STANDARD FRONTPAGE
FOR
EXAMINATION PAPERS
To be filled in by the student(s). Please use capital letters.
Subjects: (tick box)
Project X
Synopsis
Portfolio
Thesis
Written Assignment
Study programme:
Semester:
Exam Title:
English
5. Semester
Bachelor Project
Name, Student No and CPR No/
Names, Student Nos and CPR Nos of
group members:
Name(s)
Morten Wad
Rasmussen
Hand in date:
Project title /Synopsis Title/Thesis
Title
According to the study regulations,
the maximum number of keystrokes
of the paper is:
07.01.2014
A Literary Feminist Analysis Distinguishing Oppositional Tendencies of
Representing Women/Gender in Popular American Television Shows
Number of keystrokes (one standard
page = 2400 keystrokes, including
spaces) (table of contents,
bibliography and appendix do not
count)*
Supervisor (project/synopsis/thesis):
Student Number(s)
20103937
CPR No(s)
030689-1073
60.000
57.277
Brian Graham
I/we hereby declare that the work submitted is my/our own work. I/we understand that plagiarism is defined as
presenting someone else's work as one's own without crediting the original source. I/we are aware that plagiarism
is a serious offense, and that anyone committing it is liable to academic sanctions.
Rules regarding Disciplinary Measures towards Students at Aalborg University:
http://www.plagiarism.aau.dk/Rules+and+Regulations/
Date and signature(s):
07.01.2014
* Please note that you are not allowed to hand in the paper if it exceeds the maximum number of keystrokes
indicated in the study regulations. Handing in the paper means using an exam attempt.
Abstract
Recent initiatives taken by Swedish cinemas which have achieved international recognition seem to
suggest a demand for distinguishing between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ representations of women in films.
Contextualizing this issue in the framework of 21st century American entertainment, while thinking
in terms of oppositions between progressive and stagnant representations of women, what kind of
tendencies may we pinpoint and what exactly is it that distinguishes one work from the other? It
will be the argument of this research project that if one surveys popular American TV shows, one
can find evidence of a cutting-edge, progressive kind of entertainment, on the one hand, and
entertainments which seem to be characterized by inertia in terms of representations of women, on
the other.
Two individual TV shows will be examined through a literary feminist scope of analysis. By
developing on ideas detailed in prior scholarly works on the gender representations of said TV
shows, this research project will take a unique approach by relying on the theoretical framework of
Kate Millet’s Sexual Politics in the analysis of one TV show, and on Judith Butler’s theory of
gender performativity in the analysis of the other. This will be achieved in order to highlight the gap
between oppositions of gender representations which exist between the two TV entertainments.
The analysis will provide evidence for a conclusion arguing that while one TV show establishes
characters outside conventional frames of gender intelligibility, subverting the restrictions of the
gender binary which resonate with relatively recent feminist thought thus pushing the boundaries at
the progressive end of the spectrum of gender representation in entertainment, the other TV show
seem to be enforcing traditional sex roles of femininity and is thus characterized by inertia as
regards sexual politics.
Indhold
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1
Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 3
Theoretical Account ............................................................................................................................. 5
Judith Butler’s Theory of Gender Performativity ............................................................................ 5
Kate Millet’s Theory on Sexual Politics .......................................................................................... 8
Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 13
Firefly ............................................................................................................................................. 13
Zoe ............................................................................................................................................. 14
Kaylee ........................................................................................................................................ 16
Inara ........................................................................................................................................... 18
Concluding Thoughts on Firefly ................................................................................................ 20
The Walking Dead .......................................................................................................................... 22
Ideological .................................................................................................................................. 22
Sociological ................................................................................................................................ 24
Economic and Educational......................................................................................................... 26
Conclusion on The Walking Dead ............................................................................................. 28
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 30
Notes .................................................................................................................................................. 32
Works Cited ....................................................................................................................................... 33
Introduction
“Society never advances … For everything that is given, something is taken.”
― Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance and Other Essays
In October, 2013, four Swedish cinemas introduced a new rating system in the intent of spreading
awareness of gender bias as it presents itself in cinema. In order to achieve an A-rating, a film needs
to fulfill the requirements of the Bechdel-test which means that it must include at least two named
female characters who talk to one another about something other than a man (theguardian.com).
While the Bechdel-test, serving a foundation for a ratings system distinguishing oppositional gender
representations in cinema, might prove inadequate, the initiative does suggest a demand for its
purpose.
Just like Swedish cinema, popular American TV shows must be regarded a medium which
serves as “… an important ideological forum for public discourse about social issues and social
change” (Dow, Preface). Additionally, from a critical feminist standpoint, one must recognize the
fact that such television shows, as part of popular culture, contribute to a process in which “…
women’s attempts at self-definition and self-determination continue to be marginalized, silenced,
and stymied (Dow, Preface). As an example of such notions, Diana Hume George examines the
1990s American TV show Twin Peaks from a feminist scope of analysis in which she calls attention
to the interconnection between explicit portrayals of violence against women on Twin Peaks, and
how consequences of this portrayal on television are visible in society. This research project,
constituting a feminist analysis of TV shows of the 21st century, thus continues the dialectic of
gender representation in American television.
1
Thesis Question
With reference to representations of women in American entertainment – and the opposition
between conservative and groundbreaking, what kind of tendencies may we pinpoint today?
The argument which will emerge from this project is that if one surveys popular American TV
shows, one can find evidence of a cutting-edge, progressive kind of entertainment, on the one hand,
and entertainments which seem to be characterized by inertia as regards sexual politics, on the
other.
From a feminist literary scope of analysis, this project will serve as an intervention into the
contextual dialectic on gender role representations in American entertainment by critically
analyzing two individual American TV-shows and reveal a cutting-edge, progressive representation
of women and gender in one, and a stagnant and ‘conservative’ portrayal of women in the other. In
order to provide a balanced analysis, two different theories will be applied on each text as the two
differ and oppose one another in regards to representations of gender.
Effort has been invested in gathering and reviewing existing sources concerning gender on the
empirical material of this research project. This has been achieved in the intent of acquiring material
the ideas of which this project might develop upon as well as criticize. Sources are cited and due
credit is given to contributors which are all listed on the ‘works cited’ page.
A theoretical account of Judith Butler’s theory on gender performativity will be made available
as this theory will serve as to deconstruct the representation of gender on the American TV-show
Firefly. Following that, Kate Millet’s eight theorized reforms in which she contemplates the
restrictions of women under rule of patriarchy will be accounted for as this will serve as the
theoretical framework in the analysis of the successful American TV show The Walking Dead.
