BEN-GURION UNIVERSITY OF THE NEGEV
THE FACULTY OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN LITERATURES AND LINGUISTICS
THE REPRESENTATION OF JEWISH MASCULINITY
IN CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN SITCOMS
THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS
SHANY ROZENBLATT
021692256
UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: PROF. EFRAIM SICHER
November 2014
BEN-GURION UNIVERSITY OF THE NEGEV
THE FACULTY OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN LITERATURES AND LINGUISTICS
THE REPRESENTAION OF JEWISH MASCULINITY
IN CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN SITCOMS
THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS
SHANY ROZENBLATT
021692256
UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: PROF. EFRAIM SICHER
Signature of student: ______Date: ______
Signature of supervisor: ______Date: ______
Signature of chairperson of the committee for graduate studies: ______Date: ______
November 2014
Abstract
This thesis explores the representation of Jewish characters in contemporary
American television comedies in order to determine whether Jews are still depicted stereotypically as emasculate.
The thesis compares Jewish and non-Jewish masculinities in American
Television sitcom characters in shows airing from the 1990's to the present: Seinfeld,
Friends, and The Big Bang Theory. The thesis asks whether there is a difference between the representation of Jews and non-Jews in sitcoms, a genre where most men are mocked for problematic masculinity. The main goal of the thesis is to find out whether old stereotypes regarding Jewish masculinity – the "jew" as weak, diseased, perverted and effeminate – still exist, and how the depiction of Jewish characters relates to the Jews' assimilation and acceptance in America.
The thesis is divided into three chapters, each exploring an aspect of masculinity. The first chapter deals with social acceptance. It looks at the image of the nerd and its relation to the Jewish "bookworm". The chapter then explores the topic of careerism – the choice of profession and success in it – and its relation to the schlemiel character type.
The second chapter discusses sexuality. Traits relating to image of the "jewish pervert" are explored: sexual appeal (or lack thereof), lustfulness, and deviancies such as incest. Lastly, homosexuality is examined as a trait which was once considered a perversion, and often attributed to Jews, but is currently in America accepted as an inborn trait found in all ethnicities.
The third chapter deals with the body. The representation of physique, athleticism, and disease is compared to the image of the "jew" as weak and ill. Later the chapter discusses clothing, particularly drag, as emasculating traits for Jews.
The thesis proposes that while there are few overt representations of emasculate Jews, there are still hints of older "jewish" stereotypes. These suggest that while the Jews are not persecuted in the United States, there is still tension regarding their acceptance.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Ms. Valerie Khaskin for suggesting the initial idea for this thesis.
Table of Contents
Introduction 1 Definition and Traits of Masculinity 1 The Comedy Genre 5 The Sitcom 8 Jews in Comedy 11 Jews in America 14 Stereotypes about Jews 18 The Emasculate Jew 18 The New Jew and the Muscle Jew 19 Contemporary Representations of Jews 20 Review of Literature 21 Structure of the Thesis 22
Chapter I: Social Acceptability 25 Social Seclusion, Acceptability, and Whiteness 25 The "Bookworm Jew" and the Nerd 27 Job Security and Careerism 32 Masculine Jobs and "jewish" Jobs 36 Conclusion 38
Chapter II: Sexuality 40 Sexual Attractiveness 42 The "jewish" Pervert 44 Sexual Deviancy 49 Homosexuality 52 Conclusion 55
Chapter III: The Body 57 Circumcision and the Penis 60 The Body 65 Athleticism 67 “jewish” Diseases 69
Clothes 71 Drag 71 Emasculating Clothes 75 Conclusion 77
Conclusion 78
Bibliography 81
Rozenblatt 1
Introduction
In the contemporary United States, the dominant majority of White heterosexual males shares equal rights with women and ethnic minorities. The current social climate in America encourages inclusiveness and political correctness. In the
U.S., stereotypes - images meant to mark and mock certain groups - are frowned upon. This explains why in popular media, especially in the television comedy genre,
White men are often the ones being ridiculed: "In an environment with high social standards on the depiction of minorities heterosexual males are the only social group left to ridicule" (Reese, 4). White men are usually mocked through the parody and subversion of their masculinity. White male characters are depicted as stupid, physically weak, and are at times connected with feminine characteristics (Reese, 4;
27). Yet it is not only the White male characters' masculinity that is subverted. Jewish male characters are also commonly portrayed as having a problematic masculinity.
This thesis will examine whether Jewish male characters' masculinity is undermined in the same way as that of non-Jewish males. Is the problematic representation of
Jewish masculinity part of the Jews' assimilation, of becoming White? Or is this representation a continuation of older stereotypes which depict the "jew", i.e. the construct of how the Jew is perceived, as weak and sexually depraved? In other words, how does the depiction of Jewish men on sitcoms differ from that of White men, and what is the social significance of this difference?
Definition and Traits of Masculinity
Masculinity is a relative term. It is commonly defined as the behavior which is culturally expected from the male gender by society (Craig, 3). There are four different approaches for determining what behavior is considered masculine and for
Rozenblatt 2
"characteriz[ing] the type of person who is masculine" (Connell, 68). These approaches are: the essentialist approach, which focuses on one feature as "the core of the masculine" and bases all other male traits around it; the positivistic approach, which defines masculine traits as "what men actually are"; the semiotic approach, which defines masculinity in opposition to femininity, as in, the masculine is that which is "not-feminin[e]" and the normative approach, which defines masculinity as
"what men are supposed to be … [the] social norm for the behavior of men" (Connell,
68-70). The standards of masculinity set by the normative approach are met by very few real men (Connell, 70). Furthermore, despite being considered a "social norm", there is no agreed upon set of normative masculine traits: "The rules [for being considered masculine] are amorphous, innumerable, and constantly in flux" (Dennis,
111). Though flawed, the normative approach is the most applicable to this research, as it focuses on social acceptance. It will be the approach used throughout the thesis, unless noted otherwise.
One reason for masculinity's shifting traits is that such traits differ when applied to different social strata. The dominant masculinity is referred to as
"hegemonic masculinity". "Hegemony" is attributed to a group which has "a leading position in social life" (Connell, 77). "Hegemonic masculinity" is the type of gendered behavior which maintains patriarchy (Connell, 77). In western society, hegemony belongs to White heterosexual males, while other types of masculinity are defined in relation to the hegemony. Of relevance here is the marginalization of racial and ethnic masculinity. The hegemony utilizes a minority’s traits in order to help sustain its power: it uses the minority's positive masculine traits to uphold its own power, and uses negative traits to oppress the minority (Connell, 80). Though there is no defined
Rozenblatt 3
set of masculine traits, this thesis will focus on several traits which the hegemony in the United States considers masculine.
Aside from the shifting traits of masculinity, there is another problem when trying to determine whether someone is masculine. It is that, like masculinity, the traits used to define gender are shifting. "[T]he categories by which culture confidently asserts the knowability and naturalness of gender and sexuality have no reliable boundaries" (Lefkowitz, 98). The "assum[ption] that one's behavior results from the type of person one is" is now considered false (Connell, 67). Gender does not necessarily stem from one's biological sex. Judith Butler theorizes that gender is not inherent, but performed. Gender is defined as all traits which are attributed by society to a biological sex: "[G]ender identity is a performative accomplishment compelled by social sanction and taboo" (Butler, "Performative Acts", 520). That is, for the most part gender is determined through the social perception of several behaviors, and not through biological sex. I add that some physical attributes, such as body type and strength are also part of gendered behavior.
As mentioned, there is no conclusive list of the normative traits of masculinity, since they are countless and always shifting. However, I shall attempt to provide a list of traits relevant to the research. Cicone and Ruble divide masculinity into three main categories. One, men are "active and achievement-oriented", which "includes the qualities adventurous, ambitious, independent, courageous, competitive, leader, and active". These traits all relate to "a possibility of worldly accomplishment and success". Two, men are "dominant": they are "aggressive, powerful, assertive, and boastful". Three, men are "level-headed". They are "logical, realistic, stable, unemotional, and self-control[led])" (Cicone and Ruble, 11, italics in the original). To the trait of "level-headedness" I add intelligence. The masculine man is smart, but not
Rozenblatt 4
so smart as to be defined by his intelligence (unlike the bookworm or the nerd). In other words, the masculine man's intelligence does not surpass his other masculine traits. Two other relevant traits of normative masculinity relate to the "physical characteristics" of men (Chesebro and Fuse, 212). First, the masculine man has certain attributes, such as a muscular body, tall figure and strong facial features (Chesebro and Fuse, 212). Second, the masculine man is defined by his "gender preferences
[…and] lust"; he is always lustful, but only after women (women who are, of course, never masculine) (Chesebro and Fuse, 225).
As with normative masculinity, Jewish masculinity is also a shifting subject.
In the past, the Jew's body was depicted as different and strange by society in order to marginalize Jews (Gilman, Jew's Body; Mosse, 6). It is also speculated that Jewish emasculation was an aspect of Jewish self-definition: Jews embraced emasculate traits
(different from those used to marginalize them) in order to differentiate themselves from the hegemony and its standards (Boyarin, Unheroic Conduct, 4). Jews praised learning over strength in order to maintain hierarchy within themselves (Brod, "Some
Histories", 98). Another way in which Jews countered the images of the emasculate
"jew" was by the creation of the "new Jew". The Haskala movement, and later
Zionism, promoted the creation of a Jew who tries to integrate into society and is strong and athletic (Conforti, 63; Gluzman, 39-40). One of the Zionists, Max Nordau, suggested creating the concept of the "muscle Jew" in order to focus on the improvement of the physical capabilities of the Jews (Presner, 1).
Jews were not only perceived as emasculate, but also as feminine. In the late nineteenth century the "jew" was depicted through gendered imagery, as feminized
(Davison, 7). The perception of Jews as effeminate in many cases connected the "jew" with the queer, with the homosexual (Friedman, 4; Gluzman, 38; Solomon, 151). On
Rozenblatt 5
the other hand, the "jew" was also depicted as a sexual deviant who lusts after women
(Abrams, 68).
The representation of Jewish males in sitcoms is problematic. "Stereotypes that marked Jewish masculinity in nineteenth- and early twentieth-century culture and science", which were meant to "undermine Jewish manhood", were, from the mid twentieth century, used in television programs (Berger, 94). Among these traits is "the subordinated or passive schlemiel … the neurotic … and the feminized Jew" (Berger,
94). However, schlemiels on television and film are no longer always Jewish
(Buchbinder, 231). Men of any ethnicity may be represented as being "inadequately or incompetently masculine" (Buchbinder, 231). For example, both Jewish Jerry and non-Jewish George on Seinfeld may be seen as a schlemiel and a schlimazel (C.
Johnson).
Similarly, most men in sitcoms are emasculated by being mistaken for homosexuals. On Seinfeld, Jerry and George's homosociality is mistaken for homosexuality at least once. Likewise, on Friends, the male characters refrain from physical and emotional closeness, because such behavior contradicts masculine traits, and marks them as gay (Feasey, 23). This representation of mistaken sexual identity indicates the uncertainty of the boundaries of gender, masculinity and heterosexuality
(Di Mattia, 103).
