Media Representations Who is being represented?
Women are being represented in a stereotypical way, because they are portrayed as 'housewives', hence the title. Also, they always look immaculate and range from the perfect mother to the trophy wife.
Why is the subject being represented in this way?
They are being represented in this way because this is the stereotypic woman. Also because they want to live up to their title, so obviously the programme is going to be about 'housewives' and their problems.
Is the representation fair and accurate?
the representation is not fair and accurate because not all females (mothers or wives) are housewives and behave the way some of the characters do, for example, Edie and Gabi.
Media Languages and Forms
What are the denotative and connotative levels of meaning?
When Gabi is wearing a bikini then that is just her clothes, but the representation of that is her being a sex symbol especially because she is tryin to impress her husband.
What is the significance of the text’s connotations?
the significance of this is to show that 'housewives' are always looking good for their husbands, as that is part of their jobs to also cater for thei partners needs.
What are the non-verbal structures of meaning in the text (e.g. gesture, facial expression, positional communication, clothing, props etc)?
The clothes are very important as that outilines each of the characters personality, for example, Bree is always looking presentable and smart-and her character is known to be tidy and a clean freak. Gabrielle is always dressed 'sexy' - she used to be a model and has affairs, so the clothes give away her personality. Lynette is the worn out housewife- he clothes are mostly baggy and her hair is tied up and not done up whilst at home, as he does not have much time because she is looking after the children.
What is the significance of mise-en-scene/sets/settings?
the mis-en-scene is important because most of the programme is set on the one street, Wysteria Lane. This has an affect that what is being shown is the characters everyday life, also the audience can relate to it becuase even though it is a rich area, it is realistic. However, this also shows that as they are 'housewives' they stay at home most of the time, home being Wysteria Lane.
What work is being done by the sound track/commentary/language of the text?
The commentary is also important because the narrator who is dead, used to be the characters' friend, so she used to be one of them, therefore she comes across as knowing the characters well because they were her friends and as she is watching them and telling the story it is almost as if she is there amongst them. which also makes the audience seem secure about what she is saying as she also talks about how the characters are generally, however, it is not a bias point of view becuase she just basically tells the story.
What are the dominant images and iconography, and what is their relevance to the major themes of the text?
What sound and visual techniques are used to convey meaning (e.g. camera positioning, editing; the ways that images and sounds are combined to convey meaning)?
At the end the narrator always tells the moral of the story etc and this tells the audience about what is 'right' and 'wrong'.
Narrative
How is the narrative organised and structured?
The narrative is in chronological order, however, there are also some flashbacks now and again.
How is the audience positioned in relation to the narrative?
The narrative is easy to follow, especially as there is a voice over who guides us along the story and also adds humor.
How are characters delineated? What is their narrative function? How are heroes and villains created?
Edie and Gabi both create humor to the episodes as they are both portrayed as 'drama queens'. Bree is seen as the villain because she is very cruel to her children but in a sly way as she also blackmails them. In some episodes the villains seem to be the women becuase they act malitious towards their husbands, for example Gabi and Carlos, when they were going through their divorce, Gabi did all she could to keep the house. Also Lynette being the control freak makes the audience sympathise with her husband. However, even though the women are portrayed like this, the audience also sympathise with them becuase we hear their troubles and are not shown the point of view of the men or them talking about their feelings, inlike the women who we all understand the reasons for their actions.
What are the major themes of the narrative? What values/ideologies does it embody?
Genre
To which genre does the text belong?
comedy drama
What are the major generic conventions within the text?
Both comedy and drama are combined, for example, the funny bits are not over the top, there are also emotional scenes.
What are the major iconographic features of the text?
What are the major generic themes?
To what extent are the characters generically determined?
To what extent are the audience’s generic expectations of the text fulfilled or cheated by the text? Does the text conform to the characteristics of the genre, or does it treat them playfully or ironically?
Does the text feature a star, a director, a writer etc who is strongly associated with the genre? What meanings and associations do they have?
Media Institutions
What is the institutional source of the text?
The institution of the text is Channel 4.
In what ways has the text been influenced or shaped by the institution which produced it?
Is the source a public service or commercial institution? What difference does this make to the text?
Who owns and controls the institution concerned and does this matter?
How has the text been distributed?
Media Values and Ideology
What are the major values, ideologies and assumptions underpinning the text or naturalised within it?
What criteria have been used for selecting the content presented?
Media Audiences
To whom is the text addressed? What is the target audience?
The main target audience for this text are females as they can relate and understand the issues.
What assumptions about the audience’s characteristics are implicit within the text?
What assumptions about the audience are implicit in the text’s scheduling or positioning?
In what conditions is the audience likely to receive the text? Does this impact upon the formal characteristics of the text?
What do you know or can you assume about the likely size and constituency of the audience?
I assume the audience for Desperate Housewives is large as they continue to make more episodes/series.