2
After having made account of the theoretical frameworks for the analyses of each TV show, the
analysis section, which will be divided by the analysis of Firefly and that of The Walking Dead, will
follow. Each analysis will examine portrayals of women and gender in order to explore tendencies
of gender representations in each TV show. The analysis of Firefly will be structured by characters,
examining individual (primarily female) main characters at a time.1 The analysis of The Walking
Dead, however, will be structured chronologically by headings of Kate Millet’s theorized reforms
in which patriarchy constitutes its hold over women. Those reforms that have proven noncontributive to this particular analysis have been omitted.2 However, aspects of them might be
included under the headings of other reforms of which the analysis benefits from more.
Thus, the analysis will provide evidence for a conclusion on how American entertainments
oppose one another in relation to representations of women and gender and how we may, as
examples, deem Firefly an entertainment which is cutting-edge and progressive in relation to
representations of women and gender as it adheres to relatively recent feminist thought while, on
the other hand, The Walking Dead is characterized by inertia in regards to sexual politics.
Owing to constraints of this research project, only two series are discussed in-depth. But even
from such a small sample, one can see that culture is tending in two directions at the same time.
Methodology
Because this research project will look into tendencies of American TV shows in relation to
oppositions between progressive and stagnant representations of women, a critical feminist analysis
will prove contributive in deconstructing gender representations in each of the two TV shows.
3
Because the oppositional representations of women between each analyzed TV show differ, two
separate theories have been relied upon in order to deconstruct them. This has been achieved in
order to provide a balanced analysis and not force conclusions.
An analysis of Firefly based on the theoretical framework of Millet will not be presented.
Millet’s Sexual Politics theorizes second-wave feminist thought and because Firefly is arguably
progressed in its representation of gender, Millet would prove non-contributive to an analysis of
Firefly, a show which transcends second-wave feminist thought in terms of progression. While The
Walking Dead does not, Millet’s Sexual Politics will prove contributive in arguing for the
regressive and stagnant representation of women on said TV show.
Arguably, examining The Walking Dead through the scope of Butler’s theory on gender
performativity might contribute to the thesis of this research project. However this analysis has been
omitted due to spatial limitations but may be presented during the oral presentation which will
occur under the circumstances which constitute the writing of this research project.
Owing to constraints of this research project, only two series are discussed in-depth. But even from
such a small sample, one can see that culture is tend in two directions at the same time.
4
Theoretical Account
In this segment, two feminist theories will be detailed as to provide two distinct theoretical
frameworks for each analysis. The analysis of the TV-show Firefly will rely on Judith Butler’s work
Gender Trouble (1990) in which she defines the term, gender performativity. This particular term
will serve as the main contributor to the analysis of Firefly and therefore, only the first chapter of
Gender Trouble, “Subjects of Sex/Gender/Desire” will be made an account of.
The analysis of The Walking Dead will rely on the work, Sexual Politics first published in 1969
by Kate Millet. In chapter two of Sexual Politics, Millet theorizes the impact of patriarchy upon
women through eight individual items of theory. These eight items will serve as a structure for the
analysis of The Walking Dead as well as the theoretical framework and so, the eight items shall be
made account of.
Judith Butler’s Theory of Gender Performativity
Judith Butler begins the first chapter of Gender Trouble, named, Subjects of Sex/Gender/Desire, by
criticizing former central assumptions of feminist discourse concerning the ‘subject’ of feminism.
She contests the fact that “… feminist theory has assumed that there is some existing identity,
understood through the category of women, who not only initiates feminist interests and goals
within discourse, but constitutes the subject for whom political representation is pursued” (1).
Butler states that the subject of women cannot be understood in stable or abiding terms, thus
feminist discourse itself is at risk of excluding subjects whom do not meet the qualifications of the
constituted subject of women because “… the qualifications for being a subject must first be met
before representation can be extended” (2).
Another issue which complicates the constitution of the ‘woman-subject’, is the fact that the
term fails to be exhaustive in it does not take into account the complications of class, ethnicity,
5
sexuality and other dimensions of identity. Thus, “… it becomes impossible to separate out
“gender” from the political and cultural intersections in which it is invariably produced and
maintained” (3).
Furthermore, Butler criticizes the feminist assumption that there is a universal basis for
feminism. That is, that feminism seeks representation through the assumption of a universal
patriarchy proven by examples or illustrations within concrete cultural contexts. However, because
the aim has been to cast light on the universality of patriarchy which existence was assumed from
the start, the concrete contexts in which oppression has occurred in distinct times and places has not
been accounted for (3). Thus, “The suggestion that feminism can seek wider representation for a
subject that it itself constructs has the ironic consequence that feminist goals risk failure by refusing
to take account of the constitutive powers of their own representational claims” (4). Instead, Butler
suggests a new feminism which would “… reflect from within a feminist perspective on the
injunction to construct a subject of the ontological constructions of identity” (5). A new feminism
which goal would be to “… free feminist theory from the necessity of having to construct a single
or abiding ground which is invariably contested by those identity positions or anti-identity positions
that it invariably excludes” (5).
Butler moves on to criticize a further complication of the unity of “women”. That is, the split
which is represented in feminist discourse between sex and gender distinctions in which sex is
biologically determined whereas gender is a cultural construct. She deems this distinction a fallacy
by the argument that sexed bodies cannot signify without relying on the culturally constructed
discourses of gender; “gender is not to culture as sex is to nature; gender is also the
discursive/cultural means by which “sexed nature” or “a natural sex” is produced and established as
“prediscursive” prior to culture, a politically neutral surface on which culture acts” (7) thus, she
deems both gender and sex cultural constructs and the distinctions between them a fallacy.
6
Butler moves on to outline the role of women in patriarchal society as accounted for by Simone
De Beauvoir and Luce Irigaray. She explains how De Beauvoir regard women the ‘other’ to man, a
subject which is restricted in a confined space defined by restrictions of masculinity (Butler 8-9).
Irigaray, on the other hand, regards women as excluded from representation within a “… language
pervasively masculinist, a phallogocentric language … women represent the sex that cannot be
thought, a linguistic absence and opacity” (Butler 9). Butler concludes that both theorists hide the
impossibility of “being” a gender at all while they both insist on deeming women a subordinate
subject in need of representation.