The Comedy Genre
The thesis will focus on three North American situation comedies in the period
1989-2014. It will examine male characters, both Jewish and gentile, from the shows
Seinfeld (1989-1998), Friends (1994-2004), and The Big Bang Theory (2007-present).
All three shows were chosen because they belong to a specific genre, and each
Rozenblatt 6
features at least one male Jewish main character in addition to non-Jewish male main characters. Furthermore, these shows all deal with issues relating to gender and masculinity, such as intelligence, physical strength, and sexuality. Apart from
Friends, Jewish female characters play minor roles. On Friends, one of the main females is stated to be Jewish, but her Jewishness is largely invisible, with only some stereotypical traits.
Comedy is a complex genre. It is not entirely agreed upon what causes laughter. According to Freud "[humour] acts as a substitute for the generation of
[distressing] affects … The pleasure of humour … comes about … at the cost of a release of affect that does not occur: it arises from an economy in the expenditure of affect" (Freud, Jokes, 228-9, italics in the original). Jokes cause laughter by making people release the "psychic energy" used to repress negative emotion (Morreall). That is, the energy which normally suppresses certain reactions is released in the form of laughter.
Freud's theory, though, is not widely accepted today. Instead, most researchers agree upon the "Incongruity Theory" (Morreall). This theory states "that it is the perception of something incongruous—something that violates our mental patterns and expectations" which makes us laugh (Morreall). Humor stems from setting up and then defying expectations. The punch-line for a joke, for example, is considered funny when it is unpredictable. In a similar manner, humor can be said to stem from testing social boundaries and breaking taboos. Comedy undermines social expectations of normative behavior. It tests the unwritten, unspoken, and shifting set of rules by which society operates. One laughs because behavior different than the norm is unexpected. Comedy crosses the unclear line of what is considered acceptable social behavior, and mocks the boundaries between genders, age groups, and ethnicities. For
Rozenblatt 7
example, a comedy sketch might feature a White man behaving in a manner associated with African-American men; speaking and dressing in a certain way, and showing interest in Black culture. The joke makes fun of the invisible cultural border between White and Black. What does the fact that some comedy undermines social boundaries mean in regards to the representation of Jews? Are emasculated Jews funny because one does not expect them to be emasculated? Or perhaps there is another reason as to why these representations are funny; as noted in the previous paragraph, it is unclear what makes people laugh, and why.
Comedy which breaks taboos and tests boundaries may be seen as unfunny or even offensive. There are two ways in which a joke is offensive. One is where the joke offends the audience's sensibilities. This is usually intentional; the joke attempts to provoke, disgust, or anger. This type of joke often revolves around the subjects of sex, violence, or ethnicity. The second way in which a joke might be offensive is if it literally offends someone. That is, if the joke insults a person or a group of people, whether intentionally or unintentionally. There may be overlap between the two types of offensive jokes, but that is not always the case. This thesis will refer to the first type of offensive humor – that which angers or disgusts – unless noted otherwise.
On television, the use of deliberately offensive humor (of either type) is frowned upon in network shows, but more accepted in cable sitcoms. The rules for what is permitted differ because cable and network are two "different mediaspheres" – two different environments through which information is transferred (Reese, 8).
"[T]he standards for network television are more stringent in comparison to
cable networks … The standards for network television are created by the
government, the industry itself, and the audience. The Federal
Rozenblatt 8
Communications Commission (FCC) governs television and other media by
imposing rules and regulation [sic] on content. (Reese, 8-9).
Network shows are intended for a larger audience than cable shows, and so are considered more mainstream. The humor in them is less offensive since they need to appeal to a large and diverse group of viewers. The shows chosen for this research are all network shows.
Cable sitcoms are more likely to feature humor that is meant to offend as well as to amuse. The jokes often revolve around breaking social taboos, and crossing the boundaries of what is considered in good taste. For example, a mainstream sitcom might refer to incest, while a cable sitcom can outright show an incestuous couple. In a more specific example of humor meant to provoke, cable shows Weeds and The
Sarah Silverman Program have both depicted characters wearing Blackface. To
American viewers, Blackface is a reminder of "Minstrel Shows": performances which were prevalent from the mid nineteenth century to the early twentieth century where
White actors mocked African Americans by wearing Blackface. Due to the implications of Blackface as a reminder of the oppression of African Americans, it is not politically correct, and is unacceptable by many audiences. Such a joke is meant to shock the viewer. Laughter might stem from how unexpected it is to make fun of such topics.
The Sitcom
The situation comedy genre was chosen for its portrayal of characters and themes. The sitcom genre has existed since the early days of television (Brook, 21). A sitcom is "a comedy series that involves a continuing set of characters in a succession of episodes. Often the characters are markedly different types" ("Situation Comedy").
Rozenblatt 9
The sitcom's main characters are often buffoonish (Butsch; Miller; Reese). The characters' "foolishness … is almost always attached to a character’s lower status, by representing well-known stereotypes of this status group" (Butsch, 112). If a character intended as the fool is from a "higher status" their "status can be denied by representing [the fool] as having opposite characteristics" (Butsch, 112). For example,
"[m]en are devalued by characterizing them as feminine" (Butsch, 112). This process of representation explains the uncertainty regarding Jewish emasculation in sitcoms.
Are Jews seen as a minority and so are mocked using stereotypes of emasculation? Or are they seen as part of the higher status, and are mocked in a similar manner to White men?
This thesis focuses on a specific category of sitcom, commonly known as a
"multiple-camera sitcom". It is characterized by few recurring sets and a relatively small core cast, and is usually taped in front of an audience, whose reactions are then used in the show. The "multiple-camera" genre has been around since the early days of television. The plots are simple and fast-paced, and the characters are often simplistic. Though there is "incentive[] for television producers to create male sitcom characters that are relatable to the viewers", it is often easier and safer to use "stock characters" (Miller 143, 144). Thus stereotypes are likely to be used. But, since the genre relies in part on audience reaction, these stereotypes are not offensive to the viewers.
Sitcoms rarely represent real people. They depict characters and archetypes.
As such, the social roles of characters in sitcoms – their ethnicity, social status, sexual orientation, etc. – are performed. Characters are not a realistic representation of people. They are made up of a set of traits which the audience associates with the
Rozenblatt 10
group to which they belong. A character's ethnicity, for example, is performed through their appearance, accent, dialect, and behavior.
Even though sitcoms do not outright reflect current cultural norms, they represent aspects of what is socially accepted. "Sitcoms … are shaped by the societies in which they emerge, but also by the specific people, processes, and industries that produce them" (Miller, 142). Network sitcoms are intended for a wide audience, and their existence relies on its reaction:
"The [television] industry constantly alters itself to adhere to and promote
highly successful representations and images while removing those that are
not successful. These changes in the industry are connected to changes made
within the society or the culture" (Reese, 10).
In other words, content in network shows is dependent on what is socially accepted, on how society reacts to certain representations. Content is created and altered according to what the public sees as proper.
The shows I am looking at are from the sub-genre of sitcoms that focuses on interpersonal relationships. In modern sitcoms, "masculinity … is … often associated with personal autonomy, careers and dating" (Miller, 157). This sub-genre deals with friendships and romantic relationships within a group of characters, but also touches on the subject of career. It commonly depicts characters in their mid-twenties to mid- thirties. The sub-genre focuses on the relationships between men and women, and consequently presents issues of masculinity, sexuality and social interaction.
Rozenblatt 11
Jews in Comedy
Jewish characters have been depicted in North American sitcoms since the
1950's (Brook; Gabler, Rich & Antler). However, only a handful of "Jewish" shows - shows where at least one main character is Jewish - aired before the 1990's (Brook, 4).
The first Jewish sitcom, The Goldbergs, exemplifies the connection between the Jews' social acceptance and their presence on television. In general, the characters on The
Goldbergs could not be depicted as "'too Jewish' nor too different from anyone else"
(Antler, "Not 'Too Jewish'", 32). It is apparent that The Goldbergs, which was popular in the early 1950's, lost its popularity due to a shift in its audience from urban Jews to suburban Christian families. When the show started, in the early days of television, its initial viewers lived in "Eastern urban centers", meaning many of them were Jews
(Brook, 34). As more Americans bought television sets, and shows were broadcast nationwide, the mainstream audience changed and grew (Brook, 34). To appeal to the new suburban middle-class audience, The Goldbergs' themes and marketing were altered (Brook, 22). In the show's final season, the characters moved to the suburbs, away from their working-class, ethnic background (Brook, 22). But though the show lost its Jewishness, it was still cancelled. Perhaps the audience, now Christian and middle-class, was not ready for a Jewish show. Jewish characters became popular again only in the 1970's "as a response to the more tolerant social climate", though there were still very few "Jewish shows" until the 1990's (Antler, "Not 'Too Jewish'",
35; Brook, 4). The appearance of Jewish characters in sitcoms today may also be indicative of the Jews' social acceptance.
Indeed, a new sitcom titled The Goldbergs began airing in 2013. Despite its title, it has no relation to the original show, but is based on the childhood of series creator, Adam F. Goldberg. The show seems to be partly inspired by the popularity of
Rozenblatt 12
Modern Family, a sitcom co-created by a Jewish man and featuring a diverse cast of characters. These include, alongside the White Christian family members, Latin-
Americans, a homosexual couple, and their adopted Vietnamese daughter. There do not seem to be any Jews on the show, though.
North-American sitcoms were chosen for two main reasons. First, Jewish characters became quite common in comedies produced in the United States in the
1990's. In that period "there were no less than thirty-two Jewish lead characters in
U.S. sitcoms" (Schneider). The second reason is the unique position of Jews in
America as both White and Other. As I will explain later, Jews are both perceived as
White and at the same time seen as a minority. They have a different cultural background than the WASP hegemony, but are similar to it in appearance and other social and cultural aspects. Sitcoms are part of the "[m]ass culture … [which] has been a critical site for the negotiation of Jewish identity in the United States since the
[1920's]" (Bial, 136).
Jewish characters' prevalence in sitcoms may also be influenced by the fact that American television studios, like American film studios, were founded by Jews
(Gabler, Television's Changing Image, 3). There is until today a "preponderance of
Jewish writers, directors, and actors in theatre, film, and television" (Bial, 134).
Indeed, the shows chosen for the thesis are all either written or produced by Jews.
This may explain the presence of Jewish characters, as well as jokes about their
Judaism. Some "[c]ontemporary Jewish culture-makers [are willing] to boldly self- identify … in a way that is at once ironic and 'in your face'" (Bial, 135). Such Jewish creators use problematic representations of their ethnicity in order to "negotiate the[]
[Jews'] relationship with the broader culture" (Bial, 140). The use of ironic and problematic imagery explains why Jewish writers might use jokes which stem from
Rozenblatt 13
offensive stereotypes. The depiction is self-deprecating humor. Since minorities often have limited "spaces of representation [such as] the stereotype … [i]t could be argued that the tendentious, self-critical joke … may be a strategy of cultural resistance and agency" (Bhabha, xvii). A minority group can "confront and regulate the [outside] abuse" through self-criticism (Bhabha, xviii). In a sense, self-deprecating humor is making fun of and subverting the stereotypes. Jewish writers "repurpose anti-Jewish stereotypes as a critique of anti-Semitic stereotypes, allowing [Jews] to assert Jewish pride" (Bial, 135). Similarly, another explanation for the use of racial imagery is that it is utilized in order "to carve out a space for the subversion of ethnic self- censorship" (Deloia and Adelman Komy Ofir, 130). That is, to depict Jews through racial traits, instead of whitewashing them. Stereotypes seem to be used to bring attention to Jews as a minority, to acknowledge their place in society.
