Ken and Will Hopper write in Puritan Gift: Triumph and Decline of American Dream, that there were four constant values throughout the evolved ideology of Puritanism: “a conviction that the purpose of life, however vaguely conceived, was to establish the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth; an aptitude for the exercise of mechanical skills; a moral outlook that subordinated the interests of the individual to the group; and an ability to assemble, galvanize and marshal financial, material and human resources to a single purpose and on a massive, or a lesser, scale.”[2]

The first core value, the establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, has no doubt proved most difficult for Puritans. But there’s no end to the long list of Americans who pursued this goal. John Winthrop, the first governor of Massachusetts (1630-1649), was the first American to embody this value and goal.[3] In his famous sermon, “City on a Hill” (1630), preached to the soon-to-be colonists still aboard the Arbella, he speaks of the ideal society on earth that he intends to create, both material and spiritual, through the appliance of intelligence and labor.[4] He comments that the new land is divine, chosen by God for the people aboard the Arbella for moral reasons: “For wee must Consider that wee shall be as a Citty upon a Hill, the eies of all people are uppon us; soe that if wee shall deale falsely with our god in this worke wee have undertaken and soe cause him to withdrawe his present help from us, wee shall be made a story and a byword through the world.”[5]

John Wintrhop with a collar that would make anyone stuffy and pretentious

American exceptionalism was born, and with it, the idea that America, puritan by nature, was superior and exploitative. In the Bible, these Puritans interpreted that God instructs us to use the physical world (which was evil) to create a spiritual world (which was good). Americans were then obligated to exploit the land and its resources to create Heaven on Earth. Although the imagery used in the Bible is very poetic, the consequences in reality were not. “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Behold, I have given thee every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat” quickly turned into “go forth and pollute the world.”[6]

Progress of America, by Domenico Tojetti, the artistic expression of American Exceptionalism

The above picture, which was created in 1875,  is a great physical representation of American exceptionalism so elegantly introduced into our national culture by Mr. Winthrop. This picture can also be used to convey the message of Manifest Destiny. The people in the picture are divinely chosen to go explore and reap the benefits of the unfamiliar land. The use of white horses, women, angels, and pastels, make the viewer believe in the purity of this mission.

Alexis de Tocqueville, a French philosopher, had similar comments on New England as Winthrop in his book, Democracy in America (1835). He writes that New England is “a beacon lit upon mountain tops which, after warming all in its vicinity, casts a glow over the distant horizon.”[7] Almost 200 years later, this poetic phrasing still expresses the same puritanical value: the attempt of creating a better community, and in America’s case, the best community, a utopia, which proved impossible. Will Hutton, an American philosopher claims that “it’s his affection for the best of America that makes me so angry that it has fallen so far form the standards it expects of itself.” He says that “it soon became clear that [...] the problem is not that America has abandoned its founding ideals; the problem is the founding ideals themselves.” (Hating America, 28) It could have something to do with the fact that the founding ideals are impossible to reach themselves.

Inherent in the belief that a Heaven on Earth can be created lies one of Americans’ most unique—and puritan—characteristics: unfaltering optimism of the future, coupled with a conviction that problems exist to be solved, and that you should self sacrifice for the greater good. Stacy Schiff said that founding father, inventor, and politician, and exemplar of Puritan ethics, Benjamin Franklin, always ‘truly believed it was always morning in America.”[8] Third President Thomas Jefferson changed John Locke’s “life, liberty, and the pursuit of estate” to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence. In the 1950s, this intrinsic optimism and problem-solving outlook was embodied in American superhero, Superman. This comic book figure was an ordinary American from Smallville, who solved many problems, always saved the day, and believed in “Truth, Justice, and the American Way.”[9] Even more recent exemplars are entrepreneurs Larry Page and Sergey Brin, who created Google with a company motto of “Don’t be Evil.” Their life mission is to make the world a better place with the accessibility of free and accurate information and knowledge. Ken and Will Hopper write that, “we have been told that they are motivated by ‘puritanical fanaticism. […] A visitor to their head office is reported to have said that he felt he was in the ‘company of missionaries’.” [10]

Time with Sergey and Larry

The above picture of the cover of Time magazine, February 2006, questions Google’s “do good” philosophies: Can they be trusted? We will have to wait and see if their puritan ideals will continue to serve their company well in the future.

