When I was in fourth grade, a girl in my Hebrew School class announced to all in the room that she didn’t want her Blackberry anymore and wanted an iPhone instead, so she had dropped her Blackberry in the toilet. She proceeded to pull out an iPhone, saying “look at my new phone!” This was one of the many reasons why I disliked going to Hebrew School. However, experiences like these did make it so that, four years later, when I stumbled upon all six seasons of  Gossip Girl conveniently ready for my watching on Netflix, I already had an insight into that world. My peers and I immediately became enthralled with the series. We wanted to be Blair Waldorf, we wanted to be anyone but Serena van der Woodsen, and we wanted, more than anything, for Blair Waldorf and Chuck Bass to be together in the end. For me, the appeal was the sense of familiarity it provided me. As I watched the show, I recognized the streets the characters walked on as ones around the corner from my old building or down the block from my temple. The appeal also lay in the glimpse it gave me into this other part of life in New York City — one to which I was close enough to know it existed (my Hebrew School experiences made sure of that), but also far enough away that I did not know exactly what it consisted of.

Recently, I rewatched an episode of this show; I had some free time and I wanted to see if I could remember why I had loved it so much. While watching, I slowly came to the disappointing realization that this show was not even close to what I had built it up to be. I still loved it, but the experience I had watching it was different than the one that “middle school me” had while watching it. I could not quite put my finger on it, but the editing seemed a little off, and the derogatory jokes that had flown over my head as a middle schooler now had a bit more of a punch-in-the-gut quality to them. Nevertheless, by the end of the episode, I was again enthralled.

The problem that I could not quite put my finger on a few months ago, has now become quite clear: the show is entirely based on the concept of the male gaze, and this male gaze is perpetuated throughout the entirety of each episode in a way that is sickening once it is spotted. However, since the theory behind the male gaze is partly that it remains under the radar, actually spotting it in the first place is difficult. Thus, too many people — many of them teenagers — have become obsessed with this show without realizing its more serious implications.

Gossip Girl has extended the male gaze perhaps as far as it can go (or at least I hope that no one tries to push it any farther). The camera takes on the male’s perspective, as is typical in most popular culture, but the male perspective is also emphasized throughout the show by each of the male characters. Even the plot line, although narrated in a female’s voice, is actually narrated from the male’s point of view (in the end we find out that Dan is the one who has been running the gossip girl blog). The male’s gaze is pervasive; today, especially, the reality of the male gaze in popular culture is an even more important phenomenon than many realize, as an increasing number of victims of sexual assaults perpetrated within the Hollywood apparatus come to the surface. To focus on the male gaze in film without analyzing the potential of a connection between it and all that is currently coming to the surface would be a disservice.

I never thought about the influence of editing on a show before. It is always satisfying to point out when details of shows do not remain consistent throughout — Gossip Girl’s editors seemed to struggle a lot with this type of editing. But, Gossip Girl’s editors did not seem to struggle with using editing to successfully portray the male gaze. In the first episode (“Pilot”), there are countless instances of the camera forcing viewers to adapt a male point of view without realizing they are doing so. Within the first two minutes of the episode, the camera pans up and down an unknowing Serena as Dan looks at her from a distance. The editors are setting up the show to be portrayed from a male point of view even before viewers have become acquainted with any of the characters. In the twenty-first minute of the first episode, the camera makes a slow progression up Blair’s body and then pans over to Nate as he walks through the door. Through this cinematography,  as well as through dialogue about how Nate has a right to Blair’s body (Chuck says to Nate, “you’re also entitled to tap that ass”) the scene implies that Blair’s body belongs to Nate; it is there as something for Nate’s eyes to consume, and for him to have at his choosing. These are certainly not the only instances of the male gaze in Gossip Girl, but listing them all would be excessive since the male gaze occurs in countless similar circumstances throughout the series.