What are the probable and possible audience readings of the text?
As it is a comedy, it is not taken too seriously but more of a comedy and drama.
How do you, as an audience member, read and evaluate the text? To what extent is your reading and evaluation influenced by your age, gender, background etc?
I really enjoy the programme because i find it funny and interesting the way the women deal with their dramas. this is definately influenced by my gender because i can relate to these problems with my friends.
Saturday, 22 September 2007
Research...
Housewife WarsThe cultural conversation behind the hedges of Wisteria Lane by Catherine Orenstein
A few years back, Cosmopolitan ran an article titled “Meet the New Housewife Wanna-Bes,” in which young professional women described their desire to marry, quit their jobs and pursue “the new domestic dream.” Erica, a 23-year-old investment banker, wanted nothing more than to “marry that cute associate two cubicles down and embark on a full-time stint as his housefrau.” This was back in the days of Sex and the City, when marriage was still a lovely fallback fantasy on television. If only Erica had known. Right now we’re inundated with dramas about the married woman, and “domestic dream” is hardly the vibe. If yesterday’s hit show Sex and the City was about single women who seemed to want desperately to be married, ABC’s current Sunday-night smash Desperate Housewives is about married women who would, by all appearances, be better off single. Trapped behind the hedges of affluent suburban Wisteria Lane, the five female leads experience life and marriage through a haze of infidelity, loneliness, thwarted ambition, sexual dysfunction and drug addiction. Gabrielle cheats on her husband with the teenage gardener. Bree terrorizes her family with her perfectionism. Susan sets slutty Edie’s house on fire in the course of their competition over a man, and Lynette, who opted out of her high-powered career but cannot seem to keep up the pace as a housewife, steals her children’s ADD pills. The show is posthumously narrated by a sixth neighbor, Mary Alice, who shot herself in the pilot episode, leaving behind a secret buried beneath her swimming pool and a stubborn bloodstain on her nicely lacquered floors. “I performed my chores. I completed my projects. I ran my errands,” Mary Alice says by way of explanation, in a voice-over that perfectly captures the show’s cheery, neo-Stepfordian fatalism. “In truth, I spent the day as I spent every other day, quietly polishing my life until it gleamed with perfection.”
The plotlines of Desperate Housewives unfold with such camp, glamour and gleeful bad taste (a nosy neighbor discovers Mary Alice’s body, then rushes home to peel her name off of a borrowed blender; let no one say there’s not a bright side to suicide!) that one might be inclined to dismiss the show’s portrait of domestic dystopia — if not for the fact that it is echoed by the current crop of “reality” TV shows that also explore the plight of the housewife. Take ABC’s Wife Swap and FOX’s Trading Spouses, in which two wives from different backgrounds swap places and problems (the shows are so alike that ABC has sued FOX for copyright infringement). The camera follows each woman as she performs her counterpart’s routine, exposing the dirty laundry (literally) and zooming in on quirky behavior, small cruelties and moments of quiet despair. Because the entertainment hinges on conflicts that emerge from pairing and swapping contradictory characters, both shows tend to reduce the women and their families to types, pitting slobs against control freaks, spendthrifts against killjoys, and hardworking Cinderellas against spoiled heiresses. Although the “characters” follow carefully edited narrative arcs in which they supposedly come to better understand themselves and appreciate their spouses, both shows’ allure — like that of the sudsy Housewives — lies in showing us the hysteria behind the hedges. As on Desperate Housewives, the “new” wives take us inside private spaces, inevitably turning households upside down in revealing and sometimes dismaying ways. In one episode of Wife Swap, Wife No. 2 forced her counterpart’s “house husband” to burn his would-be actor résumé and seek work as a janitor. In another episode, a stay-at-home wife who took the place of a spoiled heiress dismissed the household’s multiple nannies. Husband No. 1 inquired — seemingly in earnest — whether they would be taking the children with them. Meanwhile, two new reality shows, ABC’s Supernanny and FOX’s Nanny 911, bring in British child-care “experts” to instruct the poor American housewife in parenting. Supernanny’s website sums up the zeitgeist: “Are your kids driving you nuts? Is your house a zoo?” “These days, with the political emphasis on family values and the so-called opt-out revolution making headlines, there’s a ‘send women back to the home’ vibe,” says Deborah Siegel, director of special projects at The National Council for Research on Women, a coalition of women’s research and policy groups. “Only, as the TV shows seem to be telling us, once you open up the doors and take a closer look, life inside that house is not always so great.”