Butler returns to the conceptualization of ‘woman’ and ‘unity’ questioning what identity really
is. Furthermore, she questions how assumptions of the construction of identity inform discourses on
“gender identity” (16). She claims that identity is constructed through, “… becoming gendered in
conformity with recognizable standards of gender intelligibility” (16). Furthermore, she defines
intelligible genders as; “… those which in some sense institute and maintain relations of coherence
and continuity among sex, gender, sexual practice, and desire” (17). Referencing Foucault, she
explains that, “the notion that there might be a “truth” of sex … is produced precisely through the
regulatory practices that generate coherent identities through the matrix of coherent gender norms”
(17). Butler comments on the arguments of De Beauvoir and Irigaray stating that women are neither
the “Other”, nor an unrepresented subject but that rather; the appearance of a woman, as the
appearance of gender, is “… produced by the regulation of attributes along culturally established
lines of coherence” thus, gender is performativily produced and compelled by the regulatory
practices of gender coherence … gender proves to be performative – that is, constituting the identity
it is purpoted to be” (24-25). Butler elaborates and claims that gender is always a doing, a constant
performative act of attributes which are culturally associated with it. She concludes the theory by
7
stating that, “There is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender; that identity is
performativily constituted by the very “expressions” that are said to be its results” (25).
Kate Millet’s Theory on Sexual Politics
In the introductory section to the second chapter, Theory of Sexual Politics of Sexual Politics, Kate
Millet defines the usage of the term ‘politics’ as referring to “… power-structured relationships,
arrangements whereby one group of persons is controlled by another.” She deems her writing;
“tentative and imperfect … because the intention is to provide an overall description, “…
statements must be generalized, exceptions neglected, and subheadings overlapping and, to some
degree, arbitrary as well” (24). Kate millet deems American society a patriarchy and acknowledges
the institutionalization of the birthright priority whereby males rule females and elder males
dominate younger. She also acknowledges, however, contradictions and exceptions as existing
within the patriarchal system of power (24-25). Furthermore, Millet continues to define patriarchy
through eight reforms in which it occurs in American society.
Ideological
Millet states that sexual politics of the patriarchal system “… obtains consent through the
‘socialization’ of both sexes to basic patriarchal polities with regard to temperament, role and
status” (26). Temperament involves aligning human personality along stereotypical lines of “sex
category” those being masculinity and femininity. The temperamental behaviors are assigned; “...
aggression, intelligence, force, and efficacy in the male; passivity, ignorance, docility, “virtue”, and
ineffectuality in the female. Millet defines sex role as a term which complements temperamental
behaviors; it “… decrees a consonant and highly elaborate code of conduct, gesture and attitude for
each sex.” The sex role of females is assigned domestic serve and attendance upon infants and “…
the rest of human achievement, interest, and ambition to the male” (26).
8
Biological
Millet claims in this section that the temperamental distinctions of masculine and feminine do not
appear to originate from human nature. She argues how the heavier musculature of the male is
biological in origin but also culturally encouraged – she disregards male physique as a factor of
male supremacy in civilized society and claims that facts that suggest the two factors to be
interconnected in origin are speculations and lacking evidence (27). Millet further claims that said
arguments are irrelevant to the explanation of the emergence of patriarchy but argues that said
arguments contribute in enforcing temperamental behavior and sex roles which are encouraged by
the fallacy of biological (and psychological) distinctions made between males and females (32-33).
Sociological
Millet defines the relationship between patriarchy and the institution of family as the family
functioning both as mirror of and connection with the larger society; a patriarchal unit within a
patriarchal whole. “Mediating between the individual and the social structure, the family effects
control and conformity where political and other authorities are insufficient” (33). She describes the
family as a fundamental instrument and foundational unit of patriarchal society as well as its roles
as prototypical. The family encourages members to adjust and conform, acting as an agent of
patriarchal society. Furthermore, she states that the three-split relationship and interconnection
between family, patriarchal society and the state are essential for making a patriarchal society
function (34).
Millet accounts how the main function which the family serves patriarchal society is the
socialization of the young into the patriarchal ideology’s prescribed attitude towards sex role,
temperamental behavior and status (35). Millet argues that said socialization is reinforced though
peers, schools and media, as well as other formal and informal sources. Because children and
women are confined within the structure of the patriarchal family, “… the status of both child and
9
mother is primarily or ultimately dependent upon the male. And since it is not only his social status,
but even his economic power upon which his dependents generally rely, the position of the
masculine figure within the family … is materially, as well as ideologically, extremely strong” (35).
Class
Millet argues that the castelike status of women is liable to confusion in relation to class because
status is dependent upon economic, social, and educational circumstances of class and certain
women therefore might seemingly, but falsely, appear to stand higher than some men. However,
Millet argues that the sexual hierarchy within patriarchal society transcends all other factors of
status (36). She concludes that; “… whatever the class of her birth and education, the female has
fewer permanent class association than does the male. Economic dependency renders her
affiliations with any class a tangential, vicarious, and temporary matter.”
Another effect of the confined status of women in regards to class in patriarchal society is
opposing women against one another. Millet argues that this effect is visible in the past in the
antagonism between “whore and matron” and later, between career woman and housewife. Millet
defines the effect in which; “One envies the other her “security” and prestige, while the envied
yearns beyond the confines of respectability for what she takes to be the other’s freedom, adventure,
and contact with the great world” (38).
Economic and Educational
In this section of theory, Millet contemplates how one efficient aspect of patriarchy lies in the
economic hold of males over women. While women might work, the reward of the work will differ
and favor the male. She argues that; “In a money economy where autonomy and prestige depend
upon currency, this is a fact of great importance” (40). However, rewards of work favor males
because domestic work and personal services has no market value (41).
10
As for education, Millet argues that in traditional patriarchal society, minimal literacy was
permitted to women, whereas men were to enjoy the full benefits of higher education (42). This
constitutes a problem for women because; “if knowledge is power, power is also knowledge, and a
large factor in their subordinate position is the fairly systematic ignorance patriarchy imposes upon
women” (42).
Force
Because of patriarchy’s successful system of socialization we do not normally associate patriarchy
with force. Millet argues, however, that examples of brutal force are implemented in even modern
patriarchal systems. Millet exemplifies the institutional power of governments over female bodies
in relation to abortion and the act of rape which she also deems a reliant of patriarchal force (44).
Other examples of force include; misogynist literature and the abatement of censorship allowing
explicit portrayals of masculine hostility in sexual contexts (45-46).
Myth and Religion
Millet goes on to defining how myths and religion has contributed to enforcing patriarchal
ideologies. She contemplates how “… the female did not herself develop the symbols of which she
is described” thus, the image of woman is shaped and fashioned by males to suit their needs (46).
She exemplifies myths which have contributed to shaping the perception of women, by men, such
as the classical tale of Pandora and the Biblical story of the Fall. (46-50). Furthermore, Millet
claims that patriarchy “… has God on its side …” and that Christian ideology has contributed in
enforcing patriarchal ideologies by the favor of the male sex in religious authority (such as the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) (51-52).