Gossip Girl pushes beyond just the camera and editing in its portrayal of the male gaze; it created a character that embodies the gaze. Dan Humphrey is one of the main male characters of the show. He is the “poor” boy from Brooklyn, an outcast who has his big break into inner society when he begins dating Serena — a beautiful, rich, popular girl.  The show is premised on an anonymous gossip blogger who receives tips and posts about the inner workings of New York City’s elite teenage society. This itself should set off alarm bells ringing as an indication of the expansion of the male gaze; this blogger is looking into others’ private lives without any permission to do so. To make matters worse, in the last episode the series reveals that it was Dan all along who was the anonymous blogger. This means that the entirety of the show is seen through, first the eyes of the tip-givers, but ultimately through Dan’s eyes. All (the tip-senders, blog-readers, and Dan himself) are watching others’ private interactions, and inserting themselves into the private lives of people whom they have no right to observe. Dan is ultimately the one who has the final say in how others’ private lives are presented to the world and the ways in which the blog’s readers will peer into the private lives of the show’s characters. In the context that “the knowledge that is gained from gazing at others’ lives may provide [the gazer] with a sense of power and control in our own lives,” Dan as the embodiment of the male gaze makes sense. Dan lacks power and control over his own life because he is the outcast. The way for him to reclaim some agency lies in the blog, subjecting the private lives of his peers and those around him to his own portrayal of them. The blog also provides an escape from his own problems into the more luxurious world of the elite who surround him, but with whom he feels he will never be equal. The male gaze has extended from just the camera allowing viewers to peer into the character’s lives. It now vindicates the concept of the male gaze and its use by viewers through the sanctioning of its extensive use by Dan, one of the show’s beloved characters — the “good guy”.

The male gaze is a type of voyeurism. The use of this word is often dreaded because it rarely says anything good about that to which it refers. Gossip Girl is full of voyeurism, which means that the audience (comprised mostly of teenage girls) accepts its use, and the actors embrace its use in a way that can only be expected to transfer into real life for impressionistic viewers. Voyeurism in popular culture is usually first associated with reality television, but Gossip Girl has made it clear that it is not limited to reality television. Voyeurism in shows like Gossip Girl is dangerous, because not only is the audience participating in its perpetuation, but so are the characters that they learn to admire. In this way, the use of voyeurism in real life is validated, and without even realizing it, all who watch are recognizing voyeurism as an admirable act. Mainly, this means that the teenage girls girls watching the show accept the objectification of women like themselves. The first episode provides yet another perfect example when it shows Nate and Serena’s sex scene in the bar through a lens that is blurred around the edges. In this moment, all viewers become voyeurs, finding enjoyment in watching a private moment that is not their own. This theory is often applied to books by saying, “unless a book directly addresses ‘you,’ then theoretically you have no place to be looking at and reading the pages.” Television shows are the same, and since they seldom directly address viewers, one generally has no right to be watching. In the same scene as above, the camera pans to Chuck watching Nate and Serena having sex from a balcony above. This is weird and should make most viewers feel uncomfortable, but instead it is presented as an intriguing plot twist that will later cause interesting drama. In viewers’ minds it is nothing more than that, and this is a problem.

This problem has presented itself recently in the form of the stream of sexual assault allegations being made public. Almost every day, my phone dings to alert me that another public figure has been accused of sexual misconduct. This should not surprise me or anyone else; the male gaze and voyeurism are phenomena that have overtaken popular culture and Hollywood. If it is acceptable on screen, it is not that far to assume that it is also acceptable in real life. Thus, actors like Ed Westwick, who portrayed characters that were beloved despite their illustrating the omnipotence of the male gaze, might find that it is not so difficult to think that they could get away with similarly grotesque actions in real life. Chuck Bass was an awful character who objectified women both through his actions and his words, and in the first episode tried to sexually assault two leading female characters. Yet he goes on to become one the shows best characters. I can vouch for that — I was rooting for him all along, no matter the bad things that he did. Actors must learn to embody their characters as if they were actually them; it is not too far of a jump for them to begin to adopt some of their actions in real life, believing that they can get away with them. This could be a reason why Hollywood is at the center of the sexual assault epidemic.