These Americans have all adopted and helped contribute to the story of what we tell ourselves is important—creating better communities through knowledge, hard work, and self-sacrifice. We celebrate the collective and cooperative nature of these communities. Like John Winthrop said in his sermon, City on a Hill, that to avoid disaster, he said: “wee must knit together in this worke as one man, wee must be willing to abridge ourselves of our superfluities for the supply of others necessities . . . we must make others Conditions our own[,] rejoice together, mourne together, labour and suffer together.”[11]

And self-sacrifice is also a significant Puritan and American value. The second and third value that the Hoppers write about is ability to “get your hands dirty” and the emphasis on the “greater good” and the diminishing, if not complete eradication, of the focus on the interests of the individual. “A willingness to get their hands dirty distinguished [Americans] from their European equivalents.”[12] Americans could fix their own automobiles, build their own radios, and invent things no one ever dreamed before.[13] Benjamin Franklin, Sergey and Larry, Thomas Jefferson all embody these ideals. They created, invented, innovated, and mediated for the good of the people they were serving, the community they were living in.

But as an observer of American culture and society, I might argue that these individuals are the exception, not the rule. America is abhorred for its individuality. We are told we are self-assertive and selfish egoists. When Winthrop left England, it was because he had “witnessed with dismay the drift of English culture and deplored the ‘overall moral climate that allowed and encouraged purposeless, unreflective egotism.”[14] What would Winthrop say if he lived in today’s century?

Young adults spend more time on websites called “Myspace”, “Facebook”, and “Twitter” than they do studying. Although it is a form of community (online networking), there is more individual expression than collective communication. My generation is called the “Me Generation,” where apparently narcissists go to party. Our consumerism is drawn from an individual need to have things conveniently, not work hours of labor so that your soul can go to heaven.

In fact, America is becoming more and more secular. Will Hutton says that “worship at a church is rivaled only by worship of the shopping mall” in America.[15] There only exists a material world, and no amount of the material world is used to create a spiritual world, unless we are talking about the Religion of Consumerism. Cotton Mather, a 17^th century Puritan said that “religion begot prosperity and the daughter had destroyed the mother” which implied that  “diligence and economy had created wealth – and that the newly wealthy colonists were straying from the path of virtue.” [16] In today’s world, materialism has become a religion, a cult, if you will, that has boxed out many spiritual communities. There are few that embrace the modern materials of today in addition to their religious doctrine.

Another unfortunate legacy that the puritan movement left behind is their intolerance to difference. Although Puritans allowed the members of their church to interpret the Bible as they wished, accepting different ideas and different cultural phenomenons was not their forte. The Puritans, (John Winthrop, especially) executed Quakers and other people of “dissent.” It is a stretch to say that puritanism was the root of America’s intolerance of anything but Protestant, but it could not have helped.

Puritans Harassing Non-Conformists

Since America’s inception, there has been a widening divergence between reality and the rhetoric of the Puritan ideal. Although these values have been intrinsic in our founding and our nation’s mythology, they now have almost no hold for Joe Shmoe. The people that we choose to celebrate as heroes like Sergey and Larry, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin do embody these puritan values. But those who do not are not condemned, nor are they celebrated. I predict that the space between the narratives we use to tell our stories using these puritan ideals and what is actually happening will continue to grow wider.

[2] Hopper, Ken; Hopper, Will. D.. Puritan Gift : Triumph and Decline of an American Dream.

London, , GBR: I. B. Tauris & Company, Limited, 2007. p 3.

http://site.ebrary.com/lib/andover/Doc?id=10209742&ppg=19

Copyright © 2007. I. B. Tauris & Company, Limited. All rights reserved.

[3] http://www.fofweb.com/NuHistory/default.asp?ItemID=WE52&NewItemID=True

[4] Hopper, Ken; Hopper, Will. D..  p 3.

[5] http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/winthrop.htm\

[6] Hopper, Ken; Hopper, Will. D. p. 9

[7] Hopper, Ken; Hopper, Will. D..  p 5.

[8] Hopper, Ken; Hopper, Will. D. p. 5

[9] Hopper, Ken; Hopper, Will. D. p. 5

[10] Hopper, Ken; Hopper, Will. D. p. 5

[11] http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/winthrop.htm

[12] Hopper, Ken; Hopper, Will. D. p. 7

[13] Hopper, Ken; Hopper, Will. D. p. 9

[14] David M. Robinson. The Cultural Dynamics of American Puritanism. American Literary History, Vol. 6, No. 4 (Winter, 1994), p. 742

Published by: Oxford University Press

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/489963

[15] Bruce Bawer. Hating America, The Hudson Review, Vol. 57, No. 1 (Spring, 2004), pp. 28

Published by: The Hudson Review, Inc.

