The Real Housewives are a despicable lot, o yea! Two views.

Real Housewives, real housewives, and feminism as consumption
Originally posted May 5, 2011 by Stendhal

The RHOC crew a few seasons ago. Gunvalson, Rossi and Barney still at it.

Editor’s Note” Some very insightful commentary here by Stendhal, on TAKE ONE, even though we take exception to his concluding complaint (which we found almost shockingly flat and bourgie for such an accomplished scrivener):

Uh?  Worried about “entrepreneurship gaps”?  Lack of female leadership at Fortune 500s? Who are you Stendhal, some hedge fund yuppie with a dilettantish knack for gifted social criticism?  I’m puzzled. Has Stendhal ever gone beyond bourgie gender goals? Don’t the careers of Nancy Pelosi, Madeline Albright, Hillary Clinton, and Condi Rice—among others— learned our author nothing?  Well, anyhow, here’s the piece. Enjoy and gain from the good parts. In TAKE TWO,  Kerensa Cadenas, of MS magazine, weighs in with some good observations. She finds a spoof by SNL hilarous but we think it falls way short of its potential. In any case, you be the judge. Ironically, while nitwits occur in all social classes and political denominations, and capitalist television will go on doing what it has always done until disabled, I think the flamboyant existence of such women as we see on the Real Housewives franchise is a testament to the failure of bourgeois feminism in our time. —PG

TAKE ONE

By Stendhal
Thank you, Stendhal
I hate the Real Housewives shows. Hate them. Every time my girlfriend watches them, I am filled with inexplicable rage. I don’t wish the Housewives any harm (I’m a pacifist, of course), but I wish they would just disappear to some nice tropical island resort, without any cameras, so I never have to see or hear from them ever again.

All this led me to wonder, though, what the appeal of the Real Housewives is. The shows are wildly successful, and their spinoffs get viewers, too. Anecdotally, my girlfriend watches these shows all the time. There’s something to the idea of a primal drama — it’s fun to watch people who hate each other. Yet, the blend of diva behavior, extravagant wealth, and self-aware snark has somehow yielded a phenomenon greater than the sum of its parts. Is this where feminism has gone?

Part of the show’s appeal is aspirational: women would like to be the Real Housewives. The Real Housewives are neither Real (unless we mean “The Real World”) nor Housewives (many are unmarried or have variously attached beaus). The Real Housewives don’t appear to have jobs, even though many of them do. The shows rarely focus on their careers — heaven forbid! — and instead focus on their constant intrigues.

WARNING: VIDEO PARODY BELOW—or when parody comes awfully close to…reality. By the SNL gals…not too funny in my viewm but then, again, SNL has been unfunny for a very long time, and can’t seem to muster laughs even at an obvious target like the pathetic Real Housewives…—PG

The intrigues fuel the other part of the show’s appeal: voyeurism. The Real Housewives mostly drink too much too early in the day, and spend most of their time (onscreen) shopping, eating at fancy restaurants, or having parties. Who wouldn’t want this lifestyle? The shows model consumption — how to consume, where to consume, what to consume. The Real Housewives shows have broken away from a model where women must have their lives dictated by the men that surround them; instead the Real Housewives dictate their lives on their own terms. Certainly, the Real Housewives do not suffer from the “Bechdel Test” problem of women only discussing men; the Housewives only discuss each other (and themselves).

Yet, this self-assuredness manifests itself as outrageous diva behavior. Instead of being mediated through a husband, the Housewives have only one concern — their own egos. Their egomaniacal behavior is merely one manifestation of a general trend. Women routinely undermine each other in the workplace (warning, long law review article in PDF), and the “liberated” woman’s solidarity with other women has splintered. The empowerment movement has not led to liberation from false posturing for men; instead, it has led to yet another posture — one of vindictiveness and neediness — performed for other women.

In a recent critical analysis of Thelma and Louise and Pretty Woman, Carina Chocano explains in detail how Thelma and Louise, which appeared so revolutionary at the time of its release compared to Pretty Woman, was actually quite dated. Thelma and Louise reflects dangerous rebellious women, breaking free from male society and choosing suicide over subjugation. Pretty Woman, conversely, was all about subjugation to men, and more importantly, subjugation to money. It was a preview of feminism to come:

Ultimately, “Pretty Woman” wasn’t a love story; it was a money story. Its logic depended on a disconnect between character and narrative, between image and meaning, between money and value, and that made it not cluelessly traditional but thoroughly postmodern. Revisiting “Thelma and Louise” recently, I was struck by how dated it seemed, how much a product of its time. And “Pretty Woman,” it turns out, wasn’t a throwback at all. It was the future.