With such matrimonial exposés dominating the airwaves, only one mystery remains: Why would anyone want to buy into this mess in the first place? In fact, the one group that does want to buy in — gays and lesbians, whose right to marry was recently denied by voters in 11 states — spotlights a reason for our current fascination with marriage: The American family is changing, dramatically, right beneath our noses. In recent decades, we’ve redefined family in enormous ways. The so-called traditional family — married heterosexual parents with children, which policy-makers have long held up as the ideal — is quickly becoming a relic of the past. According to the most recent U.S. census, just over half of American households consist of married couples, and less than a fourth of American households are made up of nuclear families (down from 39 percent in 1990). More than half of American marriages will end in divorce (52 percent), the number of single mothers has shot up, and the number of children born out of wedlock has reached 33 percent — up from just 4 percent in 1950. Women now marry on average five years later than they did in the mid-20th century (now it’s at age 25) and, in part because of delayed marriage, over a quarter of households now consist of singles living alone. Finally, between 1990 and 2000, the number of unmarried couples — straight and same-sex — living together out of wedlock rose by 72 percent. Conservatives have framed these statistics as a crisis of moral values, with modern beliefs clashing against and threatening to destroy the traditional American family. In essence, this is what Desperate Housewives captures so well: The drama takes place not so much between the five women as between time periods and conflicting generational ideas of marriage. The main characters are 21st-century women, with 21st-century wardrobes and attitudes, but they’re dropped into 1950s suburbia, or at least into the Hollywood sets of 1950s TV shows about suburbia (the dozen or so houses on Wisteria Lane are repurposed facades; Beaver Cleaver’s actual TV house now belongs to Mary Alice’s family). Even as they languish in their retrograde cul-de-sac, the women of Wisteria Lane resonate with the history of the last 50 years — feminism, the sexual revolution, the struggle to balance family and career, even the impact of Martha Stewart.
Sly juxtapositions, along with the show’s many product placements, remind us of the telescoped time frame: Bree seduces her husband wearing nothing but a bra and panties under a fur coat, recalling Liz Taylor’s get-up in Butterfield 8, circa 1960, only now the underwear is La Perla. Even the show’s title, Desperate Housewives, recalls the subjects of Betty Friedan, while at the same time sounding a campy, erotic tone. It’s as if we’re watching a hypothetical experiment: How would June and Ward and Ozzie and Harriet have fared under today’s terms of matrimony? Or, more generally (and conservatively) stated: Are modern values destroying the traditional American marriage? It’s been reported, in tones of mystification, that Desperate Housewives is rated first and fourth, respectively, in red-state Bush bastions Atlanta and Salt Lake City, where “moral values” are supposedly of greater concern — but should this be surprising? Shouldn’t red-state viewers be all the more inclined to watch a show that dramatizes a conservative argument? Of course, the drama playing out on our television screens, like the greater ongoing national debate on marriage, is more of a clash of mythologies than of historical truths. As Stephanie Coontz, author of The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap (Basic Books, 1992), points out, the happy 1950s household represented by Ozzie and Harriet or the Cleavers — male breadwinner, stay-at-home mom — was neither traditional nor accurate. It was a relatively new domestic arrangement, and the Father Knows Best facade was just that: a cover-up for a quite different reality. In fact, 50s families often had two standards of living — one for male household heads and another for wives and children. Wife-beating was tolerated by authorities and spousal rape was legal through the 1970s. Drug use was widespread, as was prostitution, and the virtuous chastity of the times is widely misunderstood: Terms like “going steady” and “petting” described not innocence but sexual exploration by teens. Plenty of unmarried girls became pregnant, but they were sent away and came back “rehabilitated” virgins, or felt compelled to marry (the number of pregnant brides skyrocketed mid-20th century). Above all, marriage in this era was hardly ideal for women because they were economically and reproductively dependent upon men. “It’s these women,” says Coontz, “who were the truly desperate housewives.” If we’ve mythologized the past, we’re equally apt to misinterpret the present. Our high divorce rate, for example, may indicate that indeed marriage is failing more people. Or, as Nancy Cott, author of Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation (Harvard University Press, 2000), points out, it may simply reflect the fact that people live longer now than in previous centuries. A few hundred years ago, when people died (or were widowed) in their 40s, divorce was less of an issue. And those spouses who did part ways were less likely to bother with divorce. If conservatives see American families as being in a state of crisis, it’s equally possible to see the changing marriage statistics as signs of opportunity — the result of economic and cultural shifts that have made marriage less mandatory, less desirable even. Feminism, the sexual revolution and the Pill — along with new ideas about family in general — have given us additional ways to organize our lives and families. My grandmother, who graduated Phi Beta Kappa, often spoke of getting her “Mrs.” degree; today she might have chosen to go to graduate school as well. Gays and lesbians who might once have spent a lifetime in the closet now have the possibility — in Massachusetts , Vermont and Canada , at least — of official recognition, and the myriad rights and responsibilities that come with it. “Marriage has changed more in the last 30 years than in the last 3,000,” says Coontz, whose forthcoming book explores the institution’s changes (Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy or How Love Conquered Marriage, Viking Adult, 2005). The biggest change is that we now have much higher expectations. Only in the last century have we come to expect emotional and sexual fulfillment from marriage (love used to be viewed as a potential impediment), and only in the last 30 years have women enjoyed a degree of independence from their husbands. “Marriage is harder today,” Coontz adds, “because it’s more optional. There are more choices. The very things that make it better also make it more difficult, and vice versa. It’s precisely because marriage can be more fulfilling today that it’s more of a struggle.” So Housewife Wanna-Bes be warned: Wisteria Lane may be just the tip of the iceberg.