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4151370

[16] Hopper, Ken; Hopper, Will. D. p. 9

Let’s take this list of video games that Oddee has comprised: 12 Most Controversial Video Games. Oddee is a website that rates superlatives in almost every field of life imaginable, from top 10 Facebook Fails to the most horrifying Valentine’s Day gifts. The video games that I talk about below are not all of the video games included on Oddee’s list.

1. Bully

The Main Character and Antogonist

This particular video game challenges the player to take charge of their school environment by avoiding the school “bully.” Based on too many perpetuated stereotypes about the segregation of certain “types” of teenagers–jocks, nerds, hot girls, band geeks, etc– the controversy surrounding this game is about the violence in a school setting. Even more terrifying about this particular video game is that it is set at a preparatory school where apparently teachers turn a blind eye, and intolerance is the preferred weapon of choice.

2. Tomb Raider

Angelina Jolie is a bit... naked?

The controversy surrounding Tomb Raider is the creator’s commitment to making the female lead very sexual. The above picture says more than enough.

3. Ethnic Cleansing

The creators’ of this game started out with the wrong idea. The name pretty much sums up the controversy, as this game is about white supremacist KKK members massacring African Americans, Jewish and Latina people. Besides the obvious racism implicit in the murders, the depictions of these groups of people is extremely offensive. Watch the above video for a saturated taste of intolerance.

4. Muslim Massacre

Screenshot of the beginning

This is again, another video game whose name explains most of it. This game is a shoot-’em-up game: when a Muslim man or woman appears, the gamer must murder him or her. The most kills results in the most points. The logo sports an American Flag– an eerie confluence of symbols.

5. Resident Evil 5

This video game actually falls in the “John Wayne/Cowboy/Fighting the Savages” script so heavily embedded in American mythology. There is a white protagonist who takes out the evil black enemies in a small African village. The 2007 trailer for this video game says it all:

10. Grand Theft Auto

This game is actually the most famous of the video games mentioned in Oddee‘s list of most controversial video games. Not only does this game feature stealing cars, but it also has more than a few cameos of prostitution, killing prostitutes, running over people, and shooting at police officers. Nothing says “good influence” like Grand Theft Auto does.

Now imagine 97% of teens playing video games. Taking into account that not all video games are as graphic and downright immoral as these ones, imagine how many teens play similar video games that have explicitly hostile messages. My guess is that a good majority do. Now imagine how long these teens are exposed to those types of messages, and how much enjoyment they get from playing these games. Now, (heads up that the next picture in your mind will not be so pleasant) imagine these teens participating in society, coming up with solutions to our issues that rise out of intolerance and hostility.

Teens, especially the young men who are attracted to playing these types of masculine-defining video games, are heavily influenced by these messages– kill the infidels, expel anger with violence, and define masculinity with the objectification of women– many, many women. And the evidence is no longer abstract or a mystery.

The Columbine High School Massacre which occurred on April 20, 1999, was said to be influenced heavily by violent video games. The two boys who carried out the massacre had played hours and hours of expelling rage with a violent video game called Doom. Doom is a more simplistic version of any of the above “shoot ‘em up” games. There is no saying what type of impact these video games, which were created recently, will have on teens in the near future, especially since the games are becoming more and more graphic.

Solving the problem would involve interfering with censorship, which is also an area of controversy. How would we protect America’s youth from becoming over-violent and intolerant? Do the corporations that create these games not feel part of the guilt of creating America’s most violent generation? The video game industry is a lucrative one, and the most popular games tend to be the most violent. Should it be parents’ responsibility to protect their own children from these types of influences? If games like Ethnic Cleansing weren’t banned, how do you get any of these games expelled from our culture? The questions surrounding the (good) riddance of these games are clouded with money and morality.

It has almost gotten to the point, however, that reality television is eclipsing our culture and becoming an integral part of our real lives and our entertainment, and so the line between them blurs. I read and hear stories of 16 year old girls trying to get pregnant to get on MTV’s 16 and Pregnant series. Sweet Sixteen, True Life, Tila Tequila, The Jersey Shore, Teen Mom, Made, Wife Swap, Fear Factor, The Gauntlet, The Real World, Big Brother, The Amazing Race, Keeping Up With the Kardashians, Biggest Loser, Little People Big World, etc. are shows that dictate the way the younger generations interact with each other. The list goes on forever, and each show has a huge impact on the generation watching them. Language, behavior, physical appearance and physiology is all impacted by the cast members on these shows. And each time MTV, VH1 or some other channel comes out with a new show, it is somehow more offensive than the last. But this time, I think reality television has really stepped over the line.