The number of shows starring non-Jewish minorities varies according to ethnicity. African-American sitcoms, where at least one main cast member (and frequently most of the cast) is Black, were prevalent in the eighties and nineties.
Many, like The Cosby Show, were also popular among White viewers. Such sitcoms are not as common today, though. This is similar to Jewish-led sitcoms, which are also less common today than they were in the nineties. Other ethnic sitcoms are rare.
Hispanic sitcoms are uncommon, with a few shows in the nineties and 2000's. Asian sitcoms seem almost non-existent. Many contemporary sitcoms, though, have diverse, multi-ethnic casts. This is evident even from the few shows researched here. Seinfeld and Friends, which began airing in the 1990's, have only White and Jewish main characters. In the early 2000's "non-White masculinities are absent" (Miller, 157). The
Big Bang Theory, which started airing in 2007, features the character of Raj
Koothrappali, an Indian. This inclusiveness might indicate that America is becoming
Rozenblatt 14
more accepting of minorities, as ethnic characters are portrayed in the main cast of mainstream shows. However, in these multi-ethnic casts, the White characters are still usually in the leading role. There are also currently many popular shows with few or no ethnic characters. Despite the move towards inclusiveness, minorities are still underrepresented, which suggests that they are still not fully accepted.
Jews in America
The status of the Jews in the United States is complex. They are considered to be both White and Other. In the period after World War II, Jews began to be perceived as White. Jews were among several minority groups which arrived from
Europe to the United States in the late nineteenth century (Brodkin, 35). The Jews, along with the Italians, the Irish, and the like were all seen initially as racial Others
(Brodkin, 35). This negative attitude changed after World War II. The United States embraced "a more inclusive version of whiteness" in order to show its opposition to its enemies' fascist policies, and replaced racist theories with "theories of nurture and culture" (Brodkin, 36). These theories were not applied to African-Americans, though. The continued marginalization of Blacks is another factor in the Jews' becoming White, as I will soon elaborate.
The United States' economic prosperity after the end of the war also allowed ethnic groups to rise in the social ladder and integrate with the middle class (Brodkin,
37). Though it cannot be determined whether "Jews … bec[a]me white because they became middle-class", or if Jews were allowed to rise in social class because they were seen as White, the end result is the same (Brodkin, 36). Jews and other European minorities all became White; they became part of the American people.
Rozenblatt 15
Another theory for why American Jews are considered White is because they are not part of the African-American minority; because they are not Black. "[P]ost[]
[World War II] Jewishness" compared itself to mainstream culture by "differentiating itself from … African-American culture" (Brodkin, 150). Jewish Whiteness is also said to originate at a later period, in the sixties, after the rise of the civil rights movement. Despite attempts at finding common ground, Jews at the time could not relate their history to that of the African-Americans (Biale, "The Melting Pot", 28).
For example, though Jews have a history of enslavement, it is different from that of the Blacks in the United States (Biale, "The Melting Pot", 28). Since the Jews were physically, economically, socially and historically different from Blacks, they became
White.
Today the situation regarding the perception of the Jews' ethnicity may be different. Over the decades, the United States has become a multicultural country, with many diverse ethnic groups. The new situation of the Jews in America can be explained by the fact that the "diaspora is a condition for which Jews have not been uniquely chosen" (Galchinsky, "Scattered Seeds", 207). The Jews are no longer the only group which lives away from its ancestral land, and they are not alone in trying to retain their cultural identity. African-Americans, Hispanics and Asian-Americans also have a cultural history connecting them to another land. One of the effects of multiculturalism in the U.S. is political correctness. Differing ethnicities and faiths are acknowledged, and need to be represented truthfully and not stereotypically. If the
Jews' ethnicity is acknowledged, they might be seen as a minority, as Other. As
Others they may be marked for their difference from the majority, and treated differently.
Rozenblatt 16
The representation of Jewish ethnicity is further complicated by the prevalence of exogamy - marriage between Jews and non-Jews - with an "intermarriage rate …
[of] around 50 percent" (Antler, "Not 'Too Jewish'", 67). This means that many families have become themselves multiethnic. On television, nearly all Jews ("well over 95 percent") marry non-Jews (Antler, "Not 'Too Jewish'", 67). This is problematic especially in sitcoms, "where there usually has been little consideration of the impact of the intermarriage on the Jewish partner's religious or cultural identity" (Antler, "Not 'Too Jewish'", 70). This complex social matter is represented, but its implications are not addressed. Exogamy on sitcoms may reflect stereotypes of
Jewish men as "dominated, powerless and uninterested in Jewish women" (Prell,
329). The thesis will look at cases where the Jew lusts after, and marries, the shiksa.
The fact that Jews are at the same time both White and a minority leads to several problems in depicting Jewish characters. Since Jews and Whites are so similar, it is difficult to differentiate between the groups without resorting to stereotype. Using a more realistic approach is also problematic. The commonly agreed upon Halakhic definition of a Jew is one whose mother is Jewish. It would be strange to depict a character as Jewish by referring to their mother's religious beliefs.
Furthermore, were a show to actually define a person as Jewish through their mother, the mother herself might be depicted stereotypically, as an overbearing "Jewish mother". Howard's mother on The Big Bang Theory is one such character. George's mother on Seinfeld is perceived as a Jewish mother, which leads viewers to falsely identify George as Jewish (Krieger, 396).
To avoid stereotype, shows at times depict a Jewish character as following religious customs, such as eating Kosher, or celebrating Jewish holidays. However, this marker is not common, as most Jews in America are secular and do not follow
Rozenblatt 17
religious laws. A Jewish character may be shown celebrating Chanukah, but rarely any other holiday. This is due to Chanukah's proximity to Christmas. The cultural dominance of Christmas led to raised awareness of other ethnicities' contemporary celebrations. The "holiday season", especially on television, has cultural, rather than religious significance. Since most depictions of Judaism are problematic, a character will often outright state that he is Jewish, and will nearly always have a Jewish surname. The Jews' ethnicity is labeled, since it cannot be shown through stereotypical images. It seems that in some regards, "the central operative factors of
Jewish American difference are the problematic terms of Jewish visibility itself"
(Itzkovitz, 194).
Due to the Jews' invisibility, some non-Jewish characters in sitcoms are perceived as Jews by viewers. Some characters seem to fit "jewish" stereotypes even if they are not stated to be Jews. Perhaps "the Jew is over-determined" (Sartre, 79).
That is, the audience identifies a Jew through several "jewish" traits, even if the character has no actual relation to Judaism. For example, "everyone in America" believes that George Costanza and his parents are Jewish, despite their Greek family name and secular habits (Gabler, Television's Changing Image, 12). In fact, Carla
Johnson's essay about the schlemiel refers to George as Jewish. The character of
Rachel Green on Friends is never stated to be Jewish, but she has a Jewish sounding name, and she partly fits the stereotype of the Jewish American Princess. This confusion suggests two major issues regarding Jews in America. One, they are invisible, since now non-Jews are mistaken for Jews; two, stereotypes regarding Jews still exist and are in use.
Rozenblatt 18
Stereotypes about Jews
Jews have been a minority in Europe for centuries. As a minority, they were marginalized and stereotyped. Stereotyping is used by society in order to divide social groups and maintain hegemony: Stereotyping meant giving to each man all the attributes of the group to which he was meant to belong" (Mosse, 6). Most stereotypes about minorities are negative, and depict them as inferior. Stereotypes about Jews have persisted for centuries. The image of "jewish" greed was depicted in English plays of the Elizabethan era, such as The Jew of Malta, even though there were no
Jews in England at the time. Such negative images persisted after the resettlement of
Jews in England, with, for example, the character of Fagin in Oliver Twist. Many other examples exist. While Jews were initially marginalized as misbelievers or as satanic, Europe's secularization did not lead to the elimination of Jewish stereotypes.
In the nineteenth century "the rhetoric of religious anti-Judaism" was replaced by "the rhetoric of the pseudoscience of anti-Semitism" (Gilman, Jew's Body, 38). Gilman adds that "[n]egative images associated with concepts of race ... persist strongly into the 1990's" (Gilman, Jew's Body, 240).
The Emasculate Jew
Many stereotypes depict the "jew" as emasculate or effeminate, having a weak, diseased body, and a perverse sexuality. In the middle-ages, the "jew" was thought to menstruate. That is, he experienced a monthly blood flow, similarly to women (Resnick, 244). Though it is likely that "Jewish flux was first understood in terms of gender" only in the mid seventeenth century, the medieval stereotype depicts
Jewish men as, if not feminine, then certainly diseased (W. Johnson, 293). Either way,
Rozenblatt 19
the image undermines the place of the "jew" among other men by depicting him as different, as less masculine.
In the fin-de-siècle discourse of race "racial essence could be read along gender lines" (Davison, 5). That is, some "racial" qualities were in fact "gender" qualities. In this way, the "diseased Jewish masculinity had mutated … into the feminized Jew" (Davison, 7). Furthermore, discourse about sexuality at the time often revolved around the "homosexual/heterosexual opposition" which led to "the
'effeminate' Jewish man … be[ing] perceived as having clear homosexual tendencies"
(Gluzman, 38, translation mine). Though being emasculate is not the same as being effeminate, both qualities were in opposition to the normative masculinity sought by the Christian, late nineteenth century hegemony.
The New Jew and the Muscle Jew
To counter images of emasculation and effeminacy, the Haskala movement, and later Zionism, promoted the creation of a "new Jew": a Jew who tries to integrate into society and is strong and athletic. This "new Jew" is a Jewish man whose qualities are different from those of the persecuted "old" Jew:
"The process of the creation of the new Jew began in days of the
Haskala movement. This movement operated in the eighteenth century in
middle and Western Europe, and spread in the nineteenth century to the east as
well. [At the time], [a]longside changes to the Jews' legal standing, came the
demand and expectation from the country for a change in the Jewish lifestyle
as a way to incorporate them in the modern state as useful citizens. The work
of Jewish "Maskilim" [those who operated according to Haskala's values] also
contributed to the creation of a new Jew, who is loyal to his ancestor's
Rozenblatt 20
traditions, but puts proper social behavior ahead of his religion, and is
characterized by being a man and a citizen, and not just a Jew. Zionism, which
began a hundred years later, continued these efforts to create a new Jew,
different from the "old", traditional Jew (Conforti, 63, translation mine).
The "new Jew", then, does not stop being Jewish. Rather, he adopts mannerisms of the non-Jewish hegemony in order to be accepted.