11
Psychological
Millet argues that, “the aspects of patriarchy already described have each an effect upon the
psychology of both sexes” (54). The status, temperament, and role are being deemed value systems
with psychological ramifications for each sex. The system and rank of patriarchal society defined
by the prototype of the family provides the main implication. All of the listed items however
contribute to women developing “… group characteristics common to those who suffer minority
status and a marginal existence” (55). She exemplifies such characteristics of women as; “group
self-hatred and self-rejection, a contempt both for herself and for her fellows – the result of that
continual, however subtle, reiteration of her inferiority which she eventually accepts as a fact” (56).
In conclusion, Millet deems the greatest psychological impact of patriarchy its universality and
longevity (58).
12
Analysis
Firefly
In her essay, Mars Needs Women, television-writer and novelist Maggie Burns contemplates how
the science-fiction genre is flawed; “Modern sci-fi television has its roots in a genre historically so
sexist that women and the messy realities of life are identical, both eradicated … except for the
occasional beautiful scientist’s daughter who needs to be rescued” (17). She exemplifies Star Trek
and Stargate SG-1 as science fiction television shows which both insist “… on framing so many
narratives within [a] … male-dominated militarized hegemony” while excluding women of
different kinds, namely; “… the rich and poor, strong and weak, brave and scared” (17). Burns
argues, that the only women who fit the typical narrative of the sci-fi genre are; “… capable and
tough women, women who are essentially men, and not just regular men like you and I know, but a
Navy Seal in a D-cup woman suit … [without] one single trait that we would recognize as
belonging to a female human” (19). As Burns argues, women constitute a minority in the
contemplated examples of sci-fi television series, a minority which consists of women who, though
“capable” and “tough”, have merely adapted to standards of conventional masculinity. In contrast,
as this analysis will argue, Firefly presents female characters of gender complexity, rather than
molds of masculine standards. Laura L. Beadling argues that; “Firefly offers rich ground for
continuing discussions about how media can shape perceptions of the possible and the desirable for
the future of feminism”, and states that, “Whedon’s work continues to provide not just ‘good’ or
‘bad’ images of women but … complicated representations of women who fall into different
categories of feminism” (Beadling 62). Based on Burns’ introductory analysis of female characters
on Firefly, as well as other academic works, this analysis will investigate female protagonists on
board the spaceship Serenity by relying on Judith Butler’s theory on gender performativity and
examine how said characters are constructed outside frames of gender intelligibility which will
13
serve as an argument deeming Firefly a TV-show which displays progressive tendencies of
representing women and gender as said representations resonate with the relatively recent feminist
thought.
Zoe
This segment of the analysis of Firefly will investigate the character of Zoe and how she is a
complex character construct created in a disregard for frameworks of gender intelligibility.
Furthermore, Zoe’s relationship with Serenity’s pilot, Wash, will be analyzed and explained in the
terminology of Butler’s theory on gender performativity.
While Mal is the commander of Serenity, Zoe is ranked second in command, she wields
shotguns and pistols as skillfully as any male character on the show and she offers strategic insight
during combat. These traits become apparent to viewers early on the show and before audiences
learn more about her, Zoe is applicable to the formula of a female character who has been allowed
in the narrative because her female sex is accepted only by the combination of her ‘masculine’
attributes and woman body (Burns 19). However, described by Natalie Haynes as, the fallacy, that
women cannot be strong, capable and shotgun-wielding in a traditional (sci-fi, militarized) male
milieus without giving up everything associated with traditional feminine values (20), is subverted
in the episode Shindig (1.4) in which Zoe contemplates her desire for a slinky dress. Jayne, who
seems to would like to see Zoe in such a dress, offers to chip in, to which Zoe responds, that he
should remind himself how she is able to physically hurt him. In this scene, Zoe is awed by her
beauty and femininity whilst respected for her capability and conventionally perceived masculine
‘toughness’.
Other than desiring slinky dresses, Zoe abides to other traditionally perceived feminine traits; in
the concluding scene of episode 10, Zoe cooks dinner (referred to as wife-soup) for her husband in a
14
traditional gender manner and he is even let off slapping her behind while she serves him food.
Beadling concludes that the scene constitutes; “the gender roles in their marriage [as]
unconventional and flexible, and both partners … are satisfied” (54). Because Zoe cannot be pinned
on a spectrum in between notions of femininity and masculinity, rather, she manifests traits of both.
Said attributes, whether they may stem from conventional femininity or masculinity, are valued
equally by other members of Serenity. With the latter argument in mind, Zoe manifests Estelle B.
Freedman’s definition of feminism as regarding men and women, and the values associated with
masculinity and femininity as of equal worth – that equality between genders do not mean that
women should necessarily adhere to ‘male standards’ (as the contemplated examples of women in
Stargate and Star Trek are). Rather, femininity and the traits, that are culturally associated with it,
should be considered of equal worth to conventional masculinity (Freedman 7).
Other than representing an aspect of feminism as defined important by Freedman, Zoe subverts
the regulation of attributes restricted by the gender binary as she does not adhere to conventional
acts of neither masculinity nor femininity. Because she is on one hand; a ‘warrior-woman’ (as
referred to by her husband in episode three), skilled in handling guns, a war-veteran (episode 10)
and on the other hand; a feminine woman with a desire for slinky dresses and a wish for birthing
children (episode 13), Zoe exemplify a tendency on Firefly of subverting recognizable standards of
gender intelligibility
As discussed, Zoe and Wash’s relationship does prove to consist of “unconventional and
flexible” gender roles. This aspect of their relationship, however, proves a challenge to Wash in
episode 10 when he contests Zoe’s rather ‘masculine nature’. Wash tries to claim back what he
perceives as his inferior and lacking masculinity by insisting on taking Zoe’s place on a dangerous
mission. Wash inevitably fails to do Zoe’s job, leaving her to save him and the captain from the
torture and death of a villain who has taken them both captive. Zoe saves the day by relying on
15
negotiation- and gun-fighting skills. The episode is concluded with Wash coming to a realization
that while his nature is not as harsh nor brutal and ‘masculine’ as Zoe’s, he is still equally as
valuable an asset to the ship – and to her, only not in the traditionally masculine manner of which he
tried to live up to. Instead, Wash realizes that “… his role as pilot is crucial in making their outlaw
existence work” (Beadling 57). To put Wash’s insecurity into the terminology of Butler, Wash feels
inadequate, because he is experiencing a feeling of incoherence between his gender and his role
within his heterosexual relationship with Zoe. Because Wash does not accomplish his mission of
over-masculinizing his wife, the narrative of Firefly allows for the survival of their relationship on
the grounds that, and because, they do not contribute in maintaining “… relations of coherence and
continuity among sex, gender, sexual practice, and desire” (Butler 17).