This idea that everyone learns to inhabit the male point of view is not an idea that most would like accept about themselves. In an attempt not to, many have come up with ways to claim that the male gaze does not exist or that the male gaze is not a negative phenomenon. For example, some women claim that the male gaze makes them feel empowered. Others claim that the female gaze also exists, and this existence validates the existence of the male gaze. First, there is a difference between appreciating respectful attention from men and just being looked at as an object there for anyone’s pleasing. It is sad to imagine that women feel empowered by anyone inhabiting the male gaze and looking at them through that lens. This points at a deeper problem of internalized sexism in society, and does not invalidate the existence of the male gaze. In terms of there also being a female gaze, there is not much proof that points to that fact. In using Gossip Girl as an example, there were countless examples of the male gaze, but no examples of the female gaze. Even if there is a female gaze, that does not make the male gaze something that should be accepted when presented as a sole viewpoint — two wrongs do not make a right.

Gossip Girl is much more than the superficial portrayal of New York City’s elite society that I originally thought it was. The realization that this show perpetuates such a harmful convention is upsetting because I really enjoy watching this show. At the same time, this does not mean I will stop watching or enjoying the show, which is exactly the problem with popular culture and the male gaze: Despite its presence and influence, we want to keep watching.

Written in the style of Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie.
Edited by Sarah Tully.

Sources:

Bartlett, Jennifer. “Longing for the Male Gaze.” The New York Times. September 21, 2016.
Accessed December 08, 2017.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/21/opinion/longing-for-the-male-gaze.html?_r=0.

Calvert, Clay. Voyeur nation: Media, Privacy, and Peering in Modern Culture. Boulder:
Westview Press, 2004. 69.

Garcia, Antero. Critical Foundations in Young Adult Literature Challenging Genres. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2013. 104.

“Male gaze.” Oxford Reference. April 19, 2016. Accessed December 08, 2017.
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199568758.001.0001/acref-97
80199568758-e-1594.

Metzl, Jonathan. “From Scopophilia to Survivor: A Brief History of Voyeurism.” Textual Practice 18, no. 3 (2004): 415-34. doi:10.1080/09502360410001732935.

Any Gilmore Girls fan will tell you that Lorelai and Rory are living the life in Stars Hollow. Personally, I can vouch for this. Every time I am sad, having a bad day, or just need a break from reality, I turn to an episode of Gilmore Girls as my relief. The quick, witty humor, the perfectly quirky town, and the close relationships between characters make this show a refuge from our own daily hardships. As viewers buy into the surface level utopia provided in this show, however, they are actually allowing themselves to buy into deeper utopias — the show offers a variety of different sub-level utopias in order to create an overarching one. I predict that many of these “deeper” utopias are ones that most viewers, including myself, would not like to admit that they actually buy into. This leads us to the question of how does seemingly harmless popular culture, like Gilmore Girls, allow consumers to buy into its more harmful creations of utopia?

Figuring out the basic level utopia that different pieces of popular culture offer is the initial step to answering this question. Using Gilmore Girls as an example makes this easier. The utopia is set up starting with the first episode.  First, there is the opening scene, which shows Loralei crossing the street of a small town to a coffee shop, while all around her people stroll through the town, children ride their bikes, and people sit in the town square (complete with its white gazebo). This is the small town utopia that many imagine when they think of close-knit community suburbs. People happily play and walk through the town on a cold brisk day, and as Lorelai Gilmore crosses the street toward her warm cup of coffee at the local diner, she gets to be a part of this gleeful town experience. But why is this our idea of a utopia? Taking Darren Webb’s description of utopia (which is itself based on ideas from other writers), it becomes clear; he describes a utopian text as something that creates a non-existent society that is better than the one its readers live in. In this way, the town utopia is something that we have been taught to value since we were little from all the images of the perfect white picket fence surrounded house that are constantly being portrayed throughout the media, and which stand in contrast to many of the negativities occurring in our real world. This reality does not really exist anywhere, besides in the media, but the idea of a close-knit community in which kids have the freedom to be kids and there is a local diner where all go to eat is seen as the epitome of the “good life” in America and a bastion of comfort and happiness.

