Friends and Masculinity 1
Running Head: Friends and Masculinity
Friends and Masculinity: A fresh portrayal of men
Erin Todd
Communication Arts & Sciences
DePauw University
Greencastle, IN 46135
Friends and Masculinity 2
Abstract
This study investigates depictions of gender in the popular sitcom
Friends.
Thirty half-hour episodes of the sitcom Friends were randomly
selected and analyzed using a modified version of Klumas & Marchant’s
(1994) categorized checklist to evaluate the portrayal of masculinity
in Friends.
In several significant ways, this study established that
male and female characters were portrayed as equals throughout the
popular series.
Postulations concerning the effects of feminism on the
portrayal of masculinity in popular media suggested that in recent
years, women have taken center stage on television, leaving men to
appear “insufferable and useless.”
Meanwhile, past studies of sitcoms
that were popular at the time Friends premiered in 1994 have suggested
that women often appear as the subject or the “butt” of jokes because
of each gender’s societal status.
This study has suggested that
although these assumptions may be true of other television’s content,
Friends managed to defy these constraints to portray male and female
characters as equals.
Key words: masculinity, gender roles, feminist criticism.
Friends and Masculinity 3
Friends and Masculinity: A fresh portrayal of men
When Friends premiered in the fall of 1994, it almost instantly
became a pop culture phenomenon.
Ratings rocketed, the show gained
mass popularity, the theme song made the Top Ten, the actors were
propelled to celebrity status and the ensemble became known as the
“Magnificent Six” (Medhurst, 1996, p.16).
When the series concluded
ten years later, it was a pop culture event.
The farewell began months
before the finale making the cover of seemingly every magazine, the
cast had a special interviews with Oprah before and after the event,
and the show merited a two-hour “Dateline” special.
The finale was
preceded by an hour of old clips, followed by Jay Leno filming the
“Tonight Show” from the series’ set, and the release of the finale to
DVD one week later.
Even after a move to syndication in 2004, Friends
was drawing larger audiences than shows on prime-time broadcast
networks (Downey, 2004, p.29).
So, what was it about this program?
What made this sitcom about twenty-somethings living in New York
drawing on “established traditions of American comedy” such a hit when
so many others like it flopped (Medhurst, 1996, p.16)?
Television is a crucial area of study.
It “has become our most
pervasive national storyteller,” our “society’s most preferred medium,”
and “the primary source of socialization” (Loeb, 1990, p.249; Fouts &
Vaughan, 2002, p. 439).
In October 2002, Nielsen Media Research found
that on average, viewers watch 30 hours and 35 minutes of television a
week; dedicating 8 hours and 27 minutes a week to prime-time television
(Nielsen Media Research, 2004).
A more recent study done by Nielsen
Media Research (2006) revealed that “the average American home now has
more television sets than people.”
with 2.73 television sets.
The typical home has 2.55 people
In addition, the study found that on
average, “a television set is turned on for more than a third of the
Friends and Masculinity 4
day – eight hours, 14 minutes”, with the average person watching “four
hours, 35 minutes of television” every day (AP, 2006).
Thus, it is
important to study as many different types of the medium from as many
different perspectives as possible.
Audience measurement information is determined using Nielsen
ratings, established by a system developed by Nielsen Media Research
“to determine the audience size and composition of television
programming” (Nielsen ratings, 2006).
After just one season, Friends
secured the anchor position for NBC’s Thursday night “Must See TV”
lineup and never left the top five Nielsen ratings (Ginsburg, 2004).
New
Season
Season
Season
Season
Season
Season
Season
Season
Season
Season
Season
Episodes
Rating/Share
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
Seven
Eight
Nine
Ten
16.9/26
20.5/33
17.5/29
16.9/28
16.5/27
15.2/25
14.2/23
16.5/26
15.2/24
16.8/26
Viewers
24.8
31.7
26.3
25.0
24.7
22.6
22.1
26.7
24.0
26.9
million
million
million
million
million
million
million
million
million
million
All
Rating/Share
16.6/26
19.3/31
16.7/28
16.4/27
15.7/26
14.0/23
13.1/21
15.3/24
13.8/22
14.4/23
Episodes
Viewers
24.3
29.4
25.0
24.1
23.5
20.7
20.2
24.5
21.6
22.8
Rank
million
million
million
million
million
million
million
million
million
million
8
3
4
4
2
5
5
1
2
3
(Ginsburg, 2004)
Nielsen Television Ratings rank the percentage of all viewers watching
television at any given time.
The Share is the percentage of
television sets in use that are all tuned to a specific program
(Nielsen ratings, 2006).
Thus, during season eight, for example, on
average, 16.5% of all households were tuned in to Friends at any given
moment and 26% of all televisions in use at the time were tuned in to
Friends.
It should be noted that the rank is based upon the
combination of all genres.
Therefore, while Friends was not always the
number-one ranked program, it was the highest-ranked comedy during its
last six seasons (Ginsburg, 2004).
Friends and Masculinity 5
Sweeps are conducted four times a year to measure “smaller local
market audiences.”
During these times, networks make special efforts
to attract as many viewers as possible (Nielsen ratings, 2006).
In
2001, as May sweeps began, Nielsen Media Research showed that Friends
placed first among both women and men in the 18-49 demographic
(Pursell, 2001).
This is particularly noteworthy because the 18-49
demographic is the most sought-after market (Pursell, 2001).
This pattern held true even into syndication.
In fact, “defying
conventional wisdom,” when Friends telecasts in syndication increased
to four times a day on cable Superstation TBS in 2001, it gained
“stronger ratings returns” (Freeman, 2001).
