in various groups, especially in regards to gender. “People are not born with a gender; they cultivate it over time as they learn the cultural expectations associated with being a boy or a girl, a man or a woman,” (Newman 53). Children learn these gender norms from various institutions like the family and school. Even toys act as socializing agents for young children, teaching them about the various identities and roles in society. Take, for example, the Superman & Batman Justice League Action Figures. Their very membership in this justice league reinforces the conception of men as the protector and the defender. These two figures also have extremely exaggerated bodies. Their upper bodies are disproportionately large, and they are extraordinarily muscular. Their faces are also particularly emotionless. These figures give the image of both physically and emotionally strong men as the masculine ideal. These characteristics are what make Superman who he is; a super man who is super masculine. In fact, there are even products, like the Superman Inflato Suit, which gives young boys the illusion of having this strong masculine build.

Not only do these heroes have immense physical power, but they know how to use it. The Punch N’ Crush Gloves Accessory offers another way for young boys to emulate the fighting prowess of their masculine idols. It even comes with a bendable steel bar which makes the sound of real metal bending! It is worthy to note that the young boys featured on the box all have aggressive and tough facial expressions, meant to intimidate their enemies, whoever they may be. As Newman explains, “aggression continues to be the hallmark of masculinity, from childhood to adulthood” (136). Physical aggression is glamorized by these heroes as a way to defend themselves and others from the evils that exist in the world. Because of this, young boys often learn to equate fighting and aggression with masculinity.

This hyper masculine protector theme does not only apply to superheroes. There are also many examples of real life heroes portrayed in toys. For example, the Hometown Heroes: Fire Truck Rescue toy is a typical representation of a heroic male occupation. As is said in the product description, this firefighter is ready to battle the fierce neighborhood inferno. Firefighter John and the rest of the Hometown Heroes gang are perfect examples of the brave public defenders that these hero toys display. Young boys learn that bravery is an important part of being masculine. This masculine role as the protector is necessitated by the patriarchy, which requires people to “…buy into the notion that women are weak and men are strong, that women and children need men to support and protect them…” (Johnson 95). Thus, these ideals for men are not only important for defining their masculinities, but also in retaining their powerful position in the patriarchy itself. What is also interesting to note about these “Hometown Heroes”, is that they are all white males, implying that heroism applies only to this particular group.

One of the few toys that can be easily identified as an American hero is, of course, G.I. Joe. One of the toy guns I found was called the G.I. Joe 8 Inch Duke Role Play Blaster. The figure on the box holding the gun is a very muscular, strong and serious man, further promoting these as masculine traits. In its product description, this weapon is described as the perfect tool to follow your brave and fearless captain into battle with. It supposedly contains all of the necessary tricks and gadgets to ensure the crushing defeat of your enemies, like a silencer, high-range scope, and smoke grenades. Army toys like these often convey themes of power, authority and the submission of the enemy. Young boys, then, also learn that these are associated with masculinity, where “to have power over and to be prepared to use it are defined culturally as good and desirable (and characteristically masculine)” (Johnson 94). The G.I. Joe world is clearly full of dominance and authority, being military based. Since it is portrayed as an exclusively male world, it is clear how these toys then reinforce these traits as also being exclusively masculine.

Finally, the G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero-Sgt. Stalker action figure is an example of a toy which not only socializes boys about gender, but also about social class. The Sgt. Stalker toy displays all of the qualities described above: strong, powerful, muscular, aggressive, a protector, etc. However, the male identity is not the only identity which Sgt. Stalker represents. As Newman explains, “…socioeconomic status has long worked in tandem with a history of racial domination and gender inequality to shape the socialization of children” (131). This action figure clearly shows how toys can act as socializing agents for a wide array of identities all at once. In regards to the Sgt. Stalker action figure, one must look at the product description to find out that he learned his survival instincts at an early age, growing up on the streets of a bad neighborhood. This teaches children about socioeconomic class, specifically the lower class, and how it relates to masculinity. In the case of Sgt. Stalker, the fact that he was from a lower class family explains why he is also so masculine. It was because of his lower class environment that he became so tough, aggressive, and resilient. All of these traits, which as we have seen above, are all linked to the masculine identity

Whether they be superheroes, occupational heroes, or army heroes, these hero-themed toys have a universal message for young boys; that the masculinity identity is one which is based on the protector/defender, who must be extremely strong, both physically and mentally, brave, powerful, and aggressive. These toys both teach and reinforce the cultural norms and expectations that are expected from the male gender. It is important to note that these gender norms are based on the framework of the patriarchy. This further explains why these masculine traits are so celebrated in our culture. Finally, it legitimizes the role of the male protector to ensure female dependence on men.

Works Cited

Johnson, Allan G. “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us.” The Gender Knot: Unraveling Out Patriarchal Legacy. Temple University Press, 1997.