Zionism's concept of the "new Jew" in particular is that of a masculine and muscular man. Theodor Herzl, considered the father of Zionism, "repeats in his diary
… the need to create a new physical Jew" (Gluzman, 39, translation mine). This new
Jew is brave, strong, productive and athletic (Gluzman, 40-2). Another Zionist concept relating to the "new Jew" is that of the "Muscle Jew". This concept was suggested by Max Nordau in 1898. It was the idea that the Jew must be physically fit in order to succeed in society or to immigrate to Israel (Presner, 8). Jews were encouraged to develop their body, to become the opposite of the image of the weak bookworm. Though it originated as a Zionist idea, meant to encourage settlement in
Israel, Muscular Judaism is still common worldwide today (Presner, 9). However, on
American television, while Israeli Jews are depicted as strong and manly (nearly always as soldiers or Mossad agents), American Jews are rarely presented as powerful, and are more likely to be shown as weak and emasculate.
Contemporary Representations of Jews
As said, Jews on television may be represented as weak. However, not all
Jewish characters are shown to be emasculate, and few are depicted as outright stereotypes. Depictions of overtly stereotypical Jewish characters are mostly intentional, and often used as parody. For example, the character of Mort in the
Rozenblatt 21
animated comedy Family Guy is nasally voiced, balding, bespectacled and a miser.
However, the show is known for its stereotypical and offensive humor (both provocative and intentionally hurtful), making the character acceptable in this context.
Another depiction of Jewish characters seems to be based on self-deprecating humor. The neurotic, self-loathing Jew originates with Woody Allen's movies and his persona in these films. More recently, Larry David's character in the cable sitcom
Curb Your Enthusiasm seems to be a misanthropic version of Allen's character. This is an example of Jews using self-deprecating humor to create a new representation for themselves. Allen and David's characters resemble old "jewish" images (mainly the nerd and the schlemiel) intentionally. The two comedians use stereotypes in order to perform characters that, though they have "jewish" traits, are different enough from old images as to become something new. In other words, Allen and David have each created for themselves a persona, a character associated with them, which is based on
(and playing with) "jewish" images.
Review of Literature
While studies about masculinity in film are common, there has been little research of representations of masculinity on television, especially in sitcoms (Dennis,
112-3). Much of the research available focuses on whether images of men have changed since the early days of television (Butsch; Miller; Reese). While there is some research about masculinity in contemporary sitcoms (Buchbinder; Feasey) it tends to focus on one aspect of masculinity, such as homosexuality, rather than examine the depiction of several traits.
Similarly, while there is a fair amount written about Jewish sitcoms in general
(Brook; Gabler, Rich & Antler), or about the Judaism of certain sitcom characters
Rozenblatt 22
(Krieger; Stratton) there is not much research focused solely on Jewish masculinity in sitcoms. Mainly, there is Berger's review of "jewish" representations on television. It claims that Jewish characters from the beginning of television and through the 1990's are represented through "anti-semitic stereotypes" (Berger, 93). Similarly, Cooper notes how Jewish characters on Seinfeld are effeminized. However, his essays are problematic to this thesis since he postulates that all main male characters on the show are Jewish, while I claim that only one of them is Jewish.
My thesis is unlike previous research in that it compares between Jewish and non-Jewish masculinities in sitcoms. Most research either focuses on men in general, or on a certain group of men, such as Jews, fathers, or working-class men.
Furthermore, my research focuses on sitcoms from the past twenty five years in order to look at the contemporary state of Jews in America. Lastly, I look for a connection to old stereotypes of "jews" (not just anti-Semitic ones) to see whether Jews are still marked and rejected by society.
Structure of the Thesis
The thesis will be divided into three chapters, each dealing with one aspect relating to masculinity. In each chapter I will compare between the representations of these traits in the male characters of each show.
First, I will look at social acceptability; the type of social behavior which is expected from a man. This part will be divided into two main aspects. The first is intelligence. While intelligence is associated with masculinity, a masculine man is almost never overly intelligent. Men who are considered "too smart" – meaning they are much smarter or more educated than average – are deemed less masculine, as nerds. Of particular interest will be the show The Big Bang Theory, whose entire main
Rozenblatt 23
male cast is highly educated, with the Jewish character the least educated. The second part of the chapter will deal with work and job security. A man is expected to have a stable and successful career, mainly at professions which are considered masculine. In sitcoms, men who are unsuccessful at their job are sometimes seen as schlemiels – a character type, commonly associated with Jews, which relates to a problematic masculinity.
The second chapter of the thesis will discuss sexuality. This section will first examine sexual attraction. The masculine man is considered sexually appealing, and is successful with women. Next, the chapter will discuss perversion and sexual deviancy. In the past, images of the "jew" as both feminine and lustful over women were combined into the stereotype of the "Jewish pervert" (Abrams, 68-9). Today, since promiscuity among men is acceptable, and male characters that lust after women are not always depicted as perverted, the "jew" may be said to lust after other, unacceptable targets. The chapter will discuss masturbation as an act which used to indicate lustfulness but is now depicted as common. The chapter will also examine perversions such as bestiality and incest. Later, the chapter will look at homosexuality. Though it was once considered a perversion, and was often attributed to the "jew", homosexuality is now more commonly accepted as a normal sexual orientation in America.
In the third chapter I shall look at physical attributes, such as body type and athleticism. I will focus on circumcision as a trait which used to be a marker of Jewish difference. I will also look at depictions of disease and allergies. Are Jews still depicted as physically weak and diseased? Is the Jewish body seen as different from the non-Jewish body? I will later examine dress, especially instances where a
Rozenblatt 24
character wears women's clothes. Are Jewish characters emasculated through the clothes they wear?
My goal in the thesis is to see whether Jewish characters are still depicted as emasculate men. Since several researchers note that non-Jews are also depicted as emasculate (Buchbinder; Butsch; Miller; Reese), I want to determine whether there is a difference between Jewish and non-Jewish characters' emasculation. Are Jewish men in sitcoms still depicted through "jewish" stereotypes, or is their emasculation similar to that of non-Jews? If Jews are still depicted differently, in what ways is their masculinity different? What does it mean regarding Jewish Whiteness and acceptance in America? Is there still underlying racism and exclusion, or are Jews now an accepted part of society?
Rozenblatt 25
Chapter I: Social Acceptability
The Jews in the diaspora in Western Europe were for many years excluded and marginalized by society. In the middle ages, the Jews were a religious minority within a devout Christian society. Their exclusion was enforced by laws. In some countries the Jews' exclusion later led to their expulsion. As an unwanted minority,
Jews were stereotyped. Stereotypes are a way for the hegemonic society to maintain social order (Mosse, 6). In this chapter I will look at how Jewish social exclusion led to two representations of the "jew" that relate to masculinity, and how these images are depicted in sitcoms today. The first stereotype is Jewish intelligence and the
"bookworm Jew" and their connection to the notion of the "nerd". The second is careerism – the type of job one has, and success in it. What job does the "jew" have? I will also see how failure in one's profession relates to the Jewish image of the schlemiel.
Social Seclusion, Acceptability, and Whiteness
Jewish exclusion in the West resulted from religious difference, but has continued even as society became more secular. The Jews, initially defined by society as a religious group, were at different periods defined through race, color or ethnicity.
The nineteenth century marked the move from viewing Judaism as a religion to viewing it as a race (Gilman, Jew's Body, 38). Though Jews were considered to be biologically different in medieval times (for example, since they were circumcised,
Jews were seen as having a damaged, or even missing, phallus), the difference was rooted in theology. The concept of race, on the other hand, focuses on genetic difference, and defines Judaism as purely biological. One example of this need to mark Jews is their depiction as "black" or "swarthy" in European "ethnological
Rozenblatt 26
literature of the late nineteenth century" despite research from that period showing that Jews looked the same as other Europeans (Gilman, Jew's Body, 171-77). After the
Holocaust, discussion of race became unacceptable, and the term ethnicity replaced it, as it focused on "cultural attributes in contrast to biological ones" (Brodkin, 189n1).
Before World War II, these changes in definition (from religion to race, etc.) were made in order to mark and consequently exclude the Jews, who often looked the same as the majority group. The concept of race, for example, became prominent as society became more secular, and Jews began to dress and act like non-Jews. Today there is no consensus on how to define a Jew – is the Jew part of a religious group, or an ethnic group? Is he White? This lack of definition suggests that Jews are currently socially accepted, as there is no one way to define them. In some ways, the Jews' ethnicity became invisible.
Part of the acceptance of Jews is because the United States is currently a multicultural society. Jews are nowadays one of many minorities in America who see the country as their home. They are no longer the exiles who pined for an unattainable homeland (Galchinsky, "Scattered Seeds", 207). The Jews are accepted socially because they live in a society in which they are not the only group different from the norm. The United States is multicultural and post-racial, and seems on the surface to be accepting of different ethnic groups. There are no longer laws against people of ethnic minorities as there were in the past, such as Jim Crow segregation laws. The fact that Jews are part of a multicultural society, as well as their often being considered White, may be another cause for the appearance of the "jew" (the stereotypical depiction of a Jew) on television. That is because many Jews in contemporary culture embrace or acknowledge their otherness rather than their
Whiteness. Part of the Jewish community, mainly its younger members, identifies
Rozenblatt 27
with the stereotypical "jewish" look (Glenn, 80). They praise dark, curly hair, and see the image of the "jew" as a way to connect to their ethnicity (Glenn, 80). There is a need to address the fact that Jews have a complex identity within "a multi-ethnic and multiracial society", rather than simply treating them as "'White folks'" (Rubinstein,
182).
Are Jews in sitcoms today portrayed as White? Or are they perhaps "too
Jewish"? If Jewish characters are shown as "jews", is it possible that this depiction is used as a marker to help identify and marginalize Jews? Since the old stereotypes were used to differentiate Jews from non-Jews, one may assume that their use today serves the same purpose.
The "Bookworm Jew" and the Nerd
Although Jews seem to be currently socially accepted in the United States, a common depiction of the "jew" in sitcoms is as somewhat of a social outcast, as a nerd. The nerd is a character type who is defined as not fitting society's standards in his appearance, behavior and interests. He is often mocked for not conforming to standards of socialization. The nerd shares many traits of the "jew", though he is not necessarily Jewish. Like the "jew", the nerd is often excluded from society, by either avoiding or being shunned from social gatherings. The nerd is rarely athletic, showing little interest or talent at sports. He is considered very weak and often sickly, usually having asthma and allergies. The nerd's lack of sociability and his weakness all define him as emasculate. The nerd's most prominent trait, though, is his intelligence.
The nerd almost always has high intelligence. In fact, the nerd's lack of social skills and physical prowess are said to stem from his focusing on improving his brain above all else. This is quite similar to the perception of "jewish" intelligence. The
Rozenblatt 28
"jew" is perceived as smart and weak because he spends most of his time studying.
Another perception is that the "jew" is genetically smarter and weaker (Konner, 242).
Since Ashkenazi Jews were a small closed group, their breeding produced high likelihood for several genetic diseases (Konner, 242). Similarly, this same small group, who valued intelligence, produced smarter offspring by marrying together the children of smart and successful men (Konner, 242). Like many stereotypes, the image of the "smart jew" has some basis in reality, but it is difficult to determine whether there is actual truth in it. It is highly unlikely that all Jews are smart and weak. An earlier source for the perception of Jewish weakness and intelligence has also been suggested. Jews in the middle-ages deliberately differentiated themselves from the "muscular hegemony" by elevating the status of the scholar (Brod, "Some
Histories", 91). As mentioned previously, Jews chose for their leaders those men who were most educated, rather than the most able warriors, in order to maintain patriarchal order (Brod, "Some Histories", 91). Jews were, then, encouraged to develop their minds rather than their bodies, leading to the stereotype of the weak,
"bookworm" "jew" (Brod, "Some Histories", 91). The Jews' intelligence and learning is tied to their social seclusion, much like the nerd.