At the time of Freeman’s
study in 2001, in contrast to the typical trend of overexposure in
syndication, Friends had retained more than 90 percent of its ratings
since launching into the syndication market in 1998.
In 2004,
associate media director at Starcom USA, Terri McKinzie noted a trend
of new viewers being demographically similar to viewers who watched the
show the first time around, so “from a demographic perspective…the core
audience…stays the same” (Downey, 2004, p. 29).
This phenomenon
continued in 2005 when McKinzie’s observation was enforced by Friends
leading syndication ratings demographically – the show was still the
most successful among 18-49 year-olds (5.9 Nielsen rating) and even
more so among 18-34 year-olds (6.4 Nielsen rating) (Sitcoms, 2005).
Friends won an Emmy Award for Outstanding Comedy Series in 2002
and the Screen Actors Guild for Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble
in a Comedy Series in 1996.
Throughout its ten-year run, the show also
received five Emmy nominations for Outstanding Comedy Series, six
Golden Globe nominations for Best TV Series – Comedy, and five Screen
Actors Guild nominations for Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in
a Comedy Series (Friends awards and nominations, 2006).
In 2000,
Friends and Masculinity 6
Friends won the People’s Choice Awards for Favorite Television Comedy
Series and the Teen Choice Awards for TV Choice Comedy.
As of 2001,
the show and/or its actor(s) had been nominated four times by TV Guide
for awards including Favorite Comedy Series and Comedy Series of the
Year (Show information, 2002).
In addition, the show’s actors won four
Emmy, Golden Globe, and/or Screen Actors Guild awards and were
nominated upon 22 separate occasions for awards from the same award
shows.
(Friends awards and nominations, 2006).
Anther clear indication of the success of Friends is the “almost
unprecedented media blitz” that occurred in preparation of the finale
(Ginsburg, 2004).
The finale and related programming boosted NBC to an
84 percent lead over all other networks in the 18-49 demographic.
The
night before the finale, a two-hour dateline special with the Friends
cast aired leading the ratings for the time slot, even beating out
popular programs such as The Bachelor and The O.C. (Ryan, 2004).
The
finale was preceded by an hour-long “clip show” that led the hour with
36.9 million viewers.
(Ryan, 2004).
According to Nielsen Media
Research, 52.5 million viewers tuned in for its time slot.
However, as
Ginsburg notes, this only measures in-home viewing, ignoring “viewers
who watched at someone else’s home, on college campuses and in college
dormitories, at restaurants and bars, at hotels and motels, and
anywhere else where numerous Friends finale viewing parties took place”
(2004).
For example, the audience watching the episode on a big screen
in Times Square and that of more than 3,000 people sitting on blankets,
watching in a park overlooking the Hudson River in Tribeca, were not
taken into consideration (Bauder & Lemire, 2004).
Jay Leno followed up
with the cast on The Tonight Show, earning the show’s highest ratings
in six years (Ryan, 2004).
The finale was the fourth most-watched
series finale ever, behind the 1983 finale of M*A*S*H, the 1993 finale
Friends and Masculinity 7
of Cheers, and the 1998 finale of Seinfeld (Bauder & Lemire, 2004).
Due to the expansion of cable and its popularity over the last twenty
years, however, these records will probably never be broken (Ginsburg,
2004).
The episode also pulled an extraordinary ad dollar price tag –
a thirty-second spot cost advertisers $2 million!
This price was only
$300,000 less than that of a Super Bowl commercial and $400,000 $500,000 more than the typical cost of a commercial running during
Friends (Duncan, 2004).
Until the 1990s, studies of television content most often dealt
with children’s programming or the ways in which children’s behavior
was affected by television content.
Another popular approach came from
a feminist standpoint (Downs, 1981; Glascock, 2001; Glascock, 2003;
Hanke, 1998a&b; Klumas & Marchant, 1994; Mackey & Hess, 1982; Popovich
& Butter, 1983; Signorielli, 1989).
Beginning in the nineties,
research broadened slightly to include masculinity studies; however,
most inquiry has remained concentrated on the study of children and
women.
With the prominence of television in our society and the
undeniable success of Friends, it seems that there would be significant
research on those factors that contributed to the sitcom’s success.
In
addition, the three main male characters in Friends were presented very
differently than men had previously been depicted.
The move from a
patriarchal or very macho portrayal to the presentation of these
characters had been developing in other television programs before
Friends began.
sitcom.
However, none had been as wildly successful as this
Notably, Friends began at a time when masculinity studies were
beginning to be applied to television programs with greater frequency.
While there are still far fewer studies examining the role of
Friends and Masculinity 8
masculinity on prime-time television than the role of femininity, no
gender studies at all have been applied to Friends.
Gender Roles and Masculinity Studies
Downs (1981) and Popovich & Butter (1983) found that sex roles
were presented very stereotypically on television programs.
Men were
much more likely to be seen in occupation-related situations, whereas
women were typically seen in the home and acting much more emotionally
than men.
Downs came to this conclusion by looking at fourteen
regularly scheduled programs that had high Nielsen ratings and that had
one central character.
He then grouped their behaviors into eleven
categories that were associated with either males or females: home
orientation, work orientation, other activity, high sociability, low
sociability, verbal aggression, assertiveness, confidence, empathy,
emotionality, and fearfulness (1981, p. 254-255).
Popovich & Butter (1983) examined television characters using the
Broverman et al. (1972) list of sex-typed traits (p. 35).
Although
most television programs at the time tended to sexually stereotype
males and females, the subjects of their study found the stereotyped
characters to be less attractive than the unstereotyped characters (p.
38).
While the trend was to present stereotypic gender roles, this was
not necessarily the preference of audiences.
Signorielli’s research,
on the other hand, led to the conclusion that “the more time spent
watching television, the more likely conceptions of social reality will
reflect what is seen on television” (1989, p. 342).