http://www.msmagazine.com/spring2005/housewifewars.asp
Desperate to be thin? Cult show blamed for middle-age anorexia
SHAN ROSS
AN INCREASING number of middle-aged women are suffering from potentially life-threatening eating disorders as they strive to emulate the characters of Desperate Housewives, the cult American television series, according to a leading eating-disorder specialist.
Since the show, starring petite Teri Hatcher and her equally slim co-stars, became a hit, eating disorder clinics across the UK have seen an increase in older women suffering from anorexia and bulimia.
try{command = command.replace(/FSCommand:/ig,"");if(command.toLowerCase()=="ebinteraction")gEbStdBanners[0].handleInteraction();}catch(e){}
Clinics in Scotland report a fourfold increase in the number of women aged between 30 and 50 seeking treatment for anorexia.
Experts have said a "Desperate Housewives syndrome" has caused a significant rise in illnesses such as bulimia and anorexia normally associated with teenagers and younger women.
Dr Chris Freeman, consultant psychiatrist at the Royal Edinburgh Hospital, in an interview with Closer magazine, said: "Desperate Housewives is a very popular programme showing older women who are attractive and have rampant love lives.
"They're also thin and it puts pressure on women in their thirties, forties and fifties to think that it is possible to have this glamorous lifestyle and a great sex life if you're skinny," he added.
"I believe it's influencing women to have eating disorders. Lots of women diet and lose weight quickly, but they aren't obsessive and perfectionist enough to sustain it.
"They might discover that, if they make themselves sick after eating, they can keep their weight down. That's the start of an eating disorder," he said.
However, Dr Alex Yellowlees, medical director of the Priory Hospital in Glasgow, Scotland's only clinic for adults with eating disorders, said it was inappropriate to link women suffering eating disorders with "shallow" television characters.
"There is a 20 per cent mortality rate among women with eating disorders and there is no evidence to suggest their illness has been driven by vanity.
"These women are not all the same. Some have had the illness all their lives and it only comes to medical attention in their thirties or forties. Others never develop the full-blown illness and others have had it triggered off by something in their lives."
Dr Yellowlees said that five years ago it would have been unusual for a middle-aged woman to attend his clinic but the age group now accounted for a fifth of his patients.
"I don't like the phrase 'Desperate Housewives syndrome' because it does affect all women and it sounds quite cruel. But we need to choose our role models very carefully, because if they are dysfunctional then it could hold serious consequences," he said.
"Eating disorders are multi-factorial, and you have to combine certain ingredients to have a recipe for anorexia.
"One of these ingredients is the modern-day idealisation of thinness. We have gone kind of mad and women have taken it to the extreme.
"More older groups of celebrities are expressing concern about their bodies and it increases the intense obsession with thinness.
"They think that to stay young they have to be thin and if you have low self-esteem or confidence then you will be more vulnerable.
"Women are very sensitive to the images that are being given out.
"It is not just housewives, but women from all walks of life - no matter how intelligent or successful they are."
Deanne Jade, of the National Centre of Eating Disorders, said women had to learn to like themselves first before they could start improving their own appearances or lives.
She said: "We are seeing more older women who are suffering eating disorders at a time when they should be at peace with themselves.
"They are under increasing pressure to look younger and thinner. They look around and they see people like Teri Hatcher, Liz Hurley and Carol Vorderman. They could be running a multi-million-pound company, but if they don't look glamorous and thin, they feel they are lacking."
This article: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1832272005
Housewife WarsThe cultural conversation behind the hedges of Wisteria Lane by Catherine Orenstein
A few years back, Cosmopolitan ran an article titled “Meet the New Housewife Wanna-Bes,” in which young professional women described their desire to marry, quit their jobs and pursue “the new domestic dream.” Erica, a 23-year-old investment banker, wanted nothing more than to “marry that cute associate two cubicles down and embark on a full-time stint as his housefrau.” This was back in the days of Sex and the City, when marriage was still a lovely fallback fantasy on television. If only Erica had known. Right now we’re inundated with dramas about the married woman, and “domestic dream” is hardly the vibe. If yesterday’s hit show Sex and the City was about single women who seemed to want desperately to be married, ABC’s current Sunday-night smash Desperate Housewives is about married women who would, by all appearances, be better off single. Trapped behind the hedges of affluent suburban Wisteria Lane, the five female leads experience life and marriage through a haze of infidelity, loneliness, thwarted ambition, sexual dysfunction and drug addiction. Gabrielle cheats on her husband with the teenage gardener. Bree terrorizes her family with her perfectionism. Susan sets slutty Edie’s house on fire in the course of their competition over a man, and Lynette, who opted out of her high-powered career but cannot seem to keep up the pace as a housewife, steals her children’s ADD pills. The show is posthumously narrated by a sixth neighbor, Mary Alice, who shot herself in the pilot episode, leaving behind a secret buried beneath her swimming pool and a stubborn bloodstain on her nicely lacquered floors. “I performed my chores. I completed my projects. I ran my errands,” Mary Alice says by way of explanation, in a voice-over that perfectly captures the show’s cheery, neo-Stepfordian fatalism. “In truth, I spent the day as I spent every other day, quietly polishing my life until it gleamed with perfection.”