Newman, David M. Identities and Inequalities: Exploring the Intersections of Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality. New York: McGraw Hill, 2007.

Picture Links (in order)

http://www.amazon.com/Giants-Justice-Superman-Batman-Figures/dp/B000OOS1N0/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&s=toys-and-games&qid=1216875742&sr=1-14

http://www.amazon.com/Mattel-J7019-Superman-Inflato-Suit/dp/B000CEXNGW/ref=pd_bxgy_t_img_b

http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/B000B6ML6Y/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_0?ie=UTF8&index=0

http://www.amazon.com/Hometown-Heroes-Fire-Truck-Rescue/dp/B000HWO5CU/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=toys-and-games&qid=1216875432&sr=1-5

http://www.amazon.com/G-I-Inch-Duke-Role-Blaster/dp/B0007XIE80/ref=pd_sim_t_24

http://www.amazon.com/Joe-American-Versus-Action-Figure/dp/B000JVVQGM/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&s=toys-and-games&qid=1216875624&sr=1-16

Hegemony in Family Guy

When watching an episode of Family Guy like “Don’t Make Me Over,” it is easy to point out both hegemonic and counter-hegemonic representations of various identities.

The first and most obvious representation involves the counter-hegemonic representation of the female identity, especially of teenagers. Through satire, this episode provides extreme examples of the normative female identity to point out its irrationality. For example, a high school cafeteria scene shows a group of young girls at a table. All they are able to talk about is boys, especially the “cool guy” of campus Craig Hoffman. This comments on the hegemonic belief that as a young female, you should be greatly concerned with finding a boyfriend. Also, this episode revolves around the transformation Meg goes through after she has had a makeover. The new Meg now comes with long blond hair, make-up, and revealing clothes. The rewards which come with Meg’s adoption of the ideal feminine form include a date with Craig Hoffman, universal peer acceptance, and (to top it off) a burgeoning career as a pop star. The storyline concludes with Meg being take advantage of by Jimmy Fallon for a skit on Saturday Night Live. This whole storyline, ridiculous as it may be, proves just how dangerous it is for young girls to base their identity as a female solely on the dominant hegemonic ideals.

Despite this counter-hegemonic representation which makes up the main storyline, the rest of the episode is full of hegemonic representations. For example, Lois fulfills the hegemonic representation of the mother. When Meg is upset about her looks, Lois is the first to console her, performing her motherly role as the nurturer. She then tries to make Meg feel better by taking her shopping, pressuring her into buying the “hip” clothes. It is also Lois who forces Meg into getting her makeover, saying that it will boost her confidence. This gives the message to her daughter that being pretty is an important part of being a girl. This also reinforces the motherly role of teaching her daughter how to be more feminine.

Much like Lois represents the hegemonic mother, Peter is used in the episode to represent the hegemonic father. When Meg comes to her parents with her self-esteem problem, Peter is not concerned at all, which reinforces the father as a figure who does not deal with emotional problems. Also, when Jimmy Fallon sleeps with Meg, it is Peter who must defend his daughter. This shows the hegemonic traits expected of fathers like protective, strong, and aggressive. Peter himself even calls it his “fatherly duty” to beat up Jimmy Fallon after tricking his daughter. Another example comes at the very end of the episode, where Peter is thanking everyone on the SNL stage. While it may at first seem innocuous, Peter’s assumption of the responsibility to thank everyone also comes from his role as the head of the family. Despite the fact that this episode centers primarily on Meg, it is still the father who is used to represent the family.

This episode also contains hegemonic representations of prisoners in a jail. At Peter’s concert, the prisoner crowd is noticeably diverse, with a large percentage of black and Hispanic individuals. This is in contrast to other scenes in the episode that featured a large amount of people, like at the high school or the karaoke bar, which were predominately white. This fits in with the hegemonic belief that most crime is committed by minority groups. Also, the prisoners were seen as extremely violent, charging the stage and throwing objects at the band. Several references were also made linking prisoners to homosexuality, like when Chris said that a prisoner sitting behind him braided his hair.

Finally, there were numerous hegemonic representations of homosexuals, specifically of gay men. A comment was made during Peter’s band practice that if they all had matching outfits, they would “look like a bunch of queers.” This feeds the hegemonic painting of homosexual men as caring a great deal about fashion and physical appearance. Also, the short vignette about the Tin Man being homosexual and purposefully falling on top of the Scarecrow reinforces the hegemonic position that gay men are not to be trusted and are constantly trying to trick straight men.

Family Guy. “Don’t Make Me Over.”

Season 4, Volume Three, Disc One, DVD. 6/5/05

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation: Beverly Hills, CA. 2005.

Link to Blogging in College: The Main Gender and Pop Culture Blog