I have tons to say on the sometimes uneasy relationship (real and imagined) between homemakers and feminists (and I don't mean to imply that these are mutually exclusive categories). But it's past midnight, and I am drunk on this whole blogging thing, so I am going to wait until I am a bit more coherent.
Just as a teaser though, I will comment on what I have perceived as a common portrayal of homemakers in the movies. The two movies of which I am thinking are pretty old -- "A Time to Kill" (1996) and "JFK" (1991). In "A Time to Kill," the lawyer played by Matthew McConaughey takes on the dangers of defending a black man charged with the murder of two Klan members who raped his daughter. The wife, played by Ashley Judd, spends the whole movie giving McConaughey a hard time because the case is disrupting their comfortable lifestyle. In "JFK," the wife (played by Sissy Spacek) causes prosecutor Jim Garrison (played by Kevin Costner) grief for all the time he spends investigating the possibility that there was a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy.
I remember being struck as I was watching both movies that these women were stock movie characters -- the pain-in-the-butt wife who is more concerned about safety and security and an easy life than she is about the great things her man is achieving, the boring homemaker who is incapable of thinking of any larger principles than the needs of her immediate family. I am sure if I sit down and think that I could come up with zillions of additional examples of such movie characters.
Why do these characters get under my skin so much? As my husband pointed out when we watched "A Time to Kill," there are doubtless many wives (and husbands) who have bemoaned their partners' far reaching endeavors. And the Ashley Judd character had a point, I suppose, especially after the Klan bombed her house.
I guess it bugs me because I grew up watching my homemaker mom stoically supporting my father throughout numerous dangerous endeavors. And it bugs me because these portrayals seem so repetitive and unnuanced. And worst of all, they seem to underscore a stereotype that women are uninterested in the larger issues or principles that can give life adventure and meaning beyond one's immediate family. They reduce women to boring, one-dimensional obstacles to the all the exciting and important things men want to accomplish.
I bring this up, in part, because I think a lot of the negative stereotypes of homemakers are not just anti-homemaker but generally anti-woman. Even though I am not a homemaker myself, I take some of these stereotypes somewhat personally. Anyone who may be reading out there in the blogosphere, can you think of any other examples? Or am I all wet? Have movies improved in this regard in recent years?
I got really annoyed with Jim Garrison (although perhaps partly my ambivalence to Kevin Costner) during the course of JFK. Although I think that I was supposed to feel annoyed with his wife for standing in between him and Natural Justice, I felt mad as hell with him for expecting her to keep the house running and children clean and quiet, while deprived of adult conversation and company.
The best example I think of a constructed homemaker/feminist oppositional relationship is in Fatal Attraction. Of course, Glenn Close's character isn't discernibly a feminist, but I think she's supposed to serve as a warning about where feminism takes women.
Great blog, by the way! I added you to the Gendergeek blogroll.
Posted by: Emma | October 11, 2005 at 03:42 PM
I was going to point out Fatal Attraction, too. Many portrayals of women in film are disturbing, and I really agree with your feeling on this particular portrayal of wives in film. On the flip side, if they aren't nags, they are angels (just like the wife in Fatal Attraction... I can't remember who played her at the moment). I might be going out on a limb here, but I feel it's part of the larger Virgin/Whore dichotomy.
Posted by: Alice | October 11, 2005 at 05:20 PM
It's a creativity issue. Writers often give the main character depth and then make the supporting roles one- or two-dimensional. You have the one-dimensional housewife; you also have the dimwitted husband (see just about any sitcom/commercial/film), the Bad Dad, the invasive mother-in-law, the motorcycle outlaw, the hippie liberal, the stuffy conservative, the dumb jock, and so on...
...I just get the feeling these writers have no idea what real people are like.
boy genteel
Posted by: bmmg39 | October 11, 2005 at 08:30 PM
Boy genteel is right that women are not the only victims of unfair stereotyping in movies. Teen flicks are the worst with the dumb jock, giggly prom queen characters. And both feminists and social conservatives have critiqued the endless television portrayals of men who are so helpless around the house that their wives have to do everything -- that stereotype is hopelessly unfair to both sexes.
And Emma is right movies that put the good wife/bad (often professional) woman in opposition are the worst. Fatal Attraction is at the top of the list. The other one is The Hand that Rocks the Cradle. Yech.
Posted by: The Happy Feminist | October 12, 2005 at 01:49 PM
hmmm... I both agree and disagree with you, Boy genteel. YES, it is a creativity issue. It IS easier to stick with archetypes. (I wouldn't say stereotype, HF)
But. The question is, where do those archetypes come from? Why are they so recognizable and easy to digest? Why are these archetypes the ones writers have to choose from? They weren't created in a vacuum; they evolved through storytelling over thousands of years.
Posted by: Alice | October 13, 2005 at 01:29 PM
Boy, am I late to this post. But I just wanted to point out Harrison Ford's marriage in "Clear and Present Danger" as one that seemed pretty affectionate and respectful and real, especially since it's only onscreen for a few minutes.
Posted by: Eleanor | May 26, 2007 at 05:07 PM