The plotlines of Desperate Housewives unfold with such camp, glamour and gleeful bad taste (a nosy neighbor discovers Mary Alice’s body, then rushes home to peel her name off of a borrowed blender; let no one say there’s not a bright side to suicide!) that one might be inclined to dismiss the show’s portrait of domestic dystopia — if not for the fact that it is echoed by the current crop of “reality” TV shows that also explore the plight of the housewife. Take ABC’s Wife Swap and FOX’s Trading Spouses, in which two wives from different backgrounds swap places and problems (the shows are so alike that ABC has sued FOX for copyright infringement). The camera follows each woman as she performs her counterpart’s routine, exposing the dirty laundry (literally) and zooming in on quirky behavior, small cruelties and moments of quiet despair. Because the entertainment hinges on conflicts that emerge from pairing and swapping contradictory characters, both shows tend to reduce the women and their families to types, pitting slobs against control freaks, spendthrifts against killjoys, and hardworking Cinderellas against spoiled heiresses. Although the “characters” follow carefully edited narrative arcs in which they supposedly come to better understand themselves and appreciate their spouses, both shows’ allure — like that of the sudsy Housewives — lies in showing us the hysteria behind the hedges. As on Desperate Housewives, the “new” wives take us inside private spaces, inevitably turning households upside down in revealing and sometimes dismaying ways. In one episode of Wife Swap, Wife No. 2 forced her counterpart’s “house husband” to burn his would-be actor résumé and seek work as a janitor. In another episode, a stay-at-home wife who took the place of a spoiled heiress dismissed the household’s multiple nannies. Husband No. 1 inquired — seemingly in earnest — whether they would be taking the children with them. Meanwhile, two new reality shows, ABC’s Supernanny and FOX’s Nanny 911, bring in British child-care “experts” to instruct the poor American housewife in parenting. Supernanny’s website sums up the zeitgeist: “Are your kids driving you nuts? Is your house a zoo?” “These days, with the political emphasis on family values and the so-called opt-out revolution making headlines, there’s a ‘send women back to the home’ vibe,” says Deborah Siegel, director of special projects at The National Council for Research on Women, a coalition of women’s research and policy groups. “Only, as the TV shows seem to be telling us, once you open up the doors and take a closer look, life inside that house is not always so great.”
With such matrimonial exposés dominating the airwaves, only one mystery remains: Why would anyone want to buy into this mess in the first place? In fact, the one group that does want to buy in — gays and lesbians, whose right to marry was recently denied by voters in 11 states — spotlights a reason for our current fascination with marriage: The American family is changing, dramatically, right beneath our noses. In recent decades, we’ve redefined family in enormous ways. The so-called traditional family — married heterosexual parents with children, which policy-makers have long held up as the ideal — is quickly becoming a relic of the past. According to the most recent U.S. census, just over half of American households consist of married couples, and less than a fourth of American households are made up of nuclear families (down from 39 percent in 1990). More than half of American marriages will end in divorce (52 percent), the number of single mothers has shot up, and the number of children born out of wedlock has reached 33 percent — up from just 4 percent in 1950. Women now marry on average five years later than they did in the mid-20th century (now it’s at age 25) and, in part because of delayed marriage, over a quarter of households now consist of singles living alone. Finally, between 1990 and 2000, the number of unmarried couples — straight and same-sex — living together out of wedlock rose by 72 percent. Conservatives have framed these statistics as a crisis of moral values, with modern beliefs clashing against and threatening to destroy the traditional American family. In essence, this is what Desperate Housewives captures so well: The drama takes place not so much between the five women as between time periods and conflicting generational ideas of marriage. The main characters are 21st-century women, with 21st-century wardrobes and attitudes, but they’re dropped into 1950s suburbia, or at least into the Hollywood sets of 1950s TV shows about suburbia (the dozen or so houses on Wisteria Lane are repurposed facades; Beaver Cleaver’s actual TV house now belongs to Mary Alice’s family). Even as they languish in their retrograde cul-de-sac, the women of Wisteria Lane resonate with the history of the last 50 years — feminism, the sexual revolution, the struggle to balance family and career, even the impact of Martha Stewart.