A new television show is coming to America. The intrigue? Girls are auctioning off their virginity. That’s right. Two girls and one guy will auction off their virginity to the highest bidder. Essentially prostitution, but it is being filmed in Las Vegas to avoid laws that this new show might bump up against. It is being advertised as a “Documentary for the 21st Century…” Auctioning off virginity doesn’t seem like a very 21-century thing to do. To me, it seems much more archaic. Who doesn’t love a geisha, though?

The filmmaker, Justin Sisely, is from Australia. He wants to turn the new show into a documentary later on, and believes that the cast is not being taken advantage of. Each virgin is going to be paid $20,000 and receive 90 percent of the “bidding” price, and as the recruiting posters and advertisments say, applicants must be over the age of 16.

One of the virgins, Veronica Peach, feels she is bending the “rules” of the morality of prostitution: “Technically I’m selling my virginity for money technically that would be classified as prostitution but it’s not going to be a regular thing, So in my head I can justify that I’m not going to be a prostitute.”

It gets even better. Sisely says that the virgins’ first sexual experience will be filmed for viewers. Thank goodness that the applicants are all over the age of 16, otherwise I would be worried about child pornography. What are they thinking?!

And as if the show was not offensive enough, the Virgin Mary’s face adorned the posters for recruitment. See below:

Sisely and his new show's posters

Not only is this an absolutely ludicrous idea, but what does this say about this generation’s culture? This proposal and its so far lack of reaction indicates a growing secularism, growing sexuality, and growing animosity towards the Puritan values that establish (and maybe restrict) life in America. If this show or documentary is not banned from America, it will be indicative of deeper fissures in our puritan society– some that were probably created and exaggerated by previous reality television shows.

The show’s website can be found here.

The Gang at Carrie's Wedding

The movie Sex and the City, based off of a popular television show with the same name, premiered in May 2008. The film and show is about four female friends, Carrie Bradshaw, Samantha Jones, Charlotte York Goldenblatt, and Miranda Hobbes and their respective sex lives in New York City as 30-to-40-something-year olds. Each character’s own personal relationships evolve in different forms and paths, but despite their vastly different sex lives, they still remain best friends. After having watching many, many reruns of the television show, I was disappointed, to say the least, when I went to see the movie. After having discussed the faults in the movie with several friends, my parents, and my house counselor, Ms. Hawthorne, I became more intrigued in the discrepancies between the portrayal of these women in the television show and their portrayal in the movie. I watched about a dozen more Sex and the City episodes to articulate these differences. And now with the arrival of another movie, Sex and the City 2, whose trailers make me believe that it maybe be even more awful than the first movie, critiques seem appropriate.

Everything that was interesting, amazing, and liberating about these four women in the television show was reversed in the movie.

My least favorite character in the television show, Charlotte, was made even more unpleasant in the movie. Charlotte is a peppy, athletically fit, sweet woman in the show. She is very careful and private, and likes to keep her sex life more to herself than her other three friends do.  What Charlotte wants more than anything else is the “American family,” complete with a perfect baby and a perfect husband. In the show she gets the later part of her wish, and she is married to a rich, handsome man who has seemingly has “everything.” However, Charlotte’s husband cannot satisfy her sexually and she inevitably becomes attracted to the presence of other men. To make matters worse, Charlotte finds out that the thing she wants most of all– a child of her own– is no longer very possible, as she has issues with fertility. She is later divorced when the discrepancy between what her marriage looks like from the outside and what it actually is becomes too large. Charlotte is a complex character who owns many of the problems that females in the real world deal with. But in the movie, her issues are ignored and she becomes the butt of much of the slapstick humor in the show. When Charlotte and her three friends go to Mexico, she refuses to drink the water or eat any of the food for fear of becoming sick. In fact, all she allows to eat are packaged puddings while her friends dine in luxury. But when she takes a shower, Charlotte accidentally drinks some of the water, and becomes instantly extremely sick when none of her other friends do. This is the cause of much of the humor of in the movie, which really rejects and even makes light of her previous, more serious issues.

