Gender roles vary from generation to generation and from culture to culture, with each age and people forming its own definition of what it means to be male or female. Though these definitions affect all aspects of individuals’ lives, perhaps nowhere do they figure so strongly as in the search for an appropriate mate. In the United States, young women throughout the 20th century could seek out and choose partners for themselves; but parents, peers, popular culture, education, and other outside sources have shaped their image of “Mr. Right” – and of how they should go about finding him, holding on to him, and behaving appropriately as “Mrs. Right” in relation to his “Mr.” A look at a 1950 educational film and a present-day talk show segment shows contrasting views on the acceptable life focuses of women but also reveals some consistencies in how women define men – and themselves, through their relationships with men.
Choosing for Happiness, Parts 1 and 2: An educational video from 1950:
Above, the 1950 educational film Choosing for Happiness gives college-age girls advice on how to select a marriage partner. Based on the book Marriage for Moderns by Dr. Henry A. Bowman, chairman of the Division of Home and Family and the Department of Marriage Education at Stephens College (a women’s college), the video follows a college junior, Eve, through several failed relationships, as an older female college friend advises her on what she did wrong in each relationship. The film prescribes an accepting, submissive role as a wife for women. Eve, whose name itself suggests the Biblical fallibility of women, demands change from each of her stereotyped dates: Alex, the self-absorbed jock; Arthur, the clueless math nerd; Steve, the quiet handyman; and John, the no-nonsense “good guy.” Eve’s older friend explains that fault for the breakups did not lie in any of the boys, but in Eve: Changing others is “impossible”; if Eve wants to find a boyfriend, the only person she can change is herself. She must not test men, demanding that they prove their feelings for her in any way; instead, she must look very hard for someone whom she can accept as he is, with whom she can be “friends for a very long time” as a marriage partner. Women only date, the film implies, in order to find spouses; nowhere does Eve’s friend suggest that she does not have to search for a boy or could live happily post-college by herself. In this male-authored vision of women’s gender roles, Alex, the narcissistic jock, can still get a worshipful girlfriend without changing his ways; but a woman cannot expect to find a spouse without altering herself, at least a little. Marriage takes precedence; a woman can choose – she can even be picky –, but she cannot expect to demand of men as they may demand of her.
“Men to Avoid”: An interview with dating counselor Kateryna Spivak on the talk show 3 Takes:
In contrast, this segment of the present-day talk show 3 Takes, in which dating counselor Kateryna Spivak gives advice on “men to avoid” to the show’s three hosts, presents a female-authored view of gender roles and how a woman should relate to the opposite sex. Here, the counselor and hosts agree with the 1950 film, in claiming that the only person a woman can hope to change is herself – that is, she should not pursue a relationship in hopes of changing a man; but these women also claim the right to reject some men as undesirable for any woman. Where the 1950 film stated that the stereotyped men Eve rejected just needed someone “right for them,” this present-day segment allows women to pass judgment on some men as hurtful or even dangerous to women – again, stereotyped men like the “narcissist,” the “bad boy,” and the “mama’s boy.” Women, as suggested by this segment, also need not approach dating as a test stage for marriage: The hosts, all years beyond the college age of the 1950 girls, present dating advice for women, it seems, of any age. They neither champion nor declaim marriage; the present day woman, the piece seems to suggest, need not rush to find a mate – she can take her time finding just the right person and live unmarried indefinitely. She can even actively test her partner, getting him to “prove his love” by spending time with her, being constantly available, and introducing her to his friends and family. Here, a woman can still only expect change from herself; but she may also challenge men in a relationship and condemn some men outright.
Yet, the segment also implies a remaining divide between gender roles and, perhaps, a remaining hierarchy of the sexes. The hosts and counselor mention danger, doubt, and the potential for hurt and deception in the dating world many times throughout the segment, giving the sense that women must protect themselves from men and be on guard against them. Where the girls in the 1950 film placed themselves slightly below men through acceptance and denial of male fault, the women in this present-day show rank themselves as slightly below men through vulnerability and the potential for victimization. In this present-day view, men can hurt and lie to women, and women must guard themselves against these threats; but this show, at least, does not explore the possibility of women holding similar power over men. Double standards still seem to govern the definition of the female gender role, even though the standards themselves have changed significantly.
This comparison of both of these films, one from 1950 and one from the present-day, shows that, while accepted life focuses for women have changed, defining gender roles still govern the interactions of women with men. Present-day women may wait to marry or live independently and may demand more of men in relationships, but they still must remain wary of men, carefully interacting with human beings separated from women by the impassable gender divide. Though what women may expect from men has changed, the division of men from women and the strictness of gender roles, has, perhaps, remained in place.