Kaylee
In Beadling’s feminist analysis of Firefly, in which she investigates the ‘girly’ mechanic, Kaylee,
she contemplates that Kaylee is “… a complexly gendered character who cannot be adequately
described via essentialist notions of masculine or feminine” (61). The negotiation of gender
displayed in the character of Kaylee contributes to a pattern in Firefly of transcending stereotypes of
gender binarism.
Kaylee is the mechanic of Serenity. Oftentimes she is displayed with dirt on her face wearing
denim overalls and with a wrench near at hand. In episode four, audiences learn that, despite her
conventional masculine attributes, Kaylee is fascinated by and speaks a desire to own a ruffled pink
dress. Said dress is commented on by Beadling, who deems the aesthetics of the dress “overdone”
and “exaggerated” in how feminine it is (60).3
The mixture of conventional masculine and feminine traits of Kaylee becomes more overt
throughout the show. Kaylee adheres to conventional feminine ideological values during conflicts
16
and contributes to debates by offering solutions. Oftentimes, she acts the role as diplomat on
Serenity, resolving conflicts between crewmembers, tending the morale and emotional state of the
ship, just as she tends the engine, the heart, of Serenity. That does not mean, however, that female
characters of Firefly are restricted to feminine ideological opinions – in episode five, Zoe abides to
a cynical and conventionally conceived masculine opinion regarding the fate of Simon and River.
Even though they are in dire need of help, Zoe, rationally, regards them a non-contributive and
dangerous influence on the ship and therefore expresses her opinion of not coming to their aid,
leaving them to their fates.
The complex construct of Kaylee, in terms of gender, is represented in several other aspects of
her character. For instance, Kaylee displays a liberated sexual attitude in episode 11 in which she
playfully expresses a wish to acquire the services of male prostitutes in a brothel in which the crew
are residing. In addition, in episode eight, audiences learn that Kaylee acquired her job as the
mechanic of Serenity at random because she was having sexual intercourse with the man who, at
the time, was in the position of the job. Mal catches the two in flagrante delicto and seems ready to
banish the both of them before Kaylee expresses how she is able to improve the performance of the
engine, unlike the man she just had sexual intercourse with. She proves herself in a debate between
the two, Mal fires the former mechanic and hires Kaylee instead. This scene does not only display
Kaylee as a sexually liberated woman – it illuminates her as a complexly constructed character
enjoying random sexual encounters as much as she enjoys discussing motor science. Kaylee’s
affection for Simon further develops on said complex character construct as audiences learn that
Kaylee is a traditional romantic when it comes to relationships – in several episodes dealing with
the relationship between Kaylee and Simon, it is explicitly portrayed how Kaylee expects Simon,
the man, to take initiative and to contemplate his feelings for her and not the other way around.
17
In the introduction to the analysis of Kaylee, Beadling is referenced stating that Kaylee ”…
cannot be adequately described via essentialist notions of masculine or feminine” which, given what
has been summarized about Kaylee thus far, seems an adequate conclusion. Kaylee cannot be
described via said essentialist notions because her character is constructed in disregard for the social
boundary of gender binarism. The appearance of Kaylee’s gendered self, or “core gender”, does not
seem to be defined by attributes of culturally established lines of coherence as we might recognize
them. One might suggest that the science fictional universe of Firefly allows for a subverting of
gender intelligibility simply because the culturally established lines of coherence as we know them
have been dismantled in the futuristic universe of Firefly.
Inara
As has been constituted above, several characters on Firefly are constructed outside frameworks of
gender intelligibility because the futuristic universe of Firefly has allowed for a transcendence of
culturally established frameworks of gender coherence. Arguably, Inara is a lesser complicated
character in terms of representations of gender, however, this analysis will investigate how
interpretations of Inara as a woman relies much on ones preconceptions about gender and social
class.
While living among the crew of renegades and rebels onboard Serenity, Inara is a member of
high society of the universe circa 2500. In episode three, when Inara is interrogated by the Alliance
officer who is on the lookout for Simon and River, he comments on her elitist societal rank; ““It’s a
curiosity, a woman of stature such as yourself fall in with … these types”. In several episodes, Inara
is referred to as the ship’s Ambassador, because her status in society allows the crew of Serenity to
engage with people whom they otherwise could not. In episodes 1, 4, and 10, Inara socializes with
other members of high-society and attends parties of governors and leaders. In episode one, during
a conversation between Inara and Sherperd, audiences learn that Inara is highly educated and has
18
dedicated most of her life to studying literary arts and philosophy. She differs from her fellow
crewmembers in both her elitist status and level of education, the latter exception not counting
Simon, who is a surgical doctor. However, the interesting aspect of the character of Inara is that the
profession which she has spent most her life studying for and which allows her the status of high
society in the universe of Firefly, is the fact that she is a ‘Companion’. The term in contemporary
tongue which comes closest to defining a companion is that of a courtesan. It is important, however,
to note, that her high society status is not something she has acquired in exchange for her sexual
integrity. Rather, in the universe of Firefly, companions are highly respected for, and because of,
their profession (episode 1 & 2).
In his essay in which he compares the profession of Companions to that of the heteras of ancient
Greece, Andrew Aberdein discusses how Inara “defeats the audience’s preconceptions about
prostitution” when revealing the level of education of which she is required by law to obtain, in
order to be a member of the Companion guild (64). However, while Inara might subvert
preconceptions about prostitution, this aspect of her character does provoke an interesting debate
regarding her place within a spectrum of power in regards to her gender, social class and profession
– as Beadling questions it; “is she the typical hooker with a heart of gold? Or is she an empowered
woman deploying her sexuality for monetary gain, yet doing so as a member of a dignified
profession?” (62). While her level of education suggests the latter, the fact that Inara is presented as
‘Accompanying’ mostly young, nervous men makes her able to be presented in a positive light,
contrary to “if she specialized in, say, married men”, an example, provided by Aberdein, which
would demean her profession in terms of morality (67). Rather, by depicting Inara as aiding young
male virgins, she dodges many moral conflicts with only one remaining; said conflict relies on
interpretation, but one might argue that Inara serves heterosexual male fantasy if one were to
consider her a willing whore who is able to make boys become men for simple monetary exchange.