This next basic utopia that I describe may seem silly, but it is almost equally as simple and important to answering our question. Most people (especially those who come from well-off families) have had it drilled into them since they were little that it is important for them to eat healthily. However, the utopia would be to not have to eat healthy (in other words, be able to eat as many waffles, slices of pizza, burgers, etc. that you want), yet still look beautiful and have no health complications. Take almost any episode of Gilmore Girls and you will see Rory and Lorelai eating pizza, pop-tarts, Chinese food, or some combination of the three, but hardly ever will you see them exercise or eat a salad. Many would call this a utopia: being able to lead a sustainable life while on that diet and still be super skinny, beautiful, and not have diabetes. Fredric Jameson describes a utopia as a sort of “fantasy bribe” and the utopia explained above fits this exactly. It is a bribe from the culture and fast food industries to eat their delicious, albeit unhealthy, food, yet experience none of the consequences from doing so.

Gilmore Girls also gives its viewers a utopia through the easy solutions it provides to the problems that the characters in the show encounter. A utopia does not necessarily mean that the people that exist in it do not encounter struggles (at least this is the case in many pieces of popular culture, including Gilmore Girls, because without struggle there would be no interesting plot line). However, it can mean that the problems encountered are more easily solved than they would be in a real life situation. An example of an easy solution to a more complicated problem is present within the first thirty minutes of the inaugural episode. When Rory is accepted to Chilton, a prestigious private school, everyone is excited, that is, until Lorelai realizes just how much money it will cost to send Rory there. Yet the solution comes easily, as Lorelai’s parents happen to be millionaires. People are not usually afforded this privilege; most people do not have millionaire parents who will just give them 50,000 dollars a year in exchange for weekly Friday night dinner with them. Even if the child happened to be the next Albert Einstein, a school like Chilton would simply be out of the cards for most families existing in our world. Rory is smart, but certainly not the next Albert Einstein, yet just like that, she is able to afford a Chilton (inset the name of any other elite private school here and it will be equivalent) education. It is in this way that Gilmore Girls gives viewers its feel good vibe. By “good vibe,” I mean a feeling that makes people who are having a bad day want to watch it: that is, problems are easily solved, there is a caring, happy community supporting your every move, and many of your actions lack the consequences that they have in the “real world.”

Now that we have established some of the contributants to the surface-level utopia presented in Gilmore Girls, a more important point is looking at the deeper utopias that Gilmore Girls subconsciously convinces its viewers to buy into. First, there is the consumerist utopia. This show is a full-on advertisement for consumerism that would make Adorno and Marx roll over in their graves. For example, the first episode is full of consumerist overtones, whether it be the big bags of makeup that Lorelai pulls out from under the table when Rory asks for chapstick, or the references to CDs, rock and roll, and movies made not only in the first episode, but throughout the entire show. The Gilmores, as well as many other characters in this show, are fully absorbed into the consumerist world. For example, Season 4, Episode 15 is titled “Scene in a Mall!” While there is some fun being poked at consumerism, I nonetheless found myself wishing that I could go to a fancy mall and shop my stress away as I bought everything I wanted, just as Emily (Lorelai’s mother and Rory’s grandmother), Lorelai and Rory decided to do this episode. Rory and Lorelai go to the mall to go window shopping because they cannot afford to actually buy anything, but soon discover that window shopping is not all it is built up to be because they cannot exist as a consumer in one of the most consumerist places on earth. They then run into Emily, who is shopping her stress away by buying the most expensive things that she sees. The idea of consumerism as a utopia is perpetuated in a subtle way; while Lorelai and Rory do not seem to be having fun in the mall, the assumption is that if they had enough money to actually buy things, their day of shopping therapy would work perfectly.  Thus, consumerism is the utopia that viewers are subconsciously wishing they existed in while they watch this show.