Samantha, who inspires power and confidence with her open sexuality in the television show, is a source of perversion in the movie. In the episodes of Sex and the City, Samantha is daring, confident, outrageous at times, and exudes a sexual power and attraction. She had flings with many, many men in the city of New York, but now she is settling down with a young and hot TV star, Smith. In the movie her affinity to sex is a weakness for her. She has to travel constantly from LA to  New York, and is having a difficult time finding her role in a settling-down sort of relationship. Samantha’s time is no longer her own but now given to her friends and her boyfriend. In her attempts to create time for herself, (in the movie, this attempt involves lots of sushi and hours of laying on a table naked waiting for Smith), she is shot down which results in her still being sexually frustrated. In the meantime, Samantha gets a peak at her next door neighbor, who is very sexual active and very attractive. The scene in the movie ends with her relieving her sexual frustration at the sight of this man next door. The movie changed her sexuality from being a source of power to a source of weakness. She is deemed too promiscuous to be happy with her great life.

The other characters, Miranda and Carrie both have their own problems as well. In the show, both characters are intricately created. Each of their respective problems are meaningful to many other women across the nation. But in the movie, their characters are petty and hysterical in response to conflicts. Miranda is hysteric throughout the film, and Carrie’s one goal is to have the “perfect” wedding. Cliche, much? Their characters conform to the stereotypes of women, and it is disappointing to see their intricacies disregarded. The movie makes these women flat clones of the stereotypes of women we see today, including but not limited to hysteria, pettiness, promiscuity, and gossipy.  For a show that was so liberating to many women to see confident women with all sorts of conflicts, it was disappointing to see them reduced to slapstick humor and sexual fantasies.

vs.

The following is a quote from a British Glamour: (Glamour is a magazine very similar in style and audience to Cosmopolitan. The target audience is young women and the variety of topics and material varies from fashion, to sex, to to more fashion and more sex.)

“14 Ways to Be a Real-Life Wonder Woman

Author Kate Reardon’s Top Tips For Life is the ultimate How To guide (but we can’t promise the power to fight all evil, sorry)

How To…

1. Stop biting your nails

2. Get super-smooth legs after shaving

3. Keep swimmer’s hair soft

4. Rid wool of bobbles

5. Stop a ladder in your tights

6. Extend the life of fresh herbs

7. Cure a sore throat with natural ingredients

8. Cook a fuss-free breakfast

9. Deal with mosquito bites

10. Freshen the smell of your car

11. Remember passwords

12. Prepare to move house

13. Look good in photos

14. Slice an onion without crying”

When Wonder Woman first made her appearance in comic books in the early 1940s. She was created by a William Moulton Marston, who was actually an American psychologist and feminist theorist. Wonder Woman’s figure does not even attempt to hide the fact that Mr. Marston was attracted to women– he lived in a polyamorous relationship with two women. However, Wonder Woman’s voluptuous curves and tiny uniform did not distract her from taking on bad guys and monsters, and eventually after a page of “booms” and “pows,” saving the nation (we know that she was at least heroic enough to sport American flag underwear). In the 1970s, Wonder Woman took her place on the front cover of Ms. magazine, portraying her long displayed heroism as feminism. Wonder Woman was the first female superhero– something that gives testimony to how much power she embodied. The fact that she became a significant cultural reference says even more.

So what then, made Wonder Woman change so drastically from feminist to sex symbol in less than 30 years while still under the pretense of being our nation’s premiere female role model?

I never experienced the Ms. Wonder Woman, but I have grown up surrounded by clones of the Playboy Wonder Woman. This Wonder Woman has taught me to make sure I keep my legs shaved and my waist skinny. Barbie has even come out with a Wonder Woman doll, which has helped attach a new meaning for young girls to her curvy figure– just another way we have compounded body issues with our culture. Wonder Woman is still patriotic, but she is now objectified as a sex symbol. She represents “sex” for patriots. Take this picture, for example:

Kim Kardashian as Wonder Woman

I don’t know if Kim Kardashian chose this outfit for her little Halloween party because she felt sexy and confident, whether she believes boys are turned on by a girl in a skimpy American flag, or a little bit of both, but it is most likely that Ms. Kardashian is not wearing it because it makes her feel like a powerful embodiment of Wonder Woman.