19
A similar example of the ambiguity of Inara plays out in episode 10. Inara meets with an
ambassador of political importance. When Jayne realizes that the customer of Inara’s is a woman,
the encounter is sexualized as to serve Jayne’s heterosexual male fantasy of lesbianism when he
rushes off saying; “I’ll be in my bunk”. Again, Inara can be interpreted as either sexually liberated
or as serving heterosexual male fantasy.
As this analysis illustrates, while the character of Inara is not constructed as to subvert nor
transcend stereotypes of gender binarism, the character of Inara is multivalent and does seem to
offer ground for discussions on the many aspects in which power relations might be considered in
regard to gender, sexuality and social class as well as how interpretations of audiences relies on
their preconceptions of such.
Concluding Thoughts on Firefly
Throughout this analysis, it has been argued how characters of Firefly are constructed outside
traditional frames of gender intelligibility so that they cannot be adequately described via
essentialist notions of masculine and feminine. This allows for a complex portrayal of gender in
which the differences in femininity and masculinity in between individual characters of the same
sex, is larger than they generally are between male and female characters of the show. This is a
continuously displayed tendency on Firefly and a result of character construction as it adheres to
Butler’s notion of gender performativity and how regulatory discourses allow for a distinction
between the oppositions of male and female, the lines between which are blurred, or non-existent in
the futuristic science-fictional universe of Firefly.
Thus, Firefly presents audiences with characters and heterosexual relationships which are both
likeable and relatable. By constructing said characters outside frames of gender intelligibility,
Firefly might contribute in changing the cultural and social perception of fixed gender identities and
20
in doing so, subvert the gender stereotypes which are oftentimes depicted on television such as the
previously mentioned militarized D-cup woman-soldier. Beadling suggests that Firefly thus, “…
offers rich ground for continuing discussions about how media can shape perceptions of the
possible and the desirable for the future of feminism” (62).
21
The Walking Dead
Contrasting the comic-book version of The Walking Dead to the TV series, Jeffrey A. Sartain
argues that, “the print version often features more complex notions of gender that are congruent
with feminist deconstructions of binary stereotypes, while the television series tend to fall into
affirmations of dualistic gender stereotypes that overvalue traditional masculinity” (250). The TV
version of The Walking Dead does seem to favor conventional masculine attributes while female
characters are mainly confined to roles of “… love interests, or they are there to cook for you … left
in the kitchen and at the laundry tubs” (Olmstead 29). Sources seem to suggest a tendency in The
Walking Dead of portraying women confined within stereotypical sex roles of conventional
femininity. Said confinements of female characters of The Walking Dead resonate with the
patriarchal hold over women which second-wave feminism sought to criticize through the
deconstruction of patriarchal society. It is the aim of this analysis to deconstruct representations of
women in The Walking Dead by relying on the theoretical framework outlined in Kate Millet’s
Sexual Politics by structure of her eight defined reforms in which patriarchy restricts women in
society. This will be achieved as to present The Walking Dead as characterizing a moribund
disregard of feminist progressiveness as it is displayed in the show’s representation of women.
Ideological
Analyzing characters of The Walking Dead in regard to temperament, role, and status, we are able
to outline two oppositional patterns categorized “male” and “female” which resonates with
patriarchal sexual politics as defined by Kate Millet.
Characters of The Walking Dead are constructed along the lines of the stereotypical sex
categories; male and female, and the traits in personalities which Millet defines as belonging to
them.
22
In episode three of season one, the passivity of women is explicitly on display. While Rick,
Daryl and Glenn are venturing into the zombie-infested city of Atlanta on a mission to save a fallen
member of the group, Andrea, Amy, Carol and Jacqui are tending laundry near the encampment.
Carrying a basket of dirty clothes, Jacqui states; “I’m beginning to question the division of labor
here”. Carol concludes the discussion which could have been by stating that; “It’s just the way it
is.” In this scene, the four women are established within their limited sex roles as defined by Millet;
the women are assigned “…domestic service and attendance upon infants …” while Rick, Daryl
and Glenn, on their dangerous venture, are assigned “human achievement … and ambition” (26).4
One incident on The Walking Dead which Sartain calls attention to in relation to his argument
against notions of passivity among the women on The Walking Dead occurs in episode four. In this
episode, Amy and Andrea do show initiative and capability when they succeed in fishing. Sartain
states that; “The sisters’ ability to provide fish to the group inverts standard gender assumptions
about the passivity of femininity and signals their agency within the group and as individuals”
(260). However, in the same episode, audiences learn that the sisters’ owe their skill of catching fish
to their father and that the fishing gear was provided by Dale. Hence, the catching of fish relied, to
significant extent, on the dependence of males. In addition, one must recognize the fact that
characters such as Rick, Daryl and Glenn, on their missions into the city of Atlanta, continuously
display masculine traits of intelligence, force, efficacy and ambition which guarantees them a
superior status of power while the single initiative taken by Amy and Andrea of providing the group
with fish, does not. While Amy and Andrea do subvert the code of conduct of stereotypical sex
roles, the initiative of two women does not compare to the skills and attributes displayed by their
oppositional male superiors.
23
Sociological
The structure of power on The Walking Dead resonates with that which is defined by Millet in how
the patriarchal family serves as its prototype. In this section of analysis, it will be examined how
defiant attitudes towards the power structure of the patriarchal family results in societal
exclusiveness and displacement.
Early on the show, while Rick is trying to make his way to his wife, Lori, and his son, Carl,
audiences learn that Lori has engaged in a sexual relationship with Rick’s former colleague, Shane.
In episode two, Lori meets with Shane in the woods for a secret, sexual encounter. Lori takes off
her wedding ring and necklace holding a picture of Rick and engages in sexual intercourse with his
former partner. From the very start of the show and throughout, Lori is thus portrayed as a woman
willing to give up her sexual integrity in order to secure her chances of survival by relying on the
strength and protection of a, though temporarily replaced, family patriarch. This resonates with
Millet’s outline of the psychological consequence of women who are confined by patriarchal rule;
“The female is continually obliged to seek survival or advancement through the approval of males
as those who hold power. She may do this either through appeasement or through the exchange of
her sexuality for support and status.” (54) When reunited with Rick, who quickly proves the most
capable leader of the group of survivors, Lori disregards her relationship with Shane. From here on
out, Rick is in the position of power of the group of survivors which establishes the authority of
patriarchal leadership at the center of the show. Shane, in his attempt to reconnect emotionally with
Lori, rivals Rick which ultimately leads Rick to kill him in episode 12 of season 2. Under the
patriarchal rule of Rick, the previously examined temperamental behavior and sex roles of the
women of The Walking Dead are enforced by disallowing them possession of guns and restricting
them to domestic chores and childcare.