In other words,
the study showed that the more time one spent watching television, the
more accepting they would be of the gender roles they saw depicted by
that medium.
Research conducted by Mackey & Hess (1982) shows that the
gendered standards on television are reflective of “contemporary
Friends and Masculinity 9
normative standards in terms of what men can – and should – do versus
what women can – and should do,” but that they also contribute to the
generation of these differences in society (p. 202).
Despite the fact
that these standards are typically already present in society, they
continue to be reinforced by their presence on television where they
have the access to develop ideas of gender identity and to teach
“dominant social definitions of reality” (Mackey & Hess, 1982, p. 212).
By 2001, research conducted by Glascock indicated that the
traditional depiction of sex roles were no longer as prominent as they
had once been.
In fact, he argued that, particularly in situation
comedies, these gender stereotypes are not only less prevalent, but
that females have taken “center stage,” leading to a “tendency toward
role reversal” (Glascock, 2001; Glascock, 2003, p. 178).
It was found
that female characters were “more apt to make negative comments, more
hostile, more affectionate and more concerned than males” (Glascock,
2001, p. 665).
As this change has occurred, it has been noted that men have
taken on a significantly different role.
However, as Penley & Willis
point out, “media studies has not considered masculinity a problematic
or historically troubled category” (Hanke, 1990, p. 231).
Because of
their changing role, this lack of consideration is problematic in
itself.
Robert Bly (1990), a spokesman for the men’s movement, argues
that while “feminism…may have liberated women” it has “failed to
liberate men” (Hanke, 1998b, 81). Male characters now tend to range
from being “insufferable to useless” (Glascock, 2001, p. 659).
This
role is criticized for promoting, as noted by the U.S. Surgeon General
in 2001, unhealthy images of masculinity (Good, Porter, & Dillon,
2002).
Friends and Masculinity 10
In response to this new criticism, “much ink and broadcast time
has been dedicated to scrutinizing masculinity in the latter years of
the 20th century” (Vavrus, 2002, p. 352).
Good, Porter, & Dillon (2002)
analyzed the self-disclosure of male characters and the responses to
instances of self-disclosure, as there is concern that disclosure by
men is negatively perceived.
They found that, although responses to
divulgence by men varied, it was actually somewhat positively received.
However, men tended to share negative emotions much more frequently
than positive or affectionate emotions (Good, Porter, & Dillon, 2002,
p. 425).
Klumas & Marchant (1994) noticed the lack of available research
concerning the images of men on television and that the research that
is available is frequently slanted towards women and sexism against
which the research is “launched.”
To fill this gap, they conducted a
study analyzing Coach, Fresh Prince, Cosby, Who’s the Boss, Full House,
Home Improvement, and Roseanne.
Using a checklist, they measured
traditional stereotypes, non-traditional stereotypes, and traditional
female behaviors on each of the sitcoms.
In all seven shows,
“heterosexuality was taken as a given; men and women are different;
changes in sex roles and status are confusing if not downright
problematic” (Klumas & Marchant, 1994).
Coach and Home Improvement,
specifically, responded to the feminist movement by depicting men who
feel the need to reassert their masculinity, which does not necessarily
come off in a positive manner (Hanke, 1998b).
Interestingly, Friends
premiered the year the Klumas & Marchant study was conducted.
‘Reversed’ Feminist Criticism
Feminist criticism “analyzes how conceptions of gender are
produced and maintained in persuasive messages” (Frey, Botan, & Kreps,
Friends and Masculinity 11
2000, p. 236).
Critics and researchers using this approach make the
following argument:
…people’s conceptions of the characteristics of men and women are
influenced by rhetoric describing men and women…that a masculine
view of the world has traditionally dominated rhetorical
criticism and that females’ thinking differs fundamentally from
males’, providing a distinct and valuable perspective from which
to understand and evaluate persuasive messages.
(Frey, Botan, & Kreps, 2000, p. 236)
This approach is also useful in studying masculinity if viewed from a
slightly modified approach.
As past studies have shown, television in
recent years has given “center stage” to women, often allowing them the
more dominant roles in television programming.
Thus, one could
approach a study with the following modification to the previous
perspective: in recent years, a feminist view of the world has
dominated rhetorical televisual criticism.
It has become increasingly important to consider men’s societal
role in the wake of the concentration on women’s studies that has taken
precedence in the past decades.
As the United States prepared to enter
the 21st century, a “dramatic shift in thinking about masculinity”
arose, as has been demonstrated by the changing gender roles presented
on television (Vavrus, 2002, p. 353).
This is significant because,
historically, “changes in masculine ideals” have been evidence of the
symbolic and social construction of male identity (Vavrus, 2002, p.
353).
H1:
Friends’ representations of masculinity in comparison to
its representations of femininity presented male and female characters
as equals throughout its ten-year series.
Friends and Masculinity 12
Character Delineation
[Friends] is a show about love and sex and careers and a time in
life when everything is possible…about the search for commitment
and security…and the fear of commitment and security.
Most of
all, it’s about friendship – for when you’re young and single in
the city, your friends are your family.
(Friends, 2002)
Friends is a “character-driven comedy, that comes from conversation,
not situation” (Chidley, 1995, 49).
The show is composed of an
ensemble cast, bound together through familial relationships and
professed friendship.
The interactions between all six characters and
their unique relationships with one another define how they are
portrayed throughout the series.
To understand the men’s role in
Friends, it is necessary to have a basic understanding of the whole
ensemble.
At the outset of the series, all are in their twenties, living in
Greenwich Village in New York City.
Ross Gellar is a paleontologist
who works at a museum and who will later become a professor at New York
University.