There is little left of the muscular Wonder Woman and her feminist power. What she left behind is her silhouette, complete with silky hair, smooth and shaven legs, and a slim and curvaceous body. Below is a video modeling the modern Wonder Woman:

Even though this video is a spoof and certain things are exaggerated for comic relief, this Wonder Woman fails at almost everything she is trying to do. She cannot fight crime, she is weak and not very vigilant, and cannot even make being a superhero glamorous. For being someone who is supposed to be a role model for women, you would figure she would at least be able to do that. The spoof actually accentuates the root of the problem with the quickly morphing cultural concepts attached to the phenomenon of Wonder Woman. Is there a way to reverse the trend? Or can we induct new female national role models into our collective culture?

A Docker's Advertisement

The above picture is a Dockers advertisement, aimed at a “typical” American man. The largest words in this advertisement are: “You’re not a bloke, not a fellow, chap, dude, cat, gent, or bro-ham. Face it. You’re a man.” Dockers makes a distinction in vocabulary to describe an American male, and uses these words to invoke a pride or self-righteousness that make it the consumer’s duty to “wear the pants.” I took this phrase, “wear the pants,” to mean “reach the full potential of American masculinity.” Bloke is a slang term used in Britain to refer to a male, chap is a European slang term usually referring to a gentlemanly male, gent has the same sort of connotation, cat usually represents a male who has an artistic or jazz-influenced tendencies,  and bro-ham is a term of endearment used by the younger generation to refer to a guy who meets the modern and conventional standards of “cool.” So immediately, Dockers makes a distinction of what type of male deserves and has the duty to “wear the pants.” This male is not European, he is not artsy or wimpy, and is not trying to impress any group of people. He is, by the most fundamental definition, a man.

Mythic American masculinity is embodied by a few of our favorite males in media. We think of John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, and the Marlboro Man, and no one would argue that these men did not wear the pants. They wore the pants the best out of everyone. These men were frontiersmen, men who tamed the West at a time when living off of the land was about freedom, accomplishment, and mastery.

John Wayne is America

Clint Eastwood is the West

The Marlboro Man is THE Man

Just from these pictures you can get a sense of what iconographic American masculinity is: stoic and taciturn, ruggedly handsome, mysterious and maybe a little dangerous but protective at the same time. These men were the antithesis of femininity, the opposite of childhood.

But what characteristic did these men embody so well that they became the American men?

In 1832, Henry Clay said “We are a nation of self-made men.” And it is true. The ability to create your own wealth and prosperity in a society distinguished American men from European men. This nation was created on a liberal constitution allowed for the socially and geographically mobility of men. Men could just move west, accumulate some more land and consequently more status. Manifest destiny was the American way, and it was the masculine way. Capitalism allowed for men to climb the social status ladder.

The problem with the “self-made” aspect being the root of American masculinity was that the collective male identity of America had to be constantly reinventing themselves. Soon there was no west to conquer, and no barren land to live off of. Industrialization and consumerism sort of ate away at how “self-made” could manifest itself in the real world. Men found that they could “wear the pants” in other aspects of domestic life if they could bring home the bacon. But as gender lines became more and more faded, women started to become more prominent in the work place, and a feminist wave in the 1970s and 80s washed over the country, continuing with the “self-made” identity was proven more difficult. Even male camaraderie had lost its value.

Now the power of the male identity is rediscovered by a atavistic return of John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, and the Marlboro Man masculinity. But something had changed. Combined with a push back of the things that ate away at this original identity, the American man now stands for a rejection of feminism and the industrialized world in addition to rejecting femininity and childhood. The self-made man had to recapture the identity of America away from its enemies, like women, and make it their own. Take Brokeback Mountain, for example, which is a modern representation of a 1950s Western. Although Brokeback Mountain made the male to male relationship more than just platonic, the idea behind the film– reverting back to live off the barren land as a symbol of freedom and male comradeship– is a great representation of how American masculinity has evolved.

These genres cover most of our basic national narratives, all of which contribute to America’s national identity of today, of the past, and of the future. The understanding of the use of these genres in American media, therefore, is critical to the understanding of the American identity. These constant genre guidelines can give definition and distinction to the constant trends in our culture, and consequently our national identity– especially with regards to gender. How is American gender packaged in these genres? What story does this tell? And how can our books, movies, articles, and art illuminate observers of American culture?