24
Jacqui whom, as we saw, was the first woman to question the inferior status of the female
survivors is killed in episode six of season one. However, Andrea takes her place as the single
capable woman who expresses defiant attitudes toward the patriarchal rule of Rick. When Andrea is
banned from the farmhouse well into episode 10 of the second season, following the discussion
between Lori and Andrea, it is as much a consequence of her unwillingness to accept her place
among the other women confined to the chores of domestic work and childcare, than it is a
consequence of her offering Beth the choice of suicide. Thus, the individualistic, non-confined
woman, Andrea, whom, prior to her banishment, has continually expressed defiant attitudes towards
the sex roles enforced by the patriarchal establishment with Rick and Lori at center, is banished
from the farmhouse which houses the inner-circle of the group of survivors. As an argument
contributing to the previously outlined notion of stereotypical sex roles which women of The
Walking Dead embody, it should be noted that while Lori and Andrea argue in the farm house
kitchen, Rick and Shane are gathering supplies in a town nearby, killing zombies, risking their lives,
in order to provide for the women. In addition, it should be noted that Andrea is excluded from the
group completely in the final episode of season two, in which she is displaced from the group due to
a zombie attack.
The discussion between Lori and Andrea can also be viewed as an effect of patriarchy which
Millet categorizes under the reform of class: “one of the chief effects of class within patriarchy is to
set one woman against another” (38). Lori, the conservative housewife opposing the individualistic
cynic Andrea; “One envies the other her “security” and prestige, while the envied yearns beyond the
confines of respectability for what she takes to be the other’s freedom, adventure, and contact with
the great world.”
In conclusion, by Rick proving himself the most capable leader among the group of survivors,
patriarchy is established by the family of Rick, Lori and Carl at the core thus providing the structure
25
of family as the prototypical governing authority. Rick’s family may be deemed the patriarchal unit,
within the larger patriarchal society of the group of survivors. Through this establishment, while the
protection of women is secured, it is also enforcing stereotypical sex roles in which the women are
confined to domestic labor and child care and one woman who defies her defined role within the
patriarchal rule is banished and later displaced because of it.
On a side note regarding Millet’s account of the family structure serving as the prototype for
patriarchal family, we should remember to consider the character, Hershall. He is a Christian man
and references his belief throughout season two. While Rick and Hershall are the patriarchal fathers
and authorities of each their groups, the only entity which Hershall considers superior to himself
and Rick is God, a male figure. This explicitly mirrors Millet’s account of the interconnection
between the authority of religion, fatherly God, the family structure prototype, and the larger
patriarchal society.
Economic and Educational
Kate Millet defines “one of the most efficient branches of patriarchal government [as lying] in the
agency of its economic hold over its female subjects” (39). In the world of The Walking Dead,
while the monetary system of finances is dismantled, a patriarchal agency of economic hold over
female subjects is still present as male characters administer weapons and firearms, the importance
of which have transcended that of money, while being the only ones able to use them.
In episode one of season two, the rules regarding guns are established when Andrea requires her
gun back from Dale. Shane does not like the idea and insists that the women must be trained in
order to carry firearms. Arguably, Shane provides a valid argument as both he and Rick are former
police officers who are trained professionally in using firearms. However, while we learn in episode
four of season one, that Glenn used to make a living by delivering pizzas, a profession which hardly
26
involves the use of weapons, he is on missions with Rick, as in episode nine, carrying and shooting
a shotgun without having had any gun training. Even after Lori has been trained in the usage of
guns by Shane on a range, she is only let off carrying a “spare gun”, a revolver of low caliber. Dale
also carries a rifle however his former experience and capability of handling firearms goes
unquestioned. Just as Lori, other women do receive training in weapons and Andrea even turns out
to be quite the shot. (That is until she accidently shoots Daryl in episode 2.5.) However, this
concept is never developed hence the women continue to tend domestic chores.
Because the narrative never develops female characters and present them as being able to use
firearms, they are left out of most decision making as most of this goes on “in the field”, rather in
the kitchen of the encampment or the farm house.5 In addition, the world outside of their safe
establishment remains unknown to them while male characters, who are able to move around freely,
allowed by the protection of firearms, are involved and in charge of decision making as well as
making vital choices for the group. Men are able to develop ideas, strategize and plan trips to
unknown locations based on rumors they might be told of by strangers, as in episode 2.9. If we are
to contextualize the lacking knowledge of the women of The Walking Dead in the terminology of
Millet; “if knowledge is power, power is also knowledge, and a large factor in their subordinate
position is the fairly systematic ignorance patriarchy imposes upon women.”
If we are to look past the fact that Dale and Glenn’s experiences with firearms are never
questioned, there are skills other than those associated with weapons which could prove useful in
female characters on missions away from the safe establishment. For instance, Glenn is regarded as
a valuable and contributive member of the survivors because of his skill in “moving fast, silently”
(episode 1.4), a skill which require no usage of weapons. Similar attributes could have been
assigned to female characters however they are instead confined to stereotypical sex roles, cooking,
cleaning and child care. Because women of The Walking Dead are never assigned attributes which
27
might prove useful outside the confinements of kitchens and places where children are kept safe,
“… the position of women in patriarchy [and in The Walking Dead] is a continuous function of their
economic dependence” or in the case of The Walking Dead, their dependence on men protecting
them, gathering supplies for them, and making decisions for them.
Conclusion on The Walking Dead
Indeed, the established power-structure on The Walking Dead is a patriarchal one in which women
are confined to restricted conventional feminine roles in terms of role, status, class and temperament
while being “economically” dependent on men, excluded from decision making and restricted from
gaining knowledge about any aspect of the world which is decaying outside the safe confines of
kitchens and laundry tubs. Just as Millet defines her work as “tentative and imperfect”, so are we to
regard this analysis as certain aspects of the show not mentioned in this analysis would possibly
have presented themselves as slightly more positive. One such example is Maggie, who initiates a
bond of sexual intimacy with Glenn in episode 2.4 which we might deem an initiative of a sexually
liberated woman. However, one could argue that this merely contributes to the notion of women
being confined to roles of “love interests” rather than “capable survivors” as quoted by Kathleen
Olmstead in the introductory section of this analysis.