In today's media "the image of Jewish superior intelligence becomes the means of articulating Jewish difference", and "all Jews are smart or at least clever"
(Gilman, Smart Jews, 184; 189). Furthermore, the intelligent Jew is often perceived to be male, which is common for nerds as well (Gilman, Smart Jews, 185). While there are female nerd characters, they are not as common, and I have so far not found any female Jewish nerds on television. Gilman's claims about the intelligent Jew suggest that nearly every depiction of a male "jew" serves to differentiate him from society, as it depicts him as a nerd. Is this true in today's sitcoms?
Rozenblatt 29
Ross Geller from Friends, a Jew, is considered a nerd. He has a PhD in paleontology, and in later seasons teaches at a university. He is considered a nerd for being overly invested in learning rather than in social activities. In one episode Ross is thrilled at going to a scientific convention, while his other friends are not:
Ross: I was able to get everyone passes to the entire conference! … These
[tickets] will get you into all the paleontology lectures and seminars.
…
Chandler: Yeah Ross, I mean... we're excited to hear the speech but the rest of
the time we're gonna wanna do, you know, 'island stuff' ("The One in
Barbados").
Chandler, a non-Jew, as well as Ross' other friends, want to do "island stuff". That is, they want to perform social activities that "normal" people do on an island, such as going to the beach, and having fun. It should also be mentioned that Ross convinced his friends to come to the conference by mentioning that it is on a tropical island
("The One with the Donor"). Only a nerd would want to go to such a convention, and spend the day entirely on scientific lectures.
The episode also exemplifies how uncommon the female nerd is. Charlie,
Ross' female coworker, shares his interests and intelligence. Yet she is also young, attractive, and African-American. She is not depicted as a nerd, even though she has some of the basic qualities of one. That is possibly because she is female, but perhaps also because she is Black. African-American characters are rarely depicted as nerds as well. One possible reason is due to political correctness. The African-American
Rozenblatt 30
character cannot be marginalized or unaccepted, so they cannot be a nerd. African-
American nerd characters do exist, but they are quite uncommon.
In The Big Bang Theory, all four main male characters are considered nerds.
They are all shown to be intelligent; they all have advanced degrees and all work as researchers at a university. They all have poor social skills and are all shown to be bad at physical activity. The one Jewish character, Howard, who is in many respects a very stereotypical "jew" (he is short, has a big nose and in early seasons lived with his mother), is considered the least intelligent of the group. He only has a master's degree while the rest have doctorates. When Howard mentions that he has a master's degree to the dean of the university, the dean answers derisively "who doesn't?" ("The Griffin
Equivalency"). Furthermore, Howard's field of study, engineering, is made fun of as requiring the least mental faculties. As an MA among doctors, Howard is in the minority; he is the weakest of the group mentally. In this sense he remains in the social position of the "jew" even when among people of a similar social standing. The
Big Bang Theory reverses the stereotype of the "smart jew" in order to mark Howard.
The show uses his supposed lack of intelligence to differentiate him from the rest of his social group. By normal social standards, Howard is very much an intelligent, and nerdy, "jew". However, the ruling social group, the hegemony, in the show is one which is based on intellect, and consists of emasculate nerds. In such a group, the stupid one is the one marked as an outsider.
In comparison to Howard is the character of Raj, who is literally an outsider to
American society. Raj was born and raised in India and resides in the United States temporarily on a work visa. Raj is intelligent and is never mocked for being stupid.
However, though Howard is the one marked as different, it appears that he is more accepted than Raj. In the episode "The Friendship Algorithm", Sheldon, who is
Rozenblatt 31
White, decides to end his friendship with one of his friends. Howard seems the most likely candidate, as Sheldon considers him more of an "acquaintance" than a friend
("the Friendship Algorithm"). Sheldon's reasons for this relationship are Howard's supposed lack of intelligence and even his religion; Howard is unavailable to meet and play video games on Jewish holidays. His Judaism prevents him from participating in a social activity and is one reason why he is not fully accepted.
However, at the end of the episode Sheldon chooses to end his friendship with Raj, as
Raj did not know a trivial fact about Sheldon. This episode suggests that while the
"jew" is marked as different he is still accepted by the hegemony, albeit not fully. An outsider like Raj, on the other hand, is quickly excluded. This episode may be seen as an allegory for the status of the Jew as both White and Other. Even though Howard is not fully accepted due to his Judaism, he is not entirely excluded.
The Big Bang Theory reverses the stereotype of the "smart jew" to mark
Howard as different within a social group where all men are smart and emasculate.
Commonly in sitcoms, however, a lack of intelligence is tied with masculinity. There exists a character type who is the opposite of the nerd: the jock. The jock is a male who develops his body over his mind, and is often strong and very dumb. While intelligence is a masculine trait, it is common for characters that are stupid to be considered masculine, since these characters are often also physically powerful.
Physical prowess is one of the markers most associated with masculinity. In comedy, since physical prowess is often associated with stupidity, stupidity as a result becomes associated with masculinity.
In sitcoms, masculinity is common among most unintelligent males, not just athletic jocks. The "straight male buffoon" and the "endearing but foolish oaf" are common character types (Reese, 60; Miller, 154). Since the fifties, heterosexual males
Rozenblatt 32
in sitcoms have been coded as incompetent fools (Reese, 60). In older shows, the incompetent males were lower-class (Butsch, 133). Depictions of middle-class men as incompetent and irresponsible began in the 1970's, but were somewhat rare until the
1990's, when these characters became common (Butsch, 132-3). While male characters' masculinity should be undermined by their being depicted as buffoons, stupidity is often associated with physical masculinity, as noted before. Furthermore, the portrayal of male "fools" is usually balanced by their having other, more dominant, masculine traits. Joey from Friends, an Italian-American, is
"predominantly … unintelligent" (Reese, 76). Yet he is also the most physically masculine of the friends. Ross is coded as a "jewish" nerd, and Chandler is coded as effeminate, and is often mistaken for gay. It seems that the connection between masculinity and intelligence applies mainly when a character is defined by his level of intelligence. That is, only when a character's main trait is his intelligence (or lack thereof) is there a clear connection to his masculinity. Howard might be the dumbest of his group, but he is still defined as smart, and so he is seen as an emasculate nerd.
George on Seinfeld is considered "not very bright", but it is not his defining trait ("The
Couch"). Even the Jewish Jerry, though depicted as fairly intelligent, is not a
"bookworm jew". Intelligence in current sitcoms, then, is not a marker of Jewish difference, but a shortcut for depicting masculine or emasculate characters.
Job Security and Careerism
Intelligence is an important factor in another aspect of social acceptance: job security and careerism. In the United States, for one to have a place in society they commonly need to hold a job. Furthermore, to maintain and advance in a career, one needs masculine traits such as confidence, leadership and responsibility. While
Rozenblatt 33
intelligence is also needed for finding and holding a job, there are many "masculine" professions which do not require it. These are mostly physically demanding jobs in fields such as construction, plumbing, fishing and repair work. While masculine men in sitcoms are often unintelligent, they are also providers; intelligent or not, a masculine man should have a career (Reese, 60).
On Friends, the masculine Joey has trouble keeping or obtaining a job due to his stupidity. For example, he forgets an important engagement despite having written a reminder on his arm because he was wearing, as he says, "stupid long sleeves"
("The One with Rachel's Sister"). Of course, he is the one who was stupid. The other two men on Friends are smarter, and thus more successful. In particular Chandler, though he is often mocked for being effeminate, is promoted several times. Here careerism is not equated with masculinity. On Seinfeld, George, who is non-Jewish, has trouble keeping a job. While he is, as previously noted, not too smart, he fails mostly because he is lazy and ill-intentioned. For example, in "The Butter Shave",
George fakes being handicapped to gain benefits at the office. Later, when he is caught, he is forced to quit. The character of Jerry is Jewish, and while he has job security as a moderately successful stand-up comedian, he fails to advance in his vocation. He several times fails to get a television show, usually because of the incompetence of his friends.
This marks George and Jerry as a Schlemiel and Schlimazel, respectively; character archetypes common in European Jewish literature and folklore (C. Johnson).
Both are considered luckless and incompetent, but each for a different reason. The schlemiel, like George, is unlucky because of "his very nature" and his reaction to the world around him (C. Johnson). The schlimazel, like "Jerry … simply has bad luck"
(C. Johnson). The schlemiel and schlimazel are very similar to the nerd. Both are
Rozenblatt 34
socially inept, and unsuccessful in many aspects of life. Some relevant definitions of the schlemiel are: "A foolish person; a simpleton... A consistently unlucky or unfortunate person; … a born loser; a submissive and uncomplaining victim… A clumsy [person] ... A social misfit ... A pipsqueak" (Leo Rosten, quoted in
Buchbinder, 227-8). The schlemiel is in many ways a nerd without his intelligence, though not necessarily dumb.
The schlemiel can be said to represent "Jewish alienation" (C. Johnson). It used to be a "Jewish image" in Germany of the nineteenth century: a Christian writer named Adelbert von Chamisso coined the term in Peter Schlemihl (Wisse, 14).
Schlemihl was based on the "wandering Jew": "a man fated to be different [and] alien" (Wisse, 15). The schlemiel remained prominent in Jewish humor even after the
Jews' immigration and acceptance in the United States and after images of powerful
Jews started coming from Israel (Wisse, 73). Wisse postulates that the reason for the staying power of the schlemiel is Jewish comedy writers' hesitance "to risk believing in a newfound strength", instead believing in "a continued vulnerability of the Jewish position" (Wisse, 73). The schlemiel represents the weakness of Jews.
Yet the schlemiel became a part of American culture, not just Jewish culture
(Wisse, 73). The schlemiel can currently represent both Jews and non-Jews; it is the image of any "inadequately or incompetently masculine male" (Buchbinder, 229;
230). Instead of a stereotype marking the "jew" as emasculate, here is a Jewish term marking men of any origin as emasculate. This implies Jewish acceptance, since their folklore is adopted. Figures of American folk humor are quite different (Wisse, 74).
It seems, though, that most Jewish characters are schlemiels. When non-Jews are depicted as schlemiels, they may be seen as Jews. As stated before, Carla
Rozenblatt 35
Johnson's essay on George's depiction as a schlemiel on Seinfeld claims that he is
Jewish. Yet George is never said to be Jewish, and there is even evidence against his being Jewish. Johnson might be seeing George as Jewish because of his depiction as a schlemiel.
Howard from The Big Bang Theory is also a schlemiel. He almost loses his job several times due to his incompetence. He several times destroys or abuses company property. For example, in "The Classified Materials Turbulence" he designs a waste disposal system (nicknamed the "space toilet") with a flaw that is discovered only after it has been installed in the space station. In "The Lizard-Spock Expansion"
Howard causes millions in damages when he lets his date steer and inevitably crash the Mars rover. While he is never fired, Howard's promotion is held back by his incompetence.