Let’s start with romance. What is the typical American romance? The first things that come to mind are films. I think of Casablanca, West Side Story, Beauty and the Beast, Lady and the Tramp, Pretty Woman, King Kong, Sound of Music, The King and I, Titanic, Dirty Dancing, and so many more. The common plot line that ties all of these vastly different movies together? Unrequited love. Love and romance has to overcome all of the societal pressures of belonging to a certain group of people. The love between the two main characters in the movie is not supposed to happen. But the romance of the movie is about the idea that love is transcendent among social groups that may be separated by socioeconomic class, race, or conscience. This is very much representative of how democracy makes the opportunity of anything available to everyone– even love. In these films, the love is between a heterosexual couple (human or not), and the roles of the male and female in the films are normalized. These romance plots ground gender roles through an American favorite: that’s right, adventure. In the face of fear, the male protagonist comes to protect the female protagonist, claim her as his own, and they ride happily into the sunset together. Often times in the romance genre, the male and female face their fear of society. Sometimes they conquer this fear and are accepted into society as a couple, and other times they disappear into the barren world to live off of the love of each other. The American imprint on this narrative is indisputable.

What about the American tragedy? I am again, reminded of films such as Braveheart, Pay it Forward, Titanic (a romance and tragedy), A Street Car Named Desire, Million Dollar Baby, The Departed, etc. In these movies, the narrative is a bit different than unrequited love. The common theme in these films is that they all are inversions of the beloved American Dream and all of our “beacon on a hill” virtues. The tragic flaw in the protagonist is that they no longer fit to the standards of the American male or the American female. In fact, these characters are stripped of their virtues unfairly by another source (time, occurence, or another party), and therein lies the tragedy. In A Street Car Named Desire, the tragic hero (I don’t know if “hero” is the best word for it) Blanche has a tragic flaw which is relying too much on men to fulfill her goals in life. She is no longer chaste or virtuous as all American women were expected to be.

The American comedy is a tad different with regards to gender roles than romance and tragedy. I believe romance and tragedy are genres that are more traditional in their use of gender roles. Comedy in general is much more flexible than romance or tragedy because the storyline does not revolve on fate or destiny, but rather on coincidence. I also think that comedy equalizes the gender roles in the narratives. American comedies poke fun at men and women alike, and often the satire exposes gender issues which raise awareness. It is more in satire itself that America’s gendered culture can be criticized. Shows like South Park represent this idea very well.

With the marriage of media and culture having been so close for so long, and as much as our culture manifests itself in media, media also creates story lines for our real-life narratives. What does this means? No, not necessarily a story book ending. Instead, there will always be a want to conform to these story book endings. The idea that when our lives don’t end in romantic marriage, they will end in tragedy. And everything in between is comedic relief. These narratives that are constantly being told in the same genres reinforce the gendered roles of our nation’s people.

But what can we infer of Nike from their choice of who they pick to be role model?

Timothy Egan recently wrote an opinion essay for the New York Times, illuminating what he named as “Nike’s Women Problem.” In this essay, he gives several examples of the multi-million dollar sports company, Nike, disgracing females by their supporting male athletes that objectify women. These athletes? Tiger Woods, Kobe Bryant, and the main name: Ben Roethlisberger. Nike has stood by these athletes, overlooking their indecencies, insults, and offensive nature regarding women.

I hope we are all aware of Tiger Woods’s multiple mistakes, involving multiple affairs and more mistresses than I can count on my two hands. His actions disrespected his wife and objectified his mistresses. Nike stood by Tiger’s side and came out with a new commercial, turning his indiscretions into a story of the “rehabilitated sinner” for profit. Nike’s support of Tiger through this mess made Tiger’s actions tolerable. His commercial with added commentary is below:

Kobe Bryant was accused of rape, and Nike continued to use his athletic talent as a means of advertising.

Now something that Nike did to surprise almost everyone: continuing to sponsor Ben Roethlisberger. Ben Roethlisberger, Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback has a “572-page Georgia police report of sexual assault accusation against him last month.” This report includes harassment, rape, and offensive behavior towards young women. I don’t think I can be wrong in saying that this man should not be allowed to near anyone’s daughter or should be allowed to enter any town’s community center, never mind be represented as a role model for younger generations by a huge corporation.

I was thinking that maybe Nike was just taking a new approach to advertising by using flawed people to accentuate a sort of “divine intervention” from the Nike company that lead to their rehabilitation. But then what happened with Michael Vick? He was sponsored by Nike until he admitted guilty to an accusation of running a dog-fighting ring. Nike responded to this event by saying, “We consider any cruelty to animals inhumane and unacceptable.”

Really? Do you, Nike? What happened to supporting men who are cruel to women? As Mr. Egan clearly points out, Nike makes a choice here to distinguish from the cruelty of pitbulls and the cruelty of another human being. Last time I checked, breasts do not make another human inferior to or of less importance than dogs.