Sartain justifies the enforcement of patriarchal values on The Walking Dead by arguing that they
are due to the genre of the show. Deeming The Walking Dead a narrative of a modern western, he
argues that in order to tame the “… wilderness of danger and possibility that awaits … masculine
individualists are needed to take the virtues of civilization to the wilderness. They … share a set of
valorized qualities traditionally prefigured as masculine, such as physical ruggedness, emotional
stoicism, and comfort with violence” (253). However this argument necessitates a debate on if
women are, or rather, why they are not, able to embody such abilities even though they are
conventionally perceived as masculine. To claim that women are not resonates with the stereotypic
28
depiction of women and femininity as it displayed on The Walking Dead. Considering the
arguments detailed throughout this analysis The Walking Dead displays a moribund depiction of
women which resonates with their role under patriarchal rule as it is defined by Kate Millet.
29
Conclusion
Based on the two analyses of Firefly and The Walking Dead, it is evident that Firefly presents itself
as a progressive kind of entertainment in regards to representations of both women and gender
whereas The Walking Dead seems to be characterized by conservative and stereotypical binary
sexual politics.
Firefly not only introduces to viewers capable, independent and liberated women. It also presents
characters constructed outside traditional frames of gender intelligibility and thereby transcends the
restrictions of the gender binary. In conclusion, Firefly presents itself as a progressive American TV
show both in terms of the liberated attitude towards women as well as the representation of gender
which resonates with post-structural feminist theory of Judith Butler.
The Walking Dead, on the other hand, confines female characters to conventional roles of
femininity in resonance with Kate Millet’s defined reforms in which women have been confined
under the regulations of patriarchy. While said stereotypical depiction of sex roles and femininity
might be explained through an examination of genre, no sources offer a contributive argument as to
why women should not be able to embody the favorable masculine attributes which are restricted to
men on The Walking Dead.
While in this research project only two texts has been surveyed, a lot more are left to be
examined in order to further pinpoint tendencies of gender representations in American
entertainment. A recently released TV show which seem to push the boundaries at the progressive
end of the spectrum of opposing representations of women is Orange Is the New Black which
“…tells the sort of women's stories that are rarely, if ever, seen on our screens” (Nicholson).
Hopefully, in time, a demand for the purposes which the Bechdel-test arguably fails to provide will
30
no longer exist, not because feminism will have failed its cause, but because it has succeeded in
subverting the marginalization and silencing of women in entertainment.
31
Notes
1. One main female character which has been omitted from this project is River as the airtime
reserved for her character is limited compared to analyzed characters. It should be noted however
that one interesting aspect of the character of River is how she is an objectified victim who evolves
into an, arguably, strong woman because of it – however, this aspect of her character is limited and
not fully elaborated on before the cancellation of the show.
2. The ‘Psychological’ item of Millet’s theory, for example, does not contribute to this particular
analysis of The Walking Dead as psychological analyses of characters would prove to be cursory.
3. Beadling deems the combination of Kaylee’s ‘over-feminized’ dress and knowledgeable
conversation with the fascinated men about motor science as third-feminism’s; “… ideal of
reclaiming stereotyped versions of femininity in the name of subverting and complicating them”
(60).
4. Similar occurrences are visible in episodes; 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.3, 2.5, and 2.7.
5. Examples of contradictory examples are present but rare. One such example occurs in episode
2.11 in which female characters are invited to engage in an important decision.
32
Works Cited
Print
Aberdein, Andrew. “The Companions and Socrates: Is Inara a Hetaera?” Investigating Firefly and
Serenity. Ed. Rhonda V. Wilcox, Tanya R. Cochran. London, New York: I.B. Tauris & Co, 2008.
63-76. Print.
Beadling, Laura L. “The Treat of the ‘Good Wife’: Feminism, Postfeminism, and Third-Wave
Feminism in Firefly.” Investigating Firefly and Serenity. Ed. Rhonda V. Wilcox, Tanya R. Cochran.
London, New York: I.B. Tauris & Co, 2008. 53-63. Print.
Burns, Maggie. “Mars Needs Women.” Serenity Found. Ed. Jane Espenson. Dallas: Bendella
Books, 2007. 15-27. Print.
Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York and London:
Routledge, 1990. Print.
Dow, Bonnie J. Prime-Time Feminism: Television, Media Culture, and the Women’s Movement
Since 1970. Philadelphia: Penn, 1996. Print.
Emerson, Ralph Waldo. Self-Reliance and Other Essays (Dover Thrift Editions). Nashville:
American Renaissance Books, 2010. Print.
Freedman, Estelle B. No Turning Back: The History of Feminism and the Future of Women.
London: Profile Books Ltd, 2002. Print.
George, Diana Hume. “Lynching Women: A Feminist Reading of Twin Peaks.” Full of Secrets:
Critical Approaches to Twin Peaks. Ed. David Lavery. Detroit: Wayne State University Press,
1995. E-Book.
Haynes, Natalie. “Girls, Guns, Gags.” Serenity Found. Ed. Jane Espenson. Dallas: Bendella Books,
2007. 27-37. Print.
Magill, David. “’I Aim to Misbehave’: Masculinities in the ‘Verse.” Investigating Firefly and
Serenity. Ed. Rhonda V. Wilcox, Tanya R. Cochran. London, New York: I.B. Tauris & Co, 2008.
63-76. Print.
33
Millet, Kate. Sexual Politics. London: Rupert Hart-Davis Ltd, 1971. Print.
Olmstead, Kathleen. The Untold History of Television: The Walking Dead. HarperCollins, 2012. Ebook.
Sartain, Jeffrey A. Sartain. “Days Gone Bye: Robert Kirkman’s Reenvisioned Western The Walking
Dead.” Undead in the West II: They Just Keep Coming. Ed. Cynthia J. Miller, A Bowdoin Van
Riper. Scarecrow Press, 2013. 249-269. E-Book.
Web
theguardian.com. “Swedish cinemas take aim at gender bias with Bechdel test rating”.
Theguardian.com.
6
Nov
2013.
Web.
4
Jan
2013.
(URL:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/06/swedish-cinemas-bechdel-test-films-gender-bias).
Nicholson, Rebecca. “Orange is the New Black: web TV's breakout moment”. theguardian.com. 11
September
2013.
Web.
4
Jan
2013.
(URL:
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-
radio/2013/sep/11/orange-new-black-web-tv-breakout).
TV/DVD
The Walking Dead: Season One. Writ. Robert Kirkman, Charlie Adlard, Frank Darabont, Tony
Moore. Created by Frank Darabont. AMC, 2010. Accessed via Netflix, online.
The Walking Dead: Season Two. Writ. Robert Kirkman, Charlie Adlard, Frank Darabont, Tony
Moore. Created by Frank Darabont. AMC, 2010. Accessed via Netflix, online.
Firefly: Season One. Writ. Joss Whedon. Created by Joss Whedon. Dir. Joss Whedon. 20th Century
Fox. 2002. Accessed via Netflix, online.
34