In the pilot episode it is revealed that he is in the
process of getting a divorce from his lesbian wife, who is pregnant
with his child.
He will marry a British woman at the end of the fourth
season, but it does not work out.
chef.
Monica Gellar, Ross’s sister, is a
Her apartment, along with the downstairs café – Central Perk –
serves as the main setting throughout the series.
Chandler Bing was
Ross’s college roommate who lives across the hall from Monica.
He is a
data processor for the majority of the series, but makes a career
change to advertising in the ninth season.
He and Monica begin dating
at the end of the fourth season and get married at the end of the
seventh season.
When they find out they are unable to have children,
they adopt, to their surprise, twins.
Rachel Green gets her first job
Friends and Masculinity 13
as a waitress during the first season.
She will leave that job to
begin a career in fashion, working at Bloomingdale’s and later Ralph
Lauren.
Rachel and Monica were best friends in high school.
been in love with her since he was fifteen.
throughout the series.
Ross has
They date off and on
After a drunken night at the end of the fifth
season, they get married in Las Vegas; the marriage is annulled in the
middle of the sixth season.
The eighth season ends with Ross and
Rachel living together and the birth of their baby, despite the fact
that they are not together at this point.
episode.
work.
They reunite in the final
Joey Tribbiani is an actor who is constantly looking for
He is almost never in a serious relationship, preferring to just
“hook up.”
However, he does fall in love with Rachel when she is
pregnant with Ross’s baby.
He and Chandler have a very close
friendship which generates many story lines and serves as the subject
for jokes about masculinity.
guitar and writes songs.
Phoebe Buffay is a masseuse who plays the
She is a very eccentric character with an
interesting past and very confusing family history.
She gives birth to
her half-brother’s triplets in the fifth season (she was the surrogate
mother) and marries Mike Hannigan near the end of the tenth season.
Methodology
Episodes
Three half-hour episodes from each of the ten seasons of Friends
were randomly selected, excluding special one-hour episodes, for a
total of thirty episodes.
This provided an equal sampling from each
season throughout the series.
After randomly selecting the thirty episodes that would be used,
the six main characters’ attitudes and behaviors were observed using a
checklist to quantitatively measure traditional and non-traditional
stereotypes.
Traditional stereotypes identified the “traditional role
Friends and Masculinity 14
behaviors and statuses of men.”
Typically masculine behaviors include
impatience, competitiveness, assertiveness, independence, and being
controlling and demanding.
(Klumas & Marchant, 1994)
Feminine
stereotypes identified the traditional role behaviors and statuses of
women.
Typically feminine behaviors include dependence, complaining,
whining, nagging, and being emotional and petty (Klumas & Marchant,
1994).
Non-traditional stereotypes were formed by the defiance of the
typical gendered behaviors and statuses.
Each attitude and behavior on
the checklist was measured for both genders and then compared.
The
checklist was a modified version of the checklist used by Klumas &
Marchant (1994).
Some questions were incorporated based on other
consulted studies concerning issues such as self-disclosure and the
nature of disclosure, the generation of laughter and attitudes towards,
or participation in, casual sex.
Instruments
Assertiveness.
Assertiveness was divided into two categories.
The number of times each gender was assertive sexually or in a
relationship and the number of times they were assertive with others
was taken into account.
Assertive behavior was determined by a
character taking control of a situation or speaking in an authoritative
manner.
Profession.
The number of times each gender was seen at work
and/or their profession was addressed or discussed was quantified.
Self-disclosure.
The expression of emotion, to whom each gender
expressed emotion, and the nature of the emotion being expressed was
considered.
Negative emotions were defined as “expressions of anger,
hostility, embarrassment, fear, hurt, disappointment, sadness, grief,
despair, irritation, anxiety, and [negative] sarcasm.”
Positive
Friends and Masculinity 15
emotions were defined as “expressions of love, appreciation, happiness,
excitement, and affection.” (Good, Porter, & Dillon, 2002, p. 421)
Demonstration of Concern.
Concern was demonstrated by those to
whom characters expressed their emotions.
In addition, one character
offering advice to another was considered a demonstration of concern.
Physical Contact.
The number of times each character initiated
physical contact with a member of the same sex or with a member of the
opposite sex was enumerated.
Response to Ideas.
The number of times a character shared an
idea or expressed an opinion that was respected was measured in
contrast to the number of times a character shared an idea or expressed
an opinion that was ridiculed, or laughed at.
Commands Issued.
The number of times a character issued a
command that was obeyed was measured in contrast to the number of times
a character issued a command that was ignored.
Source of Laughter.
Laughter from other characters or, most
importantly, from the audience was divided into three categories.
The
number of times a laugh was generated at the expense of a character or
at the expense of a character’s sexuality was quantified.
The number
of times a character received a laugh (when laughter was the desired
effect of a comment or an action) was also taken into account.
Casual Sex.
The number of times each gender expressed a casual
attitude about sex or engaged in casual sex was counted.
Casual sex
was defined as sex outside of a committed relationship; a casual
attitude concerning sex was expressed by the desire for or acceptance
of sex outside of a committed relationship.
Analyses
A comparative analysis of the male and female lead characters’
behaviors and role enactments was performed to determine the
Friends and Masculinity 16
relationship between genders on the popular sitcom Friends.
These
relationships were considered in comparison to past studies conducted
on gender relationships in order to evaluate the difference between the
message Friends presented concerning the matter and messages that have
been previously available on television.
Results
H1: Representations of masculinity and femininity in the sitcom
Friends will portray male and female characters as equals.
Table 1
Assertiveness
assertive: sexually or in
a relationship
assertive: with others
MALES
FEMALES
24
63
52
113
MALES
(%)
31.6
35.8
FEMALES
(%)
68.4
64.2
It was found that female characters were significantly more assertive
than male characters.
