Lee and Moscowitz argue that Real Housewives of New York City offers a misogynistic critique of conspicuous consumption that is common in media portrayals of the social elite. Do you find their critique persuasive? What might it suggest about the intersectionality of class and gender in U.S. media culture?
April 17, 2019 at 2:05 pm
I agree with their critique. In the post-war consumer culture, men were judged by their ability to be bread-winners and provide for the family. Women were judged by their ability to take whatever income the man provided to the household and optimize it for the household by cooking well, decorating well, and educating the children. We saw this in Ralph Kramden’s insecurity on the Honeymooners, and in the way Levittown homes only varied the outside of homes to meet the concerns of male income-earners. This culture waned overtime as women increasingly entered the workforce but is still part of cultural understandings of gender. This is especially true among wealthy families today, where it is less likely for both parents to work. Data shows the probability of being a stay-at-home-mom is highest among wealthy households (source 1). So off-the-bat there is a statistical correlation between class and this traditional gendered consumer culture.
Next, the show portrays these women negatively as both backstabbing “friends” and as ungrateful. The show ridicules the extravagant spending habits of these women, even though they can afford it. Further, the excessive drama portrays these people as unhappy despite, or even because of, their wealth. The characters are always fighting each other and are ungrateful for their material wealth. For an audience less wealthy than these individuals, this portrayal is not flattering. Overall, the show presents the lives of these rich women as ridiculous, irresponsible, and disgusting. This is why the show is recession proof.
When one combines the feeling one has while watching this show with the post-war gendered consumer culture, the show is not criticizing the wealthy earners, but the women who spend their husband’s good, “hard-earned” money. The viewer approval of this model depends upon societal misogyny. I think if the show were about rich female executives who argued and spent lavishly, the show would violate one of the key ironies that Lee and Moscowitz describe: that the housewives profess hard work but do not work (Lee and Moscowitz). So part of the dynamic is that these high-spending individuals did not “earn” their money. However, I also think misogynistic social norms mean a show dramatizing wealthy stay-at-home dads would be less successful than the “Real Housewives” franchise. This reflects societal notions of the “rich bitch” as described by Lee and Moscowitz. Thus, the show’s ironies are most successful in the misogynistic norms of the post-war consumer culture.
The show does not question the inequalities that produce such ostentatious lives but uses metrics of the post-war gendered consumer culture to mock the women who live with such wealth. Further, there are no “real house-husbands”, and the show does not consider the inequalities that exist in many of the highest-paying jobs such that men tend to be the wealthiest breadwinners. The vast majority of people earning over $250k are men and the vast majority of people “one step from CEO” are men (source 2). Further, only 57 of the Forbes 400 richest people are women (source 3). The show avoids criticizing inequality head-on by mocking only the wealthy women who did not earn their wealth through work.
All in all, rather than criticize the economic system that produces such enormous inequalities, or criticize how gendered the highest incomes are, the show portrays ostentatious spending habits as a female trait. This portrayal uses the metrics of the gendered post-war consumer culture to judge the housewives. Lee and Moscowitz are correct to argue that the “Real Housewives” programs are misogynistic and use post-war consumerist gender roles to mock wealthy women rather than social issues like income or gender inequality.
(1) https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900052186/rich-and-poor-married-moms-are-more-likely-to-stay-at-home-with-the-kids-but-for-entirely-different-reasons.html
(2) https://thesocietypages.org/papers/new-ceos/
(3) https://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2018/10/03/forbes-400-2018-a-new-number-one-and-a-record-breaking-year-for-americas-richest-people/#4d541d1660b7