Sly juxtapositions, along with the show’s many product placements, remind us of the telescoped time frame: Bree seduces her husband wearing nothing but a bra and panties under a fur coat, recalling Liz Taylor’s get-up in Butterfield 8, circa 1960, only now the underwear is La Perla. Even the show’s title, Desperate Housewives, recalls the subjects of Betty Friedan, while at the same time sounding a campy, erotic tone. It’s as if we’re watching a hypothetical experiment: How would June and Ward and Ozzie and Harriet have fared under today’s terms of matrimony? Or, more generally (and conservatively) stated: Are modern values destroying the traditional American marriage? It’s been reported, in tones of mystification, that Desperate Housewives is rated first and fourth, respectively, in red-state Bush bastions Atlanta and Salt Lake City, where “moral values” are supposedly of greater concern — but should this be surprising? Shouldn’t red-state viewers be all the more inclined to watch a show that dramatizes a conservative argument? Of course, the drama playing out on our television screens, like the greater ongoing national debate on marriage, is more of a clash of mythologies than of historical truths. As Stephanie Coontz, author of The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap (Basic Books, 1992), points out, the happy 1950s household represented by Ozzie and Harriet or the Cleavers — male breadwinner, stay-at-home mom — was neither traditional nor accurate. It was a relatively new domestic arrangement, and the Father Knows Best facade was just that: a cover-up for a quite different reality. In fact, 50s families often had two standards of living — one for male household heads and another for wives and children. Wife-beating was tolerated by authorities and spousal rape was legal through the 1970s. Drug use was widespread, as was prostitution, and the virtuous chastity of the times is widely misunderstood: Terms like “going steady” and “petting” described not innocence but sexual exploration by teens. Plenty of unmarried girls became pregnant, but they were sent away and came back “rehabilitated” virgins, or felt compelled to marry (the number of pregnant brides skyrocketed mid-20th century). Above all, marriage in this era was hardly ideal for women because they were economically and reproductively dependent upon men. “It’s these women,” says Coontz, “who were the truly desperate housewives.” If we’ve mythologized the past, we’re equally apt to misinterpret the present. Our high divorce rate, for example, may indicate that indeed marriage is failing more people. Or, as Nancy Cott, author of Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation (Harvard University Press, 2000), points out, it may simply reflect the fact that people live longer now than in previous centuries. A few hundred years ago, when people died (or were widowed) in their 40s, divorce was less of an issue. And those spouses who did part ways were less likely to bother with divorce. If conservatives see American families as being in a state of crisis, it’s equally possible to see the changing marriage statistics as signs of opportunity — the result of economic and cultural shifts that have made marriage less mandatory, less desirable even. Feminism, the sexual revolution and the Pill — along with new ideas about family in general — have given us additional ways to organize our lives and families. My grandmother, who graduated Phi Beta Kappa, often spoke of getting her “Mrs.” degree; today she might have chosen to go to graduate school as well. Gays and lesbians who might once have spent a lifetime in the closet now have the possibility — in Massachusetts , Vermont and Canada , at least — of official recognition, and the myriad rights and responsibilities that come with it. “Marriage has changed more in the last 30 years than in the last 3,000,” says Coontz, whose forthcoming book explores the institution’s changes (Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy or How Love Conquered Marriage, Viking Adult, 2005). The biggest change is that we now have much higher expectations. Only in the last century have we come to expect emotional and sexual fulfillment from marriage (love used to be viewed as a potential impediment), and only in the last 30 years have women enjoyed a degree of independence from their husbands. “Marriage is harder today,” Coontz adds, “because it’s more optional. There are more choices. The very things that make it better also make it more difficult, and vice versa. It’s precisely because marriage can be more fulfilling today that it’s more of a struggle.” So Housewife Wanna-Bes be warned: Wisteria Lane may be just the tip of the iceberg.
http://www.msmagazine.com/spring2005/housewifewars.asp
Desperate to be thin? Cult show blamed for middle-age anorexia
SHAN ROSS
AN INCREASING number of middle-aged women are suffering from potentially life-threatening eating disorders as they strive to emulate the characters of Desperate Housewives, the cult American television series, according to a leading eating-disorder specialist.
Since the show, starring petite Teri Hatcher and her equally slim co-stars, became a hit, eating disorder clinics across the UK have seen an increase in older women suffering from anorexia and bulimia.
try{command = command.replace(/FSCommand:/ig,"");if(command.toLowerCase()=="ebinteraction")gEbStdBanners[0].handleInteraction();}catch(e){}
Clinics in Scotland report a fourfold increase in the number of women aged between 30 and 50 seeking treatment for anorexia.