In later seasons of the show, Howard's status improves. He becomes, for a short time, an astronaut; a masculine job, as I will discuss later. The reason for this change in his career is important. Howard only goes into space after he marries his
Catholic girlfriend Bernadette. This type of intermarriage, of a Jewish husband and
Christian wife, is very common on television (I write Christian and not Gentile, because such marriage is nearly always to Christian women) (Berger, 102). "[T]he nebbish [Jew] is, in effect, validated by his Gentile girlfriend or wife" (Berger, 102).
Validation here means the simultaneous "de-minoritiz[ing] and underscoring of [the
Jew's] marginal status" (Berger, 102). This seems to mean that while the Jew is assimilated due to intermarriage, the character's "jewish" traits become even more glaring in relation to his Christian wife.
Rozenblatt 36
This seems to be the effect of Howard's intermarriage. Though Howard's becoming an astronaut might suggest he is becoming more masculine and perhaps assimilated, the show often makes fun of the fact that he does not fit the role. For example, in "The Countdown Reflection", Howard is shown as very scared before launching into space, while his colleagues are calm. At the end of the episode,
Howard screams "oy vey" as the shuttle launches, connecting his cowardice with his
"jewishness" ("The Countdown Reflection"). Howard reveals his "jewishness" through this use of “jewish” language. Another example is the juxtaposition of
Howard's "nerdy" lack of masculinity with the prominent masculinity of his stern,
Catholic, father-in-law. Howard's "jewish" lack of masculinity is brought into the front through his intermarriage.
Masculine Jobs and "jewish" Jobs
Jews in the past were limited to certain professions. They were usurers or merchants in the middle-ages and, after the emancipation, took up "free professions" and became doctors, lawyers and scholars. In early twentieth century American
"popular imaginary 'the jew' was a weak, nonproductive man" (Itzkovitz, 188). The
"jew" worked, but did not labor. Today, "jewish" jobs stem from stereotyped perceptions of these aforementioned professions. It is a common joke that Jewish mothers want their sons to be doctors or lawyers. Other representations have the "jew" working with money, as a banker or an accountant. There is one more modern
"jewish" profession – the "jew" works behind the scenes in the entertainment industry, often in a role which involves money, such as a producer. Even this role has a historic source; many of the major film and television studios in America were founded by
Jewish immigrants and their sons (Gabler, Television's Changing Image, 4-5).
Rozenblatt 37
Whatever the historical source, some of these stereotypes appear in television comedy today. They hint at the image of the "jew" as smart, cunning, and good with money, but lacking in strength or charisma.
The "jewish" professions are cerebral, often white-collar, and common to the middle class. They are the opposite of what one might consider "masculine" jobs.
Masculine professions tend to require physical, rather than mental, prowess. Most are attributed to the lower class, such as the role of repairman. Other masculine jobs are those relating to authority and bravery, such as work in the police force or the military. In the nineteenth and early twentieth century the racist perception of the
"jew" as having a deformed body prevented him from either serving or being promoted in the army (Gilman, Jew's Body, 44). Racial theories regarding the Jews' body implied that "some 'races' are inherently weaker, 'degenerate'" (Gilman, Jew's
Body, 39). In nineteenth century Europe, Jews were thought to be physically unfit for masculine jobs. If such images persist, it is unlikely that the weak, nerdy and cowardly "jew" will work in these masculine professions.
None of the male characters in the shows I examine have masculine jobs; that is, physical jobs mostly performed by men. As middle class men, none of them work in physically taxing or life threatening professions. However, none of the male characters works in a "jewish" profession either. While Ross Geller is a doctor, he has a PhD, and not a physician's M.D. as in the stereotype. The non-Jewish doctors in The
Big Bang Theory similarly have PhDs or ScDs. Another example is Jerry Seinfeld, who works in the entertainment industry onstage as a comedian, rather than behind the scenes. In this way his position is similar to the masculine Joey from Friends, who works as an actor. In terms of career, the Jewish male in these sitcoms is depicted as similar to the non-Jew.
Rozenblatt 38
Moreover, as noted previously, Howard, who is Jewish, attains what is considered a very masculine profession, an astronaut. However, while there is some admiration toward Howard's character for achieving such a goal, it is mostly used as the source of jokes. Astronauts are seen as highly intelligent, physically capable, responsible and brave. Howard, a Jew with "jewish" qualities, and the "dumbest" in his social group, is the least likely to become one. Indeed, when Howard becomes an astronaut he is depicted as less masculine than the other astronauts. They, for example, give Howard an embarrassing nickname ("Froot Loops") which leads a coworker to think Howard is gay ("The Countdown Reflection"). In another episode,
"The Werewolf Transformation", Howard's mother comes to stay with him when he complains about his difficult training. Part of the humor stems from an emasculate man trying to achieve this masculine role. Or, as mentioned before, the joke in
Howard's becoming an astronaut might be in the depiction of an emasculate "jew" in a masculine profession.
Conclusion
While in the past Jewish intelligence and learnedness separated the Jew from the rest of society, today that is not the case. While Ross' friends reject and mock his interests, they still view him as socially equal. On the other hand, Howard is seen as inferior by his peers, despite their many similarities. Thus, the Jew may still be rejected, but not for being smart. Likewise, while intelligence often leads to success at one's profession, there is no connection between careerism and a man's ethnicity or masculinity. An effeminate man might be successful at his profession, and a masculine man may be a failure. A lack of success at one's job, if not caused by stupidity, may relate to the Jewish image of the schlemiel. The schlemiel represents
Rozenblatt 39
emasculate men. While this image may currently be applied to both Jews and non-
Jews, the schlemiel appears to be considered a "jewish" archetype; it has many
"jewish" traits. Most Jewish males are depicted as schlemiels, and non-Jewish men are sometimes wrongly identified as Jewish due to being seen as a schlemiel.
Of all the male characters, the one most coded as "jewish", Howard, had the most masculine profession, an astronaut. Even then, his "jewish" traits were made prominent. Thus while the Jew can have non-traditional "jewish" jobs, he cannot have a masculine profession without it being the source of jokes. It is ridiculous for a
Jewish man to have a masculine vocation.
Rozenblatt 40
Chapter II: Sexuality
Sexuality and sexual attraction, both in sitcoms and in general, relate to the previous topic of social acceptability, as well as to masculinity. Men and women whose sexuality deviates from the norm are often rejected by society. Even men whose sexuality is normative may be rejected if they are unsuccessful at sexual conquest. The nerd, for example, though his sexuality is often normative, is considered sexually undesirable as well as incompetent at interacting with females.
The sexuality of the "jew" has also been considered abnormal. The "jew" was seen as lustful and perverted. This representation of the "jew" as "predatory, sleazy, sex- obsessed, repellent and repulsive" began in ancient times (Abrams, 68). A man who is not sexually attractive or successful is considered by society to be emasculate, and many times even deviant. Someone who is not masculine might be seen as feminine.
This applies to the binary "Semiotic" definition of masculinity; that the masculine is that which is unfeminine (Connell, 70). The Jews in Europe were depicted as feminine, as "siss[ies]-that is, queer" (Solomon, 151). Literature of the fin-de-siècle depicted Jewish males as having "sexual pathology […] similar to that described in the era's theories on male homosexuals" (Davison, 30).
In sitcoms, a common joke is for a straight man to be mistaken for gay.
Sitcoms also use representations of less socially accepted sexual desires, such as incest, as sources for jokes. Instances of sexual humor in sitcoms often stem from the undermining of sexual norms, of what is socially acceptable. Humor based on sexuality often relies on testing or breaking the boundaries of what is considered appropriate. The boundaries of sexuality are constantly shifting; what is considered normal changes frequently. Cousin incest used to be acceptable in the United States in
Rozenblatt 41
the past, but is currently considered wrong, as I will expand upon later.
Homosexuality, on the other hand, is slowly becoming recognized as a legitimate sexual orientation in North America. Sexual humor in sitcoms stems from depicting impermissible behavior that deviates from the ambiguous, shifting norms of sexuality.
In this chapter, I will look at the sexuality of Jewish and non-Jewish men in sitcoms. I will focus on the image of the "pervert jew", as defined by Jonathan
Freedman: the pervert "jew" was "a figure that conjoined the … [sexually] hyperaggressive Jewish male with sexual nonnormativity of the feminised Jewish man" (quoted in Abrams, 69). In other words, the "jew" was simultaneously lustful toward women, sexually deviant, and queer. I will examine the various aspects of this stereotype, and how they are represented in sitcoms. First, I will look at sexual attractiveness; how sexually appealing a character is considered. Being sexually attractive stands in contrast to the image of the pervert; success with women implies that a man is not a pervert or deviant, and provides him with an outlet for his lustfulness. Next, I will look at lustfulness and whether Jewish characters are still depicted as lecherous. I will then look at the common appearance of exogamy. In the past, the "jew" was feared and hated due to his lust towards the Shiksa. Today it is common for Jews in America to marry gentiles. Afterwards, I will look at depictions of sexual deviancy, followed by an examination of homosexuality (which used to be considered a sexual deviancy, but is now more accepted). It seems that while the joke regarding homosexuality applies to all men, other forms of sexual behavior – those which are currently perceived as deviant – are still seen as "jewish".
All three sitcoms I look at deal with romantic and sexual relationships. Most of the main characters in these shows are male (only on Friends there is an equal number of male and female characters). Each show has one male character that
Rozenblatt 42
identifies as Jewish. None of the shows has a character that identifies as queer.
Phoebe on Friends is implied to be bisexual, but is never shown to have a female partner. Similarly, Amy on The Big Bang Theory is also implied to be bisexual, but it is mostly played as a joke. Like Phoebe, she has a male partner, and it is never made clear whether she harbors actual romantic or sexual attraction towards women.
Another character on the show, Sheldon, is implied to be asexual. Since these characters are only implicitly non-normative, I include them in my analysis. All other male characters, Jewish and non-Jewish, are shown to be heterosexual. Through comparing the representation of the sexuality of these characters I wish to see how male heterosexuality is perceived, and whether male Jewish sexuality is presented differently.
Sexual Attractiveness
Though "historically, 'real men' have been cast as lustful", lustfulness alone is not necessarily applied to masculine men (as I will show with the image of the
"pervert") (Chesebro and Fuse, 222). Indeed, "[i]n twentieth century America, lust" is linked to both masculinity and power (Chesebro and Fuse, 223). A masculine man not only lusts after women, but is able to conquer them sexually. Since rape is unacceptable, the powerful lustful man is represented as sexually attractive to women.
His power is that of attraction. This man is not necessarily handsome. He has usually had many female sex partners. In the sitcoms I examine, while most characters have had various sexual partners, there are characters who have had more partners than others, or who are explicitly defined as being sexually attractive.