Table 2
Self-disclosure
positive
positive
positive
positive
negative
negative
negative
negative
emotions
emotions
emotions
emotions
emotions
emotions
emotions
emotions
to same sex
to opposite sex
to group
expressed
to same sex
to opposite sex
to group
expressed
MALES
14
32
21
67
22
38
25
85
FEMALES
35
17
14
66
36
17
22
75
MALES
(%)
28.6
65.3
60.0
50.4
37.9
69.1
53.2
53.1
FEMALES
(%)
71.4
34.7
40.0
49.6
62.1
30.9
46.8
46.9
It was found that males and females expressed negative emotions more
often than positive emotions.
However, proportionally, females
expressed positive emotions more frequently than negative emotions.
was also found that male characters expressed emotion more frequently
than female characters.
However, none of these differences were
It
Friends and Masculinity 17
statistically significant.
When sharing emotions, males and females
spoke equally about relationships with the opposite sex; each gender
made 15 disclosures about their current or past relationships.
Graph 1
Self disclosure
53.1
50.4
50
49.6
46.9
Frequency of disclosure
40
30
MALES (%)
FEMALES (%)
20
10
0
postive emotions expressed
negative emotions expressed
Nature of emotion
Sources of laughter
butt of joke
sexuality: butt of joke
receives laugh
MALES
167
88
297
FEMALES
93
17
279
MALES
(%)
64.2
83.8
51.6
FEMALES
(%)
35.8
16.2
48.4
Laughter was generated much more frequently at the expense of male
characters than at the expense of female characters.
Likewise, a
male’s sexuality, or masculinity, generated much more laughter than a
female’s sexuality, or femininity.
However, there was no statistical
significance between genders in regard to the reception of laughter
when laughter was the desired effect of a comment or action.
Friends and Masculinity 18
Graph 2
Sources of laughter
90
83.8
80
70
64.2
60
Frequency
51.6
48.4
50
MALES (%)
FEMALES (%)
40
35.8
30
20
16.2
10
0
butt of joke
sexuality: butt of joke
receives laugh
Sources
Other statistically significant findings:
Profession
contact with opposite sex
contact with same sex
concern for others
idea respected
idea laughed at
command obeyed
command ignored
casual sex
MALES
63
149
74
104
24
89
25
17
49
FEMALES
39
209
105
137
40
62
48
17
49
MALES
(%)
61.8
41.6
41.3
43.2
37.5
58.9
34.2
50.0
50.0
FEMALES
(%)
38.2
58.4
58.7
56.8
62.5
41.1
65.8
50.0
50.0
Male characters were seen more frequently in work environments or
more frequently discussed their careers (23.6% more often).
Female
characters initiated physical contact with members of both the opposite
and same sex more frequently than did male characters (16.8% and 17.4%
more often, respectively).
While this percentage was nearly evenly
distributed between genders, the number of times both males and females
Friends and Masculinity 19
made contact with another character was significantly higher with
members of the opposite sex than with members of the same sex.
Female
characters also expressed slightly more concern for others than did
male characters (13.6% more often).
When ideas were put forth, the ideas of females were respected 25
percent more often than were the ideas of males.
However, the ideas of
male characters were ridiculed only 13.6 percent more often than were
the ideas of female characters.
Similarly, when women issued commands,
they were obeyed 31.6 percent more often than were men when they issued
commands.
However, both genders had their commands ignored an equal
number of times.
Males and females expressed casual attitudes concerning sex or
participated in casual sex an equal number of times (49 each).
Discussion
The behaviors and attitudes expressed by the main characters on
the sitcom Friends defied many of the typical gender stereotypes
measured.
In several ways, these non-traditional stereotypes did not
lead to role reversals, but to males and females demonstrating similar
behaviors or possessing equivalent attitudes, presenting the genders as
equals.
The gender characterizations seen in Friends were unusual in
comparison to popular comedy sitcoms on air at the time that the series
premiered in 1994.
According to traditional definitions, men are more assertive than
women.
However, in Friends, the women were much more assertive.
Women
were observed being assertive sexually or in a relationship 36.8
percent more often than were men and assertive with others 28.4 percent
more often than men.
It is interesting that the women would be
portrayed as being sexually assertive more often than they are
assertive with others.
Being sexually assertive would typically be
Friends and Masculinity 20
thought of as being a very masculine trait in which propensity for the
“obliviousness to women’s feelings and concerns” is demonstrated
(Hanke, 1998b, p.86).
Women are also thought of to be more passive
which is clearly refuted by the assertive – sometimes aggressive –
behavior of the women on Friends.
This aggressive behavior likely contributed to the number of
times a female issued a command that was obeyed.
more commands than men did.
Women made twenty
While their commands were ignored an equal
number of times (17 times each), women’s commands were obeyed 65.8
percent more frequently than those made by men.
Often, when a man
issued a command it was either laughed at or not even acknowledged; but
these commands were not issued as assertively as those made by women.
When a male character assertively issued a command (in a more firm
tone, for example), the order was almost always followed.
It was found that male characters were seen more frequently in
the work place or speaking about their careers than the female
characters.
However, it is important to note that throughout the
thirty episodes, Monica’s profession, as a chef, was never mentioned,
and she was only seen once in her place of work.
other five characters.
This is untrue of the
The three male characters’ professions were
addressed or the characters were seen at work 63 times.
The females
were seen at work or heard speaking of their work 39 times.
Because
the episodes were randomly selected, it is by chance that one
character’s profession was almost completely excluded from the sample.