I think that Nike’s decision illuminates a very serious issue at the heart of the relationship between sports and gender: there is no room for women, and in the world of sports, athleticism is prided above all else, even character.

America grew up amidst an isolationist view of looking at the world. Separated by most conflicts and inhabited lands by the huge bodies of water, the young men took their battling nature to the fields. Sports and athleticism became almost synonymous with masculinity. Self-worth was proven on the field. Especially in football, America’s weapon of choice, gender lines were clearly distinguished. It was men fighting against men, and it was the real test of character. Sportscaster Sal Paolantonio articulates “How Football Explains America”:

When corporations began to be able to represent athleticism with a swoosh, they began to use the same basic gendered principles in their brand ideas. The people who wear the swoosh have proven themselves worthy on the battlefield. People like Michael Vick, were no longer worthy to wear the swish because he chose an unhonorable battlefield– the dog-fight ring. His weapon of choice (dog-fighting) was no comparison to football and the test of character required in order to play it.

However people like Tiger Woods, Kobe Bryant, and Ben Roethlisberger had proven themselves merciless in any battle, honorable athletes, and manly men. Beyond just being merciless, they were the heroes of the game, of the team, of the spectators, and of America. The relations men have with females cannot be viewed as that same sort of a battle, which doesn’t have the same test of character, strength, or morale, and therefore, is not as noteworthy. Any mistakes in the social realms of their lives would be noted (especially today, given the rising culture of “obsession of celebrities” and more athletes becoming celebrities) but had no impact on their athleticism or masculinity, and therefore had no impact on their worthiness of “the swoosh.”

People naturally group themselves. Groups are formed with common interests or assets, including the people who belong, and excluding those who don’t. As traditional realist thinking goes, it is natural to think of your own group as superior to others. And sometimes, certain groups have a majority hold on societal thinking and culture. In this case, women who create their identity based on male pressures enjoy the feeling of exclusivity, even superiority, to those who don’t. Since America was formed as a patriarchal society, suppressing individuality and yielding to male pressures was the norm, and therefore the women who did so had the majority hold on societal thinking. This group of women took up their posts as homemakers and took pride in their ability to exclude those who did not fit in the same picture. The excluded were heavily chastised for not “belonging” to the majority of women and ideal of femininity. In a sense, it is a timeless version of Mean Girl. Over time (with the help of consumerism and marketing), the common interests and assets needed to belong to the “it” group of women grew and grew until more women were excluded and outcast from society, and the women in the “it” group of women became more romanticized. This phenomenon occurs in any country. However, the difference in America is distinguished by the items and identities needed to buy access to this idealized group. Of course these items change every decade. At first it was being white, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant, with a husband and children. Then the best American women were chaste, bastions of purity, leaders of the domestic sphere, educators of the next generation of leaders, including those attributes mentioned previously. During World War I, these “it” women were self-less and tireless, patriotic and good-spirited. And when America moved into the age of consumerism in the 1950s, females had to have a beautiful small family in suburbia with a white picket fence, a washing machine, a substantial household income, trendy hair, and a nice car. Now? Women who have it all in this modern age are straddling the fence between sexy and conservative, successful and homemakers, self-less and confident, mothers and wives, “roll up your sleeves” and “tidy your dress.” Being in the “it” group meant that you can showcase what you had and what you were.

Guess which group these women belonged to?

The problem with trying to fit into this group of women so desperately in order to have wealth, power, happiness, or whatever it is that belonging to this group would mean, is that it becomes superficial. The fear of being outcast and the want to belong to this highest standard of living are equally motivating. Women are easily compelled not to stray for temptation or to think that they are entitled or deserve anything. But in reality, the face that women put on for outside world often never matches what they are feeling inside because the fear of not belonging is too great. The mark of a good American woman is that she runs around so much trying to impress everyone that she forgets about her own wants and needs. Women start refusing what are seen as frivolous self indulgences, but are actually needed for a happy existence (ex: free time). Or, they don’t stop to consider if belonging in that group actually brings any benefit. I am reminded of Betty Draper in Mad Men who belongs to this exclusive and superior group of women because of who she is and what she owns, but is still not happy.

Men also belong to exclusive groups that promote conformity. However, generally what distinguishes the gendered groups is that one of the traits that is absolutely necessary for a women to belong is self-sacrifice.