Two characters stand out as being sexually appealing. Joey from Friends is seen as the most masculine of the men in the show, and had the most number of
Rozenblatt 43
consecutive sexual partners. On Seinfeld, Kramer is depicted as sexually attractive. In the episode "The Conversion", Kramer is defined as a "kavorka man", someone with
"animal magnetism" whom women cannot resist. In another episode, he is mistaken for a pimp ("The Wig Master"). Neither Joey nor Kramer is Jewish. The Jewish characters seem to be as sexually attractive as the other, average, non-Jewish men. On
Seinfeld, Jerry and George both had many sexual partners each. In fact, Jewish Jerry likely had more, since George was engaged for some time. On Friends, Jewish Ross had more partners than Chandler, though that is because Chandler, like George, entered a monogamous relationship halfway through the show. Their success before that was fairly equal. Though there are no overly sexually appealing Jews in the sitcoms I look at, a Jewish character fitting the image appears in the show The New
Girl from 2011. The character of Schmidt is confident, muscled and considered sexually attractive. Only Howard from The Big Bang Theory fits the "jewish" stereotype. In the early seasons of the show, he was depicted as repulsive to the show's main female character, Penny. Howard also had fewer partners than most of his friends in the first seasons. Currently, Howard is among the three male characters which are in a monogamous relationship, meaning, of course, that they all have the same amount of partners. For the most part, there seems to be equality between the
Jew and the non-Jew in terms of sexual attractiveness.
There is a joke in sitcoms, which takes the idea of a man being sexually unappealing to its extreme. The joke is that this kind of straight man is so sexually repulsive that he makes a woman swear off men; he "turns her" into a lesbian. This is implied with Ross' ex-wife Carol on Friends, who left him for a woman. Seinfeld is more direct with this joke. In "The Smelly Car" George meets an ex-girlfriend, Susan, who is now dating a woman. He asks her when she started seeing women, and she
Rozenblatt 44
answers "since you and I broke up" ("The Smelly Car"). Though George is unsure whether he is truly the cause, the end of the episode confirms his suspicion. Susan meets another of George's ex-girlfriends, and the two seem to be enamored with each other ("The Smelly Car"). As previously noted, George is not a Jewish character. His lack of sex appeal might be perceived as one of his "jewish" traits, but it is not clearly coded as "jewish".
It seems, then, that there are a few instances where sitcoms still use the stereotype of the sexually repulsive "jew". Yet these are solitary cases where Jewish characters are shown as sexually repulsive. In most other cases, Jewish characters are shown to be as sexually appealing as most other males on the shows. The only exception seems to be Howard in the early seasons of The Big Bang Theory. But even his representation changed midway through the show. The one way in which the stereotype seems to have remained is in the fact that those characters who are marked as most sexually appealing are non-Jews. Yet, as noted, examples of sexually attractive Jews exist in other sitcoms.
The "jewish" Pervert
Howard in the early seasons of The Big Bang Theory is presented as a stereotypical "jewish pervert". The "pervert jew" was overtly sexual, repulsive, sexually deviant, and at the same time weak and effeminate (Abrams, 68-9). Howard is an emasculate nerd, who is verbally sexually aggressive and perverted. Though not effeminate, Howard fits the image. However, the Jewish males from the other sitcoms do not fit into this image, and even Howard himself breaks from this characterization in later seasons. How and why was Howard's image changed? Also, are there non-
Jewish characters which are depicted as perverts?
Rozenblatt 45
A pervert is lustful, and his wooing tends be aggressive. He openly admits having sexual desires toward the person he is lusting after. Howard in the early seasons is quite lustful. He often makes inappropriate comments towards Penny. His behavior repulses Penny, who reacts to his "pick-up lines" with disgust. In comparison, Joey from Friends also tends to flirt with women. Unlike Howard, he is not seen as disgusting, and is rarely rejected. It seems that Howard is disgusting because he is a "jewish pervert", he is oversexed. Yet Howard stops being a "pervert" later in the show. He gets a girlfriend in season four, whom he marries later, and his lustfulness subsides. Perhaps, as happens with other offensive images, the image of the pervert "jew"' was rejected by viewers and so was changed (Reese, 55).
Howard's marriage to a gentile may be the cause for the disappearance of some of his "jewish" traits. While the previous chapter showed how Howard's intermarriage emphasized his "jewishness", it also noted that exogamy can lead to assimilation. The change in Howard's perverse nature may represent this assimilation.
As stated before, Jewish exogamy in sitcoms is very common, with "over 95 percent" of Jewish marriages on television being to non-Jews (Antler, "Not 'Too Jewish'", 67).
But does exogamy represent only the reality of Jews in America, or does it reflect something more? While American Jewish intermarriage is common, it is still only
"around 50 percent" of couples, half as much as on television (Antler, "Not 'Too
Jewish'", 67). This over-representation suggests an acceptance of the act of exogamy; it suggests that there is no longer a fear of Jews as lustful "rapists [who] threaten the purity of Christian women" (Biale, Eros and the Jews, 206). Intermarriage instead seems to be an attempt to solve a fear that Jews have: "their insecurity about their own status" as successful (Biale, Eros and the Jews, 209). Since "the non-Jewish woman
[was] the ultimate … prize" a Jewish man's marrying such a woman was proof of
Rozenblatt 46
Jewish success and integration (Biale, Eros and the Jews, 209). Exogamy is then, for
Jews as well as the rest of society, an image of Jewish assimilation.
Seinfeld addresses the issue of the gentile woman as sought after in the episode "The Serenity Now". At the start of the episode, Elaine attends a Bar-
Mitzvah, a Jewish rite of passage from boyhood to manhood. The boy celebrating it grabs Elaine and kisses her, exclaiming "I'm a man!" ("The Serenity Now"). Kissing the gentile woman is equated with manhood. It is then explained that Elaine has
"shiksa-appeal". Jewish men find her attractive because she is gentile – because she is
"not like their mother", nor like the Jewish American Princess ("The Serenity Now").
She is different from the Jewish woman. Throughout the episode, other Jewish men, including a Rabbi, profess either their love or attraction to Elaine, sometimes renouncing their Judaism when she rejects them. The joke is in the rashness of those
Jewish men. They are willing to leave their religion for the shiksa. The conclusion the episode seems to draw is this: "conquering" the shiksa is proof of manhood for Jews, and they are willing to leave their religion to do so. This seems to hint at the assimilation of Jewish men. By marrying "shiksas" they are leaving behind the image of the emasculate "jew" (though this may not be the case, as seen in the previous chapter), as well as their religion, since their children will not be considered Jewish.
Despite what the concept of "shiksa-appeal" may imply, the lustfulness of
Jewish men in sitcoms is not as prevalent as in stereotype. In the fourth and fifth seasons of The Big Bang Theory, Howard's lustfulness seems to have been transferred to a female character, Amy. She lusts after two of the main characters, Penny and
Sheldon. Amy's wooing is different from Howard's, as it is less aggressive. However, she is still overly lustful. She several times harasses Penny under the pretense of being best friends, and at least once tricks Sheldon into physical contact. Her wooing is not
Rozenblatt 47
seen as disgusting, though; it is usually simply ignored. This is likely because Amy is female. It is rare for female characters to be depicted as perverts. While it is unique to see a woman in a role often associated with men, this depiction carries with it the unfortunate implication that bisexuals are perverted (since Amy lusts after both
Sheldon and Penny). A deviancy from the social norm is still implied to be perversion. Perhaps the "jewish pervert" was simply replaced with another minority target. It is notable though, that like Howard's lustfulness Amy's supposed bisexual attraction has also disappeared in later seasons; she currently only lusts after Sheldon, in a manner that is depicted as less lecherous.
When Howard and Amy were depicted as perverts, their perversion was represented through their being said to masturbate. Though the act is considered common in modern American society, it is still a taboo in several ways. Several religions forbid it, and discussing it in most contexts is considered in bad taste. The word masturbation itself is rarely said on the shows, and euphemisms are used instead. The act represents all aspects of perversion. It represents overt lustfulness, since the person who does it cannot control their urges. It implies a lack of sexual appeal, since it is done when one cannot find a partner (many jokes stem from this).
Lastly, it is deviant, since it is a sexual act which is not performed within a socially accepted relationship. Much humor is derived from the fact that masturbation is both taboo and commonly practiced; the joke stems from playing with the boundaries of what is accepted.
On The Big Bang Theory, Howard and Amy are seen as perverts for masturbating, and their way of doing so is also implied to be perverse. In "The
Robotic Manipulation", Howard is rushed to a hospital because he used a mechanical robot arm on his genitals. This plot makes fun of Howard's perversion since as he
Rozenblatt 48
pleasures himself using a high tech, expensive device, not meant for such an act. In this sense the show is perpetuating the idea that masturbation is perverse, and that it ends in punishment. However, Amy is not punished for similar acts, which again raises the question whether she is not seen as a pervert because she is a woman. Or whether, only Howard is shown as a true pervert because he is depicted as "jewish".
The two other sitcoms seem to normalize masturbation, though. Instead of making fun of the act, the shows make fun of the people who are appalled by it. The famous Seinfeld episode "The Contest" is almost entirely based around the topic. The main plot of the episode is this: George is caught masturbating by his mother. When he reveals this to the other characters, they have a contest to see who can last longest without it. The episode normalizes masturbation not just by implying that the main characters perform it regularly (they compare it to shaving) but by suggesting that those who oppose it are old-fashioned. Jerry's girlfriend, for example, finds the contest disgusting, but she is depicted as a virgin, and a prude. Jerry, the Jew, is not disgusting for doing it, but rather his girlfriend is too sensitive.
The second character to find the act appalling is George's mother. When she catches him in the act she injures herself from the shock ("The Contest"). The mother,
Estelle, represents the parental generation who will naturally be shocked at these things. Also, as discussed previously, George's mother is one of the reasons why
George is often perceived as Jewish, as she herself is mistaken for Jewish: "She is stereotypically Jewish in body type, accent and temperament" (Krieger, 396). Estelle's appearance and behavior code her as a "jewish mother". In this way George's sexuality may be linked to being "jewish". However, George is not depicted as a pervert for masturbating. It is implied that all the main characters masturbated during the course of the episode. Earlier in the episode, it was shown that those who were
Rozenblatt 49
celibate had trouble sleeping; in the end, all characters are sleeping soundly.
Masturbation is seen as normal, and though Estelle's reaction may indicate a "jewish" stereotype, it is not one related to masculinity. The episode might code Estelle as a
"jewish mother", but George's behavior is not depicted as that of a "pervert jew".
On Friends, masturbation is also depicted as normal. In "The One with the
Sharks", Monica thinks she sees Chandler pleasuring himself while watching a documentary about sharks. She thinks he is into bestiality, and is relieved at the end of the episode to find out he was actually watching porn (he changed the channel to the nature documentary so that Monica will not catch him watching it). Masturbation is socially acceptable for men, even within married couples. Lusting after women is natural for men and not perverse.
Sexual Deviancy
In the above example from Friends, masturbation is normalized by its juxtaposition with a deviant kind of sexuality – bestiality. While Seinfeld and Friends normalize masturbation, an act which used to be seen as perverse and taboo, they still mock sexual behaviors which are currently seen as deviant. The Big Bang Theory as well makes fun of various deviancies. A common joke in sitcoms is for characters to be mistaken as sexually deviant, even though they rarely are so. Mistaking someone for a pervert undermines their masculinity. It implies that they do not perform their gender properly; they do not lust after the "correct" objects of desire. I will examine how shows present deviancies such as bestiality and incest. The subject of homosexuality, now relatively socially accepted, is more complex and will have its own section.
