Hey everyone–
Post your question for the Sharon reading here [Sharot, Stephen. “The ‘New Woman’ Star Personas, and Cross-Class Romance Films in 1920s America. Journal of Gender Studies 19.1 (March 2010): 73-86. E-reserve.]
Hope you enjoyed It and Mad Men!
-L
In our screening of “Mad Men,” Don Draper claims to have invented the concept of “disinterested love” along with his compatriots in the advertising industry. How does this concept of “disinterested love” play out in the media of today, particularly in the screenings that we’ve watched? Is “disinterested love” simply a ploy to encourage consumerism, or is it human nature to engage in romantic cross-class courtship regardless of self-interest? Though Sharot claims that most of her female examples are “marrying-up” so-to-speak, are there any examples of an upper-class woman marrying a lower-class man in classical cinema? How would the gender roles and the concept of “disinterested love” change in those cases?
The idea of feminism came into play around the time the “New Woman” was generated. Sharot says ‘feminisim’ became synonymous with the “New Woman.” Is feminism represented the same way today it was in the 1920s? Would the “New Women” like the ideas revolving around feminism today and what it has become?
What is Sharot’s conclusion about the “disinterested love” that these characters portray? She never seems to decide whether or not it is a good or bad thing, or what it says about the gender roles of the times. Would it be more liberated it women strove after men because of their wealth? Why does Sharot mention “disinterested love” so often and then never come to the synthesis of it?
In 1920s pop culture, what was incongruent about flappers and family (either of family of origin or desire for motherhood)? What values may have contributed to this difference?
The “New Woman” was a term coined to represent women empowerment in the 1890s as more women pursued educational and political goals. All three actresses represent a different type of “new woman” during their times. Do these types of women transcend to the 21st century or are there different types of “new women”?
“The vamp was usually a woman from the middle or upper class who used her sexual powers to drain male energy” We talk about women’s rights and equality, but never will we be able classify two separate and innate disparities as one. Should women continue to strive for the identity of a man or find something that fits their innate qualities much better? Is it more important to be equal or to feel equal?
The New Woman image of the 1920s flapper describes women as bold and independent, while at the same time buying into the consumeristic values presented by magazines and movies to impress men. The article states that by demonstrating certain values, women can win over men of higher social classes or positions. Other than the obvious domesticity involved with winning a well off man–i.e. not having to work, buying clothes, and being fully taken care of by the bread winner the man)–how else can we describe the sexual identity created by the classless relationship? On the other token, what does the fact that men lose their minds when women flaunt their beauty say about the male protagonists/ heros in the movies/lives during the 1920s?
Sharot attempts to show the Flapper as a woman who is physically liberated sexually and domestically and expresses how the flapper was free but not immoral. However how far can “It” be seen as a portrayal of women who crave recreation/goods to the point where they offer limited sexual favours? Is her acquisition of Waltham no different than her consumer desires to “experience pleasure through fantasies of acquisition (where Waltham is the good to be acquired)?
Sharot explains how male film fans were common before World War I but they were discouraged by the 1920s fan magazines which increased their coverage in women’s interests. Is this the case with films or fan magazines today? Are films and televisions show targeted to one gender more than the other? There are some shows and movies that are obviously targeted to one gender. But what about television and films in general?
The era of the flappers is often seen as a time period were women exuded sexuality, they were bold, they were empowered. However, it was also an era of consumerism and mass media was effective in portraying how a woman at that time needed to look, the makeup they should own, the clothes they had to wear in order to fit the mold. Women ran out to buy these products, willing to buy whatever necessary to be accepted by men and even other women. Therefore, was the era of the flapper truly a time of liberation for women, or was it actually confinement under the guise of autonomy?
The link between consumerism and independence seems to be an ironic one, as one would think that a married woman in the household would consume more than the single, self-supporting young lady. Why would ad agencies target a low-wage worker to buy high quality material goods? Also, I know the marriage rate declined in the 1920’s. Why are “freedom” and materialism exemplified as single?
« Moore provided a model for how a flapper should look and how a conventional woman should behave ».
How does cinema deal with multiple gender identities through time? In what way, do aesthetics (clothing, glamour) intervene in the representation of gender and sexual identities? Throughout the essay, we are told how women and consumerism are associated in the representation of gender as if one element defines the other. Just as a boyish fashion was meant to show an emancipated woman, how does cinema determine these codes, leading to some kind of categorization of sexual and gender identities?
Something that was particularly poignant throughout Sharot’s article is that the liberation of women is consistently and simultaneously connected to consumerism. Why is it that a woman’s appearance (short skirts, bobbed hair) and glamorization the only apparent way in which a woman can be seen as ‘free’? Does the cinema aim to endorse gender identities solely through cosmetics and products?
“Like the characters played by Pickford and Moore, it is for her virtues, including her disinterested love, that Betty Lou is rewarded with a wealthy man.”
It is interesting that though the female characters in 1920s film were flappers and “new women” they would be rewarded not for their boldness and new ideas but for their virtue, a traditional value. Was cinema saying that women should go out and be confident; but, they will not deserve to be happy if they do not maintain the conventional ideals?