The second utopia that viewers subconsciously subscribe to as they watch and enjoy this show is the utopia of a class-based society. This show supports the idea of education as a means to an end and money as one of the defining factors of success (it can also be argued that the show puts emphasis on love and relationships). In other words, this show reinforces the idea that those at the top of society, particularly those with an elite education, are going to be better off in the world and that this success is the ultimate utopia. This starts with Lorelai and her desire for Rory to go to college and get a good education (something that she did not have to opportunity to obtain). While Lorelai repeatedly says that she would not change the way her life turned out, throughout the show she also emphasizes how important it is for Rory to have an elite education. The biggest fight that occurred during the series was in Season 6 when Rory decided to drop out of Yale and instead go live at her grandparents’ house. Thus, the series supports the idea of happiness and success coming from, among other things, an elite higher education., The classes in Gilmore Girls society are also made clear. High-class society is represented by Rory’s grandparents, while Lorelai, Rory, and other people in Stars Hollow (like Dean, Rory’s first boyfriend who works stocking the local grocery store) represent the middle classes. Gilmore Girls takes for granted that these classes will exist and makes no effort to emphasize an idea of social mobility. For example, Lorelai will always act inappropriately at her parents’ cocktail parties. She will always be a member of a lower class with instincts of a lower-class citizen, as evidenced by the first episode where she resorts to her middle class ways as she cleans dishes to relieve her stress (while in Richard and Emily’s house, that is a job for the maid). At the same time, Emily and Richard will remain a part of high society, a status that is mainly obtained through money and birth. Thus, Gilmore Girls viewers believe the concept of stratified society being a utopia.

Finally, two of the most harmful utopias that Gilmore Girls perpetuates is its exclusive feminist utopia and its utopia of the life of the white middle class. There are countless articles online that talk about Gilmore Girls as “‘sneakily feminist’” or list Gilmore Girls top feminist moments, but in reality, this series perpetuates a very homogeneous, privileged feminist utopia. While Rory and Lorelai are strong women who should be admired, the show should not be considered the “end-all-be-all” of feminism. The problem is that many do consider it this. Those who buy into this idea are confining their ideal feminist movement to one that is led by white, middle-class women. This utopia blends in with another utopia that the show portrays: a white suburb. There is pretty much no diversity in this show (one of the sole exceptions being Lane, Rory’s Korean best friend), which explains why the feminist utopia portrayed is that which only includes the white middle class.  Those who seek refuge in this show are seeking refuge in a white feminist world where those of other races are underrepresented and not seen to be a part of what people consider to be their ideal society and life.

Thus, popular culture like Gilmore Girls does allow consumers to buy into its more harmful creations of utopia. A generalized answer cannot be supplied by simply analyzing Gilmore Girls, for Gilmore Girls itself a conclusion can be reached. Gilmore Girls causes us to buy into deeper level utopias including those of white feminism, classism, and consumerism, by making it seem like the show is simply an escape from reality for the duration of each forty-five-minute episode. It is more than an escape from reality because the show unwillingly causes people to come to a conclusion about what their perfect life would be, perpetuating the problematic idea of what is utopic. Often that vision is one that they would never admit to themselves or others as being true.

Read by Sarah Tully.

Sources:

• Bradley, Laura. “Explain Why Gilmore Girls Is ‘Sneakily Feminist.’” Vanity Fair. (accessed

November 9, 2017)

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/09/gilmore-girls-feminist-lauren-graham.

• Garis, Mary. “34 Feminist Moments In ‘Gilmore Girls’ Season 1 That Not-So-Secretly

Empowered Us.” Bustle. (accessed November 9, 2017)

https://www.bustle.com/articles/178002-34-feminist-moments-in-gilmore-girls-season-1

that-not-so-secretly-empowered-us.

• Jameson, Fredric. “Reification and Utopia in Mass Culture.” Social Text, no. 1 (1979): 144.

doi:10.2307/466409.