The future envisioned by Pretty Woman is played out in The Real Housewives. The “model woman” has gone from chattel property to dangerous rebel to tame consumer, all the while undermining and badmouthing her “friends.” Is this the result of feminism’s struggles for equality? Is it so much accomplishment to have graduated from discussing men to discussing clothes, gossip and beefs?

One could argue that said behavior is no different from the way men and women have behaved for centuries. The women of the Roman Empire undermined each other as much as women today; why should we regard the Real Housewives with anything less than a shrug? Besides, women have finally achieved equality — they tote guns like men, they cuss and strut like men — why shouldn’t they consume and fight like men, too?

In “Educating Rita,” the titular character (Julie Walters) gets a literary education from a professor (Michael Caine). She says she doesn’t want to be stuck in the pub with her clod of a husband singing the same song. But after her education, when she can quote poetry and analyze beauty, she has a falling out with Caine’s character. Caine yells at her that she hasn’t found a better song to sing, merely a different one. The Real Housewives think they are singing a better song — that their money, privilege, and cameras make them better (it’s always about being “classy”) than those around them — but their song is the same as it always has been.

If, at the end of feminism’s long march, women have simply moved from objects of consumerism to subjects of consumerism, has it accomplished that much? If freedom from subjugation just means the freedom to be empty, heartless, cruel, vapid and materialist, what good is it anyways? In a world of such massive remaining inequalities — entrepreneurship gaps, lack of female leadership at Fortune 500 companies, lack of female legislators (17 female Senators!), etc. — is this truly where feminism ends?

I want to end with a note about class: the upper-class Real Housewives always hold “classiness” and “class” as the most important indicators of a person’s worth. A good person is “classy”; a bad person “classless.” It’s possible that the Real Housewives simply reveals the class distinctions in feminism as a whole — that married-rich, privileged, “classy” women have more in common with their income bracket than with other women who work two jobs and provide the bulk of domestic labor for their families. As Chocano points out, “Pretty Woman” was ultimately a money story, not a love story. Maybe feminism is ultimately a money story, too, not a solidarity story.

________

TAKE TWO

We Heart: The Real Housewives of SNL
Originally: November 12, 2010 by Kerensa Cadenas · MS Magazine

Bravo’s The Real Housewives reality show is everywhere, whether you watch it on TV or not. On the radio you can hear Kim Zolciak or the Countess LuAnn singing about money or parties. At the supermarket you can see Teresa Giudice on the cover of a tabloid, refuting claims that her husband is cheating, or pick up a bottle of Bethenny Frankel’s Skinnygirl Margaritas (only 100 calories!).

The Real Housewives is a franchise, artificially gathering groups of well-off women in (so far) Atlanta, New York, Orange County, Beverly Hills, New Jersey and Washington D.C. They’re put on display shopping, parenting, partying … and constantly arguing with each other. (Yes, I have to admit I watch the show.)

Needless to say, the Housewives aren’t painting a progressive picture of women today. I would argue (and I’m certain Betty Friedan would agree) that their catty, unsupportive behavior and horrendous botoxed beauty standards are not particularly feminist nor empowering.

Imagine my delight, then, when I heard that the very funny women of Saturday Night Live past and present, including Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, Maya Rudolph, Molly Shannon and Kristen Wiig, parodied a Real Housewives reunion special (complete with the show’s real host, Andy Cohen).

The parody is spot on, complete with various “housewives” storming off the set, pulling another’s hair weave, singing with the benefit of Auto-Tune, and pitching their latest products (Shannon was selling everything lowfat, including “lowfat medications” and “lowfat cocktails”). Beyond the hilarity is a smart critique of women’s regressive behavior on these shows, and beyond that a commentary on reality TV in general.

Fans of the Real Housewives tune in–guiltily or not–to see precisely what the women of SNL make fun of: vacuous, backstabbing “bitches” spending money and drinking all day. They also see rigid beauty/fashion standards, gay men treated as stock characters and race used as “ethnic spice” (at least when it comes to the Atlanta women).
So, thank you, SNL women, for laying some real humor on the inadvertently humorous housewives–and for making subtly serious points along the way. I’m in agreement with Jenn Pozner here: “I’m not saying you have to divorce the Real Housewives,” says the author of Reality Bites Back: The Troubling Truth About Guilty Pleasure TV. “I’m just saying you have watch with your brain engaged.”

Photo with permission from NBC Universal

 

ACHTUNG! ACHTUNG! (Hmm…that got your attention, uh?) Did you like this article? Then buy us a beer. How many times do we have to beg you? The wingnuts and fascists are falling over each other to make donations…to their filthy causes. We, on the other hand, take our left blogs for granted.
Just think how much money you spend on beer, cigs, trinkets and other useless stuff that can also kill you.
Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year.

 

 

 

 

 

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.