However, it could be reasoned that if these depictions were distributed
evenly amongst the characters, proportionally, each male’s profession
is addressed 21 times per thirty episodes and each female’s profession
is addressed 19.5 times per thirty episodes; which is much more equal.
Throughout the series there is relatively little focus on any
Friends and Masculinity 21
character’s career, but from time to time, an episode features a
character’s profession to make up that character’s story line.
Therefore, if the entire series were to be taken into account, Monica’s
profession as a chef would obviously not be excluded and the men’s
careers would receive less focus than they have in this thirty-episode
sample.
In 2001, television was criticized by the U.S. Surgeon General as
promoting negative images of men.
It was assumed that men’s self-
divulgence was negatively accepted and therefore, it would not be done
on television; or that if men did disclose personal information or
feelings, it would be in reference to “singular goals and achievements”
or the expression of negative emotions (Good, Porter, & Dillon, 2002,
p. 420).
On Friends, however, male characters actually disclosed
slightly more personal information than did women; 152 instances of
males’ self-disclosure were identified in comparison to 141 instances
of female self-disclosure.
The types of emotion expressed in these
instances of self-disclosure were remarkably similar among male and
female characters.
The differences between positive and negative
emotions expressed by each gender were not statistically significant
(females expressed positive emotion 46.8 percent of the time and
negative emotion 53.2 percent of the time; males expressed positive
emotion 44.1 percent of the time and negative emotion 55.9 percent of
the time).
Both sexes disclosed the most information to female
characters (see Table 2).
These strikingly similar patterns of self-
disclosure indicate equality among the sexes concerning expressions of
emotions, which seemingly refutes concerns conveyed by the U.S. Surgeon
General in 2001.
Because most self-disclosure was shared with female characters,
it seems logical that females would be found to express slightly more
Friends and Masculinity 22
concern for others than male characters.
Despite the fact that this
proved to be true (women expressed concern for others 33 more times, or
13.6 percent more often), men were not completely unsympathetic to the
feelings of others.
104 times.
Men expressed concern or offered advice to others
This demonstration of caring disproves the definition of
“masculine emotion” provided by Klumas & Marchant (1994) which states
that masculine emotion includes “anger, nonresponsiveness, coolheadedness.”
Clearly, if men expressed concern about the needs of
others 104 times in the thirty episodes coded, they were actually quite
responsive to others.
In addition, Klumas & Marchant (1994) made the assumption that
women would be more concerned with relationships than men.
Interestingly, males and females each made 15 disclosures about current
or past relationships.
Based upon the topics of concern expressed by
characters, it could be suggested that men and women struggle equally
between the desire for independence and the desire to have a committed,
dependent relationship.
While characters’ emotions were positively received, ideas put
forth by males and females were not as well respected.
Women’s ideas
were ridiculed 60.8 percent of the time and men’s ideas were ridiculed
78.8 percent of the time.
Often when a character presented an idea, it
was not rejected in a harsh way but was laughed at in a seemingly
friendly manner.
This almost assuredly was a result of the nature of
the comedy employed by Friends, a conversationally based comedy.
While many laughs came in response to ideas presented by
characters, even more came at the expense of the characters.
After
conducting their study on Coach, Fresh Prince, Cosby, Who’s the Boss,
Full House, Home Improvement, and Roseanne, Klumas & Marchant (1994)
Friends and Masculinity 23
concluded that “women were more often the subject and ‘butt’ of jokes
than men were.”
The researchers found that:
This conclusion is consistent with a statistical analysis
conducted by Suls and Gastoff (1981) and is consistent with
research on joking as a cultural phenomenon in general.
That is,
the higher-status groups [‘poking’] fun at the lower-status
groups…
(Klumas & Marchant, 1994)
Research conducted on Friends, came to the opposite conclusion.
Men
appeared as the subject or “butt” of jokes 74 more times, or 28.4
percent more often, than did women.
This confirms Glascock’s (2001)
assertion that women have taken “center stage” in recent years,
becoming the “higher-status” group.
It also verifies Bly’s statement
that while feminism “may have liberated women…it has failed to liberate
men” (Hanke, 1998b, p. 81).
In addition, male characters’ masculinity appeared as the subject
or “butt” of jokes 71 more times, or 67.6 percent more often, than
female characters’ femininity did.
Often times, when masculinity was
the subject of a joke, the laughs were generated by physical contact
made between two men.
When a character initiated contact, it was much
more frequently with a member of the opposite sex than with a member of
the same sex.
Males initiated contact with women 75 more times than
they did with other men, while females initiated contact with men 104
more times than with other women (however, it should be noted that
women initiated contact a total of 314 times, whereas men only
initiated contact 223 times).
It is significant that, although men
made contact with other men 17.4 percent fewer times than women made
contact with other women, men’s sexuality was ridiculed so much more
often.
These numbers support Klumas & Marchant’s (1994) conclusions
Friends and Masculinity 24
that “heterosexuality was taken as a given” and that “men and women are
different.”
While physical contact was not the only cause of
masculinity’s mockery, it was clearly much more acceptable, or natural,
to Friends audiences to see two women making physical contact than it
was to see two men making physical contact.
When women’s sexuality was
the source of a joke, the laughter was never triggered by physical
contact made with another woman.
While men may have had more jokes made at their expense, it is
crucial to note that when laughter was the desired effect of a comment
or action, there was no statistical difference between genders.
Male
characters received 297 laughs compared to 279 laughs received by
female characters (a mere 3.2 percent difference).
This is important
because in a conversationally based comedy series, the goal, in large
part, is to generate laughter.
Regardless of what was said to produce
laughter from the audience or who was in the higher-status group, male
and female characters were given equal standing in this area.
At the beginning of the series, the executive producers were
concerned with how female characters who engaged in casual sex would be
perceived.