• Webb, Darren. “Bakhtin at the Seaside: Utopia, Modernity and the Carnivalesque. Theory,

Culture, and Society, no. 22 (2005): 132.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276405053724.

Since I first saw The Breakfast Club when I was 13, it has been one of my favorite movies. It is simple and easy to understand; it presents an engaging and relatable story. I was thoroughly intrigued by each of the characters and fell in love with the story. Despite my love of this movie, there has always been something that I felt was off about it and I could never really place my finger on just what it was. Now I find myself wondering what the purpose of this classic, worn-out story is. There must be more to it than what it presents itself to be: a story of outcasts working to overcome differences and opposites falling in love.

On the surface, this is a movie about the breakdown of stereotypes and breaking of molds that we use to define those around us. However, in reality, even though the movie purports to break down these stereotypes, it simply reinforces them. The movie accepts the stereotypes it presents with a defeatist attitude, resigning itself and its viewers to the fact that stereotypes are an inherent part of our society. Many stories will at least attempt to provide solutions to the problems they present with idyllic endings and happily-ever-afters, yet The Breakfast Club does not even make a half-hearted attempt to do that.

The stereotypes this movie presents are extremely harmful and confining, separating all in our society into a certain number of little boxes that define people’s personalities and their lives. The worrisome part is that since this movie came out in 1985, the story has become a staple in our society; most people know the story of The Breakfast Club and view it with an endearing attitude. What does this mean for all of us who love this movie? Are we buying into its defeatist attitude and the stereotypes it presents?

To answer this question, we must first determine what the stereotypes this movie is presenting actually are. It helps to start broadly here, and realize that the surface level stereotyping that the movie does is most clear in the examples it presents of the classic high school students. For a basis, these are the types of stereotypes that people dress up as for Halloween because they are so widely recognized and accepted. The Breakfast Club states that these stereotypes do not only exist in the sense that people dress up as them for Halloween, but in the way that society works to mold people, especially teenagers, to fit into certain stereotypes.

The Breakfast Club attempts to comment on these stereotypes by exaggerating them and attempting to portray the “deeper” side to each character. For example, Brian is the classic nerd. He is smart and participates in the stereotypical ‘nerd’ clubs: “the math club, the Latin club, and the physics club.” He has been confined to this stereotype not only by those around him at school, but by his parents. In the first scene of the movie, Brian’s mom places pressure on him to “use the time to [his] advantage” and study as much as he can. In this way, his mother is forcing a stereotype onto him, in a way that leaves Brian with no freedom to figure out who he actually is. Next, John Bender embodies the stereotype of the criminal. He is the kid in high school who does not come to school or follow the rules. Thus, people assume that he is a bad person. However, the movie attempts to show that there is more to this stereotype of the criminal than most people realize, providing Bender with a back story of an abusive home life and a father who believes he is worthless. There cannot be a movie about high school stereotypes without portraying a “popular girl,” and The Breakfast Club fulfills that requirement with the character of Claire. Claire wears diamond earrings, is a participant in Student Council, has many friends, and conforms to fit in with those friends. Popular girls are often seen as lacking substance and being privileged, but the movie attempts to break this stereotype by making Claire more self-aware and showing that she dislikes the pressure she feels from those around her to act a certain way: “I hate having to go along with everything my friends say!” The popular girl is always accompanied by the athlete, who in this movie is a wrestler named Andy. In many ways, Andy fits the stereotype of the dumb jock who uses his status to bully other people (he is in detention for taping someone’s balls together) and repeatedly uses force to get what he wants. But the movie also tries to show that Andy breaks his stereotype in the way that he treats Allison and becomes vulnerable during the “confession circle.” Finally, there is Allison, who is stereotyped as the crazy, mentally-ill person. Throughout the first half of the movie, Allison barely talks, only making a few grunting noises here and there. Allison’s scream in response to what Claire says about her parents, the cinematography, the way Allison is dressed, her makeup, and her movements portray her as animal-like. In this way, the movie draws an analogy between the mentally ill and animals. This association dehumanizes the mentally ill and stereotypes them as something less than human. The story tries to break this stereotype by having Allison open up to the other characters, fall in love with the athlete, and be given her a makeover.