Experts have said a "Desperate Housewives syndrome" has caused a significant rise in illnesses such as bulimia and anorexia normally associated with teenagers and younger women.
Dr Chris Freeman, consultant psychiatrist at the Royal Edinburgh Hospital, in an interview with Closer magazine, said: "Desperate Housewives is a very popular programme showing older women who are attractive and have rampant love lives.
"They're also thin and it puts pressure on women in their thirties, forties and fifties to think that it is possible to have this glamorous lifestyle and a great sex life if you're skinny," he added.
"I believe it's influencing women to have eating disorders. Lots of women diet and lose weight quickly, but they aren't obsessive and perfectionist enough to sustain it.
"They might discover that, if they make themselves sick after eating, they can keep their weight down. That's the start of an eating disorder," he said.
However, Dr Alex Yellowlees, medical director of the Priory Hospital in Glasgow, Scotland's only clinic for adults with eating disorders, said it was inappropriate to link women suffering eating disorders with "shallow" television characters.
"There is a 20 per cent mortality rate among women with eating disorders and there is no evidence to suggest their illness has been driven by vanity.
"These women are not all the same. Some have had the illness all their lives and it only comes to medical attention in their thirties or forties. Others never develop the full-blown illness and others have had it triggered off by something in their lives."
Dr Yellowlees said that five years ago it would have been unusual for a middle-aged woman to attend his clinic but the age group now accounted for a fifth of his patients.
"I don't like the phrase 'Desperate Housewives syndrome' because it does affect all women and it sounds quite cruel. But we need to choose our role models very carefully, because if they are dysfunctional then it could hold serious consequences," he said.
"Eating disorders are multi-factorial, and you have to combine certain ingredients to have a recipe for anorexia.
"One of these ingredients is the modern-day idealisation of thinness. We have gone kind of mad and women have taken it to the extreme.
"More older groups of celebrities are expressing concern about their bodies and it increases the intense obsession with thinness.
"They think that to stay young they have to be thin and if you have low self-esteem or confidence then you will be more vulnerable.
"Women are very sensitive to the images that are being given out.
"It is not just housewives, but women from all walks of life - no matter how intelligent or successful they are."
Deanne Jade, of the National Centre of Eating Disorders, said women had to learn to like themselves first before they could start improving their own appearances or lives.
She said: "We are seeing more older women who are suffering eating disorders at a time when they should be at peace with themselves.
"They are under increasing pressure to look younger and thinner. They look around and they see people like Teri Hatcher, Liz Hurley and Carol Vorderman. They could be running a multi-million-pound company, but if they don't look glamorous and thin, they feel they are lacking."
This article: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1832272005
Thursday, 20 September 2007
The Characters:
Susan
“
It was common knowledge on Wisteria Lane that where Susan Mayer went, bad luck was sure to follow. Her misfortunes ranged from the commonplace, to the unusual, to the truly bizarre.”
— Mary Alice Young
Neurotic, ditzy, clumsy, geeky. Take your pick. Lovelorn single mom Susan is desperate to settle down with a good man. She thought Mike was it, until he turned out to be a killer. Now it could be Ian. But if he is, you know it won't be easy.
Quotes
To Mike: "I'm mad because I like you so much without really knowing anything about you."
"This dress is riding up as it is. If I walk any faster, it's going to be Happy Valentine's Day for everyone."
"Edie'll get there at five forty-five, which means her breasts will arrive at five-thirty, so I should shoot for five."
To Edie: "Oh, good! Then you'll be prime meat picking when you go to jail!!"
To Edie: "Oh, you know what? It wasn't until your rotten nephew came to town that Julie was a perfect kid. And now she's lying and scheming and having casual sex! She's just a boob job away from being you!"
(on the phone), "Hi, Kurt, Susan Mayer. You did my wedding invitations. Ah, I’m gonna need another batch. Exactly the same. Only change the name Ian Hainsworth to Mike Delfino. Long story. Call me!"
“
It was common knowledge on Wisteria Lane that where Susan Mayer went, bad luck was sure to follow. Her misfortunes ranged from the commonplace, to the unusual, to the truly bizarre.”
— Mary Alice Young
Neurotic, ditzy, clumsy, geeky. Take your pick. Lovelorn single mom Susan is desperate to settle down with a good man. She thought Mike was it, until he turned out to be a killer. Now it could be Ian. But if he is, you know it won't be easy.
Quotes
To Mike: "I'm mad because I like you so much without really knowing anything about you."
"This dress is riding up as it is. If I walk any faster, it's going to be Happy Valentine's Day for everyone."
"Edie'll get there at five forty-five, which means her breasts will arrive at five-thirty, so I should shoot for five."
To Edie: "Oh, good! Then you'll be prime meat picking when you go to jail!!"
To Edie: "Oh, you know what? It wasn't until your rotten nephew came to town that Julie was a perfect kid. And now she's lying and scheming and having casual sex! She's just a boob job away from being you!"