In the pilot episode, Monica sleeps with a man on their
first date.
Because the producers did not want to turn viewers off
during the first episode or cause viewers to dislike Monica, they took
a survey of the studio audience to determine their perception of this
act.
The audience responded that it did not matter to them that she
participated in this behavior, so the scene aired.
story, 2006).
(E! True Hollywood
This was not a concern for producers when deciding
whether or not it would be acceptable for a man to participate in the
same behavior.
Based on concern expressed by the executive producers,
one could infer that the perception is that it is more acceptable for a
man to participate in casual sex than it is for a woman.
Surprisingly
Friends and Masculinity 25
then, men and women were presented as equals in this regard as well.
From the sample taken, men and women either engaged in casual sex or
expressed a casual attitude concerning sex 49 times per gender.
As can be inferred by these findings, this study had some
limitations.
Only one researcher was involved in the coding of the
episodes viewed; therefore, some of the quantifications may be slightly
skewed as the researcher may have missed some observations.
Early in
the coding process, adjustments had to be made to the coding sheet as
the researcher realized categories from the original checklist that
would not be relevant to the series or that needed to be added to the
original version.
coded.
In addition, only 30 of over 200 episodes were
Monica’s career as a chef was ignored in this sample.
Problems
such as this could have been avoided by taking every episode from the
series into consideration.
In the future, other researchers could refine this study by
making these adjustments in their own research.
One could expand on
this study by applying the process to more recent television sitcoms.
The results could then be compared to determine what changes, if any,
have been made in the time that Friends has been off the air.
Likewise, the method used in this study could be applied to other
genres of television, or even film.
Some adjustments would have to be
made to the coding sheet, but it would be interesting to see how
representations of masculinity and femininity vary from genre to genre.
In several significant ways, this study established that in many
accounts, male and female characters were portrayed as equals
throughout the popular television series, Friends.
Postulations
concerning the effects of feminism on the portrayal of masculinity in
popular media suggested that in recent years, women have taken “center
stage” on television, leaving men to appear “insufferable and useless”
Friends and Masculinity 26
(Glascock, 2001).
Meanwhile, past studies about sitcoms that were
popular at the time Friends premiered have suggested that women often
appear as the subject or the “butt” of jokes because of each gender’s
societal status.
This study has suggested that, while these
assumptions may be true of the content of other television programs,
Friends managed to defy these constraints.
The equality of genders
recognized by Friends is noteworthy because throughout television’s
history, studies approached from both feminist and masculine points of
view have determined and expressed concern about one gender being given
a higher status or a more favorable depiction than the other.
Friends and Masculinity 27
References
Associated Press. (2006).
Homes have more TVs than people.
CNN.com.
Retrieved October 10, 2006, from
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/ptech/09/22/tvs.everywhere.ap/index.
html.
Bauder, D. & Lemire, C.
(2004).
Farewell to Friends: Top sitcom rides
into sunset, but will live on in re-run land [Electronic
version].
CBS News.
Retrieved October 11, 2006, from
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/07/entertainment/main61620
4.shtml.
Bright, K.S., Kauffman, M., & Crane, D. (Executive Producers). (19942004).
Friends [Television series].
Chidley, J. (1995).
Burbank: Warner Bros.
Start of the sitcoms: As Friends leads the Gen-X
TV invasion, Canadian Matthew Perry is riding high.
108(40), 48-52.
Dow, B.
(2006).
Maclean’s,
From Academic Search Premier database.
The traffic in men and the Fatal Attraction of
postfeminist masculinity.
(29)1, 113-131.
Women’s Studies in Communication,
From Communication & Mass Media Complete
database.
Downey, K. (2004).
Fans know what they like repeatedly: In a fickle
world, a tri of sitcoms have awesome staying power.
& Cable, Special report, 29.
Broadcasting
From Academic Search Premier
database.
Downs, A.C. (1981).
Sex-role stereotyping on prime-time television.
The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 138, 253-258.
From PsychInfo
database.
Duncan, A.
(2004).
Friends finale pulls second highest price tag.
About: Advertising.
Retrieved October 11, 2006, from
http://advertising.about.com/b/a/083429.htm.
Friends and Masculinity 28
Freeman, M.
(2001).
Friends still strong despite multiple runs.
Electronic Media (20)43.
From Academic Search Premier database.
Frey, L.R., Botan, C.H., & Kreps, G.L.
(2000).
Investigating
communication: An introduction to research methods.
Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Ginsburg, D.
(2004).
Friends ratings.
Planet Dan.
Retrieved October
8, 2006, from
http://www.newmusicandmore.tripod.com/friendsratings.html.
Glascock, J. (2001).
Gender roles on prime-time network television:
Demographics and behaviors.
Media 45(4), 656-669.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
From Communication & Mass Media Complete
database.
Glascock, J. (2003).
Viewer perception of gender roles on network
prime-time television.
173-181.
Communication Research Reports, 20(2),
From Communication & Mass Media Complete database.
Good, G.E., Porter, M.J., & Dillon, M.G. (2002).
When men divulge:
Portrayals of men’s self-disclosure in prime time situation
comedies.
Sex Roles, 46(11/12), 419-427.
From PsychInfo
database.
Hanke, R. (1990).
Hegemonic masculinity in thirtysomething.
Studies in Mass Communication, 7, 231-248.
Critical
From ComAbstracts
database.
Hanke, R. (1998a).
media.
On masculinity: Theorizing masculinity with/in the
Communication Theory, 8, 183-203.
From ComAbstracts
database.
Hanke, R. (1998b).
The ‘mock-macho’ situation comedy” Hegemonic
masculinity and its reiteration.
Communication, 62(1), 74-93.
database.