This all seems well and good: The Breakfast Club presents a bunch of stereotypes, but then shows the characters breaking these stereotypes and moving against the grain of society. What is the problem here? The problem is subtle because this is not exactly what the movie is doing. The movie does not actually portray the characters breaking the stereotypes they represent; instead it ingrains these stereotypes deeper into the characters’ personalities, making it so that there is no escaping these stereotypes. The stereotypes are trivialized and viewers are subconsciously led to think that the characters simply are their stereotypes. The clearest instances in which the movie does this are seen in the characters of Andy, Claire, and Allison. For example, although the “deeper” side of Andy is shown when he talks to Allison, Andy only fully begins to appreciate Allison once she has gotten a makeover, instead of simply valuing her for her personality and because he sees something in her besides her looks. Then there is Claire, who also fails to have her stereotype broken, with her “shallowness” being reinforced throughout the movie: her talent is putting on lipstick using her boobs; her major act of kindness is giving Allison a makeover; her last action in the movie is giving Bender her diamond earring. Then, of course, there is Allison. The movie makes no effort to truly combat her characterization as mentally ill, but instead perpetuates it. The issue of mental illness itself is trivialized. Allison is “fixed” by Claire when she is given a makeover. However, mental illness does not simply go away like that; it is a lifelong struggle that people who suffer from mental illness must deal with each day. Additionally, the stigma surrounding mental illness that was widely present in society then and is still prominent in the world today, was given no concrete solution. According to the movie, the mentally ill should be forever condemned to be seen as subhuman.

It would be a travesty if after all this talk about stereotypes, I did not discuss the gender stereotypes that this movie presents. These stereotypes are the most dangerous that The Breakfast Club presents because they are not as obviously presented as the previous ones discussed, and their implications are just as serious, if not more so. The movie reinforces the stereotypes often applied to women, and trivializes the discrimination that women and outcasts of society face. The first stereotype it enforces is the one that portrays women as weak beings needing the protection of men. The number of times that Claire fails to stand up for herself, and Andy or Bender feel responsible to come to her rescue is frustrating. Each time this occurs, viewers subconsciously root this idea of women as weak deeper in their minds. Another stereotype the movie enforces about women is the concept of women as objects whose function is to sit, look pretty, conform to societal pressures and be there for men to “take.” Bender thinks it is appropriate for him to touch Claire without her permission; he mainly sees Claire as a sexual object, not as a strong human who possesses her own agency. Claire makes no effort to combat these beliefs, but reinforces the fact that a woman’s job is to look pretty when she puts on makeup using her boobs and gives Allison a makeover. Claire has none of her own agency and does not work to obtain any. Thus, The Breakfast Club validates this view of women and provides no solution to the problem that half the world’s population is seen as less than the other half. The movie pushes a male agenda, and when we decide that we like the way that Claire and Allison act in the movie (and for those of us who like this movie, it is hard to say that we do not), we are supporting this male agenda. Women are weak; women need men; women are pure and their value lies in their virginity; these are the statements that we accept when we watch this movie.

We (the viewers) buy into the stereotypes presented by the movie and the breaking of these stereotypes by the characters; but in fact, this is all a lie. The stereotypes are not broken, but trivialized and further ingrained. The movie has resigned itself to the fact that the stereotypes it presents can never be overcome. When Brian asks Claire if the five of them will all be friends on Monday, Claire responds honestly saying, “I don’t think so.” The Breakfast Club takes the easy way out, and instead of providing fixes (even frivolous ones), the inherent problem of stereotypes within society is just accepted. Some may bring up the end of the movie, stating that the opposites falling in love (Bender and Claire, Andy and Allison) is a breaking of stereotypes. However, the stereotypes and the falling in love are non-sequiturs; just because the opposites fall in love, does not imply that the stereotypes were broken. Thus, this story does not provide any sort of solution to the problems in our society but only engrains them further.