(on the phone), "Hi, Kurt, Susan Mayer. You did my wedding invitations. Ah, I’m gonna need another batch. Exactly the same. Only change the name Ian Hainsworth to Mike Delfino. Long story. Call me!"
http://www.whatsontv.co.uk/primetime/desperate_housewives/whos_who/susan_mayer
how is Susan represented?
Susan is represented as always needing a man in her life otherwise she does not feel stable-in other words, she is 'desperate'.
Clip of Susan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKDyH6EUBa4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKDyH6EUBa4
Gabrielle
“
I should have seen how unhappy she was. But I didn't. I only saw her clothes from Paris, and her platinum jewelry, and her brand new diamond watch. Had I looked closer, I'd have seen that Gabrielle was a drowning woman, desperately in need of a life raft. Luckily for her, she found one.”
— Mary Alice Young
Gabrielle, a retired model in her late 20's, married Carlos Solis for money but found satisfaction with John Rowland, her teenage gardener. She questions her relationship with Carlos, commenting once that she loved him and all her teenage fantasies had been fulfilled, yet she still wasn't happy
This Hispanic princess won't let anything come between her and what she wants. Self-centred, manipulative, over-sexed - butter wouldn't melt in her mouth… because she'd never let anything that might ruin her pint-sized perfection near her.
"Before we got married, we made a deal, remember? No kids!"
Manipulative & conniving:
Bree:”Girls, you don’t understand. This poor kid is scared out of his mind”
Gabrielle: “oh, for gods sake Bree. You’re a woman. Manipulate him. That’s what we do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Solis
http://www.whatsontv.co.uk/primetime/desperate_housewives/whos_who/gabrielle_solis
Lynette
“
I should have seen how unhappy she was. But I didn't. I only saw her clothes from Paris, and her platinum jewelry, and her brand new diamond watch. Had I looked closer, I'd have seen that Gabrielle was a drowning woman, desperately in need of a life raft. Luckily for her, she found one.”
— Mary Alice Young
Gabrielle, a retired model in her late 20's, married Carlos Solis for money but found satisfaction with John Rowland, her teenage gardener. She questions her relationship with Carlos, commenting once that she loved him and all her teenage fantasies had been fulfilled, yet she still wasn't happy
This Hispanic princess won't let anything come between her and what she wants. Self-centred, manipulative, over-sexed - butter wouldn't melt in her mouth… because she'd never let anything that might ruin her pint-sized perfection near her.
"Before we got married, we made a deal, remember? No kids!"
Manipulative & conniving:
Bree:”Girls, you don’t understand. This poor kid is scared out of his mind”
Gabrielle: “oh, for gods sake Bree. You’re a woman. Manipulate him. That’s what we do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Solis
http://www.whatsontv.co.uk/primetime/desperate_housewives/whos_who/gabrielle_solis
Lynette
“
She used to see herself as a career woman, and a hugely successful one at that. She was known for her power lunches, her eye-catching presentations, and her ruthlessness in wiping out the competition. But unfortunately for Lynette, this new label frequently fell short of what was advertised.”
— Mary Alice Young
Another ‘Housewife’ as she stays at home and looks after the kids.
Stereotype of mothers as being drained out both physically and mentally.
Frequently harassed mother of three terrifying boys, Lynette still manages to be the most real of all the housewives. She's down to earth in the extreme, except when she takes her sons' ADD medicine to cope with her demanding life.
"Are you saying I'm a bad mother?!"
"Are you saying I'm a bad mother?!"
http://www.whatsontv.co.uk/primetime/desperate_housewives/whos_who/lynette_scavo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynette_Scavo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynette_Scavo
Bree
“
...Everyone on Wisteria Lane thought of Bree as the perfect wife and mother. Everyone that is, except her own family.”
— Mary Alice Young
Bree is recognized for her perfectionist attitude and work ethic, which at times borders on neurosis and obsessive compulsion.
Brittle, frigid, uptight, Bree is more concerned than all her neighbours about keeping up appearances. Late husband Rex tried to get her to unwind, but she couldn't identfiy with hanky-spanky. So she's turned to alcohol to deal with her problems.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdmp2Mr2yLQ
-Perfect ‘Housewife’ as she is forever cooking and cleaning (typical stereotype).
-Very ladylike and her appearance is immaculate.
-Very family orientated. Hide stories which might make her family look bad
-Perfect ‘Housewife’ as she is forever cooking and cleaning (typical stereotype).
-Very ladylike and her appearance is immaculate.
-Very family orientated. Hide stories which might make her family look bad
Edie
Edie has one of the worst representations of a woman as she is knows as the local ‘hoochie’, because she is old, not married, was seeing Susan’s ex husband and never seems to have long relationships.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZMXx77uF_c
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