Western Journal of
From Academic Search Premier
Friends and Masculinity 29
James, C. (2002).
What Friends has going for it…[Electronic version].
New York Times, 151(52124), E1.
From Academic Search Premier
database.
Klumas, A.L., & Marchant, T. (1994).
Images of men in popular sitcoms.
Journal of Men’s Studies, 2(3), 269-285.
From GenderWatch
database.
Loeb, J.C. (1990).
Rhetorical and ideological conservatism in
thirtysomething.
260.
Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 7, 249-
From ComAbstracts database.
Mackey, W.D., & Hess, D.J. (1982).
Attention structure and stereotypy
of gender on television: An empirical analysis.
Psychology Monographs, 106, 199-215.
Medhurst, A. (1996).
Friends of yours.
Genetic
From PsychInfo database.
Sight & Sound, 6(10), 16-18.
From Academic Search Premier database.
Nielsen Media Research.
October 2002.
(2004).
Average U.S. television viewing time,
World Almanac & Book of Facts.
From Academic
Search Premier database.
Poniewozik, J. (2004).
Reconsidering Friends.
Time, 163(16), 68-70.
From Academic Search Premier database.
Popovich, P.M., & Butter, E.J. (1983).
Recognition of sex-role
stereotypes in prime time television.
Development, 1(1), 33-40.
Pursell, C. (2001).
(20)21.
Ryan, L.
Signorielli, N.
From PsychInfo database.
Shows hold their ground.
Electronic Media,
From Academic Search Premier database.
(2004).
(23)19.
Psychology and Human
Friends lifts NBC to victory.
Television Week,
From Academic Search Premier database.
(1989).
Television and conceptions about sex roles:
Maintaining conventionality and the status quo.
21(5/6), 341-360.
From PsychInfo database.
Sex Roles,
Friends and Masculinity 30
Vavrus, M.D. (2002).
Domesticating patriarchy: Hegemonic masculinity
and television’s “Mr. Mom”.
Critical Studies in Media
Communication, 19(3), 352-375.
(2002).
From ComAbstracts database.
Show information: Awards & nominations.
Friends Online.
Retrieved October 12, 2006, from
http://www.sitcomsonline.com/friends/showinfo.html.
(2002).
Friends.
Retrieved October 8, 2006, from
http://www2.warnerbros.com/friendstv/index.html.
(2005).
Sitcoms.
MediaWeek (15)10.
From Academic Search Premier
database.
(2006).
Friends awards and nominations.
Wikipedia.
Retrieved October
12, 2006, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_awards_and_nominations.
(2006).
Nielsen ratings.
Wikipedia.
Retrieved October 11, 2006, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_Ratings.
(2006, November 18).
episode]. E!
True Hollywood story: Friends [Television series
Friends and Masculinity 31
Coding Sheet
Traditional Stereotypes
1. How often is the male portrayed as being assertive…
a. sexually or in a relationship?
b. with others?
2. Number of times the man is seen at work and/or their profession is
addressed or discussed.
3. How often does the male express…
a. positive emotion to…
1. another man?
2. a woman?
3. a group of men and women?
b. negative emotion to…
1. another man?
2. a woman?
3. a group of men and women?
4. Number of times man(‘s)…
a. makes contact with a woman.
b. makes contact with a man.
c. appears concerned about another character.
d. speaks about a relationship.
e. presents an idea that is…
1. respected.
2. ridiculed.
f. gives a command that is…
1. obeyed.
2. ignored.
g. appears as the butt of a joke.
h. sexuality appears as the butt of a joke.
Friends and Masculinity 32
i. receives the laugh.
j. participates in casual sex or expresses casual attitudes about
sex.
Feminine Stereotypes
5. How often is the female portrayed as being assertive…
a. sexually or in a relationship?
b. with others?
6. Number of times the woman is seen at work and/or their profession is
addressed or discussed.
7. How often does the female express…
a. positive emotion to…
1. another woman?
2. a man?
3. a group of men and women?
b. negative emotion to…
1. another woman?
2. a man?
3. a group of men and women?
8. Number of times woman(‘s)…
a. makes contact with a man.
b. makes contact with a woman.
c. appears concerned about another character.
d. speaks about a relationship.
e. presents an idea that is…
1. respected.
2. ridiculed.
f. gives a command that is…
1. obeyed.
2. ignored.
Friends and Masculinity 33
g. appears as the butt of a joke.
h. sexuality appears as the butt of a joke.
i. receives the laugh.
j. participates in casual sex or expresses casual attitudes about
sex.
Friends and Masculinity 34
Selected Episodes
Season 1
The One with the East German Laundry Detergent
The One with the Butt
The One with the Ick Factor
Season 2
The One with Phoebe’s Husband
The One with the Lesbian Wedding
The One Where Eddie Moves In
Season 3
The One with the Metaphorical Tunnel
The One with Frank Jr.
The One Without the Ski Trip
Season 4
The One with Joey’s New Girlfriend
The One with the Embryos
The One with All the Wedding Dresses
Season 5
The One with Ross’s Sandwich
The One Where Everybody Finds Out
The One with Rachel’s Inadvertent Kiss
Season 6
The One on the Last Night
The One with the Routine
The One with Mac and C.H.E.E.S.E.
Season 7
The One with the Holiday Armadillo
The One with Ross and Monica’s Cousin
The One with Chandler’s Dad
Friends and Masculinity 35
Season 8
The One After “I Do”
The One with the Videotape
The One with the Rumor
Season 9
The One with the Lottery
The One with the Soap Opera Party
The One with the Fertility Test
Season 10
The One with Ross’s Tan
The One Where Rachel’s Sister Baby-Sits
The One with Ross’s Grant