Rozenblatt 50
There are very few instances where characters are depicted as actual deviants in the shows. Mostly, a character will either be mistaken for a deviant, or it will be joked that they are perverse even if it is clear that they are not. For example, in The
Big Bang Theory, Leonard makes fun of Howard by saying that the latter is so perverse he "would [have sex] with … dolphins" ("The Griffin Equivalency"). On another occasion, Howard himself mentions how he thought of preserved corpses which he saw in a museum as attractive ("The Bad Fish Paradigm"). He describes this attraction as "a little harmless necrophilia", clarifying that he was joking ("The Bad
Fish Paradigm"). The juxtaposition between Howard's supposed attraction to dolphins and Chandler's supposed lust for sharks is interesting. Howard's friends joke that he is into bestiality, but they do not actually believe it. On the other hand, Monica believes the story of Chandler's bestiality, and the humor stems from her thinking it is real.
This difference seems to perpetuate the image of the "pervert jew" as sexually deviant. The joke in Chandler's case is that it is ridiculous both for him to lust after animals and for Monica to believe he does. In Howard's case, the joke is that he is so lustful that he may start going after animals, or corpses. While it is clear that Howard will not do so, the joke is based on exaggerating an existing trait.
While Howard's lustfulness has been toned down later in the show, there is another type of deviancy which still applies to him, as well as to another Jew, Ross from Friends. They are both incestuous. In "The One with Ross and Monica's
Cousin", Ross becomes sexually attracted to his female cousin. Though nothing happens between the two (the cousin is disgusted by the idea), the Jewish man's incestuous feelings are clear. Since Jews in the nineteenth century "refus[ed] to marry outside the[ir] inner group" they were perceived as inbred and "ill", leading to the image of the incestuous and sick "jew" (Gilman, "Sibling Incest", 4). Though Gilman
Rozenblatt 51
refers to brother-sister incest, in the contemporary United States relations between cousins are also seen as disgusting and taboo (even though it is legal to marry one's cousin in several American states, as well as in Jewish law).
Cousin incest in the United States likely became unwelcome due to the
Eugenics movement. The movement, based on Charles Darwin's theories, was influential between the late nineteenth century and the mid 1940's. It believed in breeding those people who will produce strong offspring. Since inbreeding led to genetic diseases and other maladies, laws were passed to ban cousin marriage
("Eugenics"). In fact, some of the states which still allow cousin marriage require the couple to be over the age of reproduction.
Another instance of incest is in The Big Bang Theory. Howard reveals that he lost his virginity to his second cousin, an act for which he still feels guilty ("The
Adhesive Duck Deficiency"). Not only that, but this incestuous act is how Howard lost his virginity. For a man to lose his virginity is considered a rite of manhood of sorts. In addition to cousin incest, there is also a strong hint of an Oedipus complex between Howard and his mother. Bernadette, Howard's wife, is often portrayed as similar to the mother. Howard states that Bernadette "sound[s] sexy when she's angry", the joke being that Bernadette sounds like his mother when angry ("The
Engagement Reaction"). Furthermore, Howard's mother claims that Bernadette shares her body type, "short and stacked" ("The Shiny Trinket Maneuver"). It is interesting to compare this to how on Seinfeld the Shiksa is said to be appealing because she is unlike the Jewish mother. Seinfeld itself presents an unusual take on incestuous relationships. In "The Junk Mail" George dates his cousin Rhisa in order to gain attention from his parents. While George is not interested in the romance, his cousin gradually becomes attracted to him. As a result, George plans to have his parents
Rozenblatt 52
catch him and Rhisa kissing. In the end, instead of his parents catching him, George catches his parents making love. George (and likely his cousin) is not Jewish, and the incest depicted in the episode does not seem connected to Judaism. The joke stems from the fact that George is the one who ends up viewing a socially unacceptable sexual act, seeing his own parents having sex.
Jewish characters are then still depicted as sexually perverse, mainly in regards to incest. Though incest is not solely a "jewish" stereotype (it is also applied to "rednecks" and nobles, which are White social groups), it indicates that Jews are still seen as sexually deviant.
Homosexuality
Though male characters in sitcoms are sometimes mistaken for having socially rejected perversions, they are far more often mistaken for being gay. Homosexuality was considered a perversion for many centuries, and was even listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as a psychological disorder until 1974
(Spitzer, 210). Nowadays, though, homosexuality is becoming accepted in America.
Homosexuality ceased being considered a criminal act (the act of sodomy is no longer outlawed) in the United States, and several states have legalized gay marriage.
Though the subject of gay rights is still controversial, the United States is becoming more tolerant. Several sitcoms, such as Will and Grace and The New Normal, even have gay main characters. Despite this acceptance, the joke where a straight man is mistaken for gay is still common, and is found in all the sitcoms I look at. Indeed, in sitcoms between 2000 and 2005 "gay/feminine masculinities" were nearly always mocked "suggesting that these masculinities are objects of ridicule" (Miller, 154).
Homosexuality is no longer seen as a signifier of perversion. Rather, it is its own
Rozenblatt 53
signifier of a lacking masculinity which is often, but not always, associated with femininity.
Homosexuality is connected to the "jew". In the 1800s "Jews were seen as inherently 'feminized' and homosexually inclined" (Friedman, 4). Otto Weininger writes in 1903, to explain the essence of Judaism, that "Judaism is saturated with femininity" with "qualities … in the strongest opposition to the male nature"
(Weininger, 309). Homosexuality, femininity, and the "jew" are related.
Yet is homosexuality in sitcoms "jewish"? It seems not. Almost all men in the shows I examine are mistaken for gay, or joked about as if they are gay. Though homosexuals are not necessarily effeminate, a character which has feminine traits, or which lacks masculine traits, is often mocked for acting "gay". Usually close male friends are thought to be homosexual. A possible explanation for this is that "[m]en are not encouraged to develop close friendships with other men because of the hegemonic hierarchy" (Feasey, 23). Men are pushed by society to be self-sufficient, to have leadership skills, to refrain from emotional weakness (Feasey, 23). These traits all deny the "normative" man from having a close connection with another man. Thus, when men are close to each other, they are seen as less manly, as "gay".
On Friends, roommates and best friends Joey and Chandler are several times mistaken for a gay couple. For example, in "The One with the Baby on the Bus", the two babysit Ross' son, and are thought to be his parents. In another episode, Ross and
Joey are horrified to find out that they fell asleep while cuddling each other, part of the joke being that such physical contact is akin to homosexual love ("The One with the Nap Partners"). The Big Bang Theory's Howard and Raj are frequently joked about as being gay. A character tells them they "have created an ersatz homosexual
Rozenblatt 54
marriage" ("The Maternal Capacitance"). The two have also kissed on the show, though never directly. One kiss was accidental, and one was indirect – they were testing (by kissing) a pair of remotely connected robotic mouths. Both kisses occur when Howard is in a relationship with Bernadette. That the Jew and the Indian are seen as gay is stereotypical, but the joke stems from their close friendship rather than their ethnicity. The joke is in testing the boundaries of male companionship. When men are too close it undermines their masculinity. On Seinfeld, one notable instance of friends being mistaken for gay is in the episode "The Outing". In it, Jerry and
George are thought to be a gay couple. Though one of them is Jewish and the other is often coded as a "jew", it is their close friendship which leads people to think they are a couple (though the catalyst is a lie told by Elaine). As mentioned previously, jokes where close male friends are mistaken for gay represent the unclear boundaries of masculinity, sexuality and gender (Di Mattia, 103).
In another Seinfeld episode, "The Note", George is afraid that he might be a homosexual. In the episode, George gets a massage from a man, during which he feels that "[his penis] moved" ("The Note"). Despite George's constantly denying any homosexual tendencies, at the end of the episode he calls another man "handsome"
("The Note"). The joke stems not from George's ethnicity, but from his lack of confidence in his sexuality; from testing the boundary between heterosexual and homosexual. Another Seinfeld episode seems to contradict the fear of being labeled a homosexual In the episode, Jerry acts mildly offended when a gay man does not perceive him as gay, claiming that "it's very emasculating" to be seen as straight ("The
Wig Master", quoted in Cooper, "Emasculating", 16). The joke is in the reversal of expectations. Usually homosexuality and emasculation are connected, but here not being seen as gay is considered emasculating.
Rozenblatt 55
The connection between homosexuality and femininity, not just emasculation, is also prevalent in the sitcoms. On The Big Bang Theory episode "The Closure
Alternative" is it outright stated that Raj is feminine. This is an Orientalized image.
Yet the similar image of the effeminate "jew" does not apply to Howard. On Friends,
Chandler the WASP is considered effeminate, and is the one most often mistaken for being gay. Homosexuality and femininity are then no longer "jewish" images. Those mistaken for gay are not coded as "jewish". Rather, the joke where straight men are seen as homosexuals stems from them not having traits of normative masculinity.
Conclusion
Sexual appeal is still a common source for jokes, as characters which lack it are mocked. Despite this, the image of the sexually repulsive "jew" is uncommon in sitcoms. Though Howard started out as a perverse "jew", he has since changed. Two other characters, one Jewish, and one often coded as "jewish", are shown to have repulsed women off men. These are isolated incidents, though, and for the most part these men have as many sexual partners as the averagely attractive male characters.
Lustfulness is, for the most part, not seen as perverse as it used to be. As noted, Howard initially fit the image of the "lustful jew", but changed a few seasons into the show. It may be that Howard's marriage to a Christian, his assimilation, is the cause. The role of pervert was transferred to a non-Jewish woman, but even her deviancy was removed in later seasons. No other Jew in these sitcoms is lustful. Some of the non-Jews are depicted as lustful, but not as perverse as the image of the "jew".
For the most part, lust is depicted as natural. Nearly all men and women desire sex; it is only seen as perverse by prudes. There are, however, types of sexuality which are deemed inappropriate and deviant. Here the "perverse jew" still exists. Jokes about
Rozenblatt 56
what the "jew" lusts after are an exaggeration of his perceived deviancy. That is, there is supposedly a grain of truth in Howard's desire to have sex with anyone and anything. Furthermore, Jewish characters are shown more than once to be incestuous, still very much a taboo. The only sexual deviancy which is not "jewish" on the shows is homosexuality. Of course, homosexuality is no longer seen as deviant, and is now more socially accepted. The related "jewish" trait of femininity is also no longer applied to Jews. This is because homosexuality and femininity are more closely connected. That is, one who acts in an effeminate manner will be seen as gay rather than Jewish.
Rozenblatt 57
Chapter III: The Body
Manhood and masculinity are commonly defined by physical traits. The male body, with the male sexual organ in particular, is usually the marker of manhood.
That is, it is still commonly perceived that a man must have a penis to be considered male. There are, of course, many other masculine bodily traits, such as a tall stature, muscles, "greater upper body strength", a strong jawline and more (Chesebro and
Fuse, 212). Some social aspects of masculinity, such as those discussed in chapter one, relate to the body. For example, the nerd is known for choosing his mind over his body, and most jobs which are considered masculine require physical labor or risk.
The body is a main marker of difference, since it is immediately visible. In hegemonic society "[a]ll men [a]re supposed to conform to an ideal masculinity", with excluded groups such as Jews depicted as the opposite of the ideal, with "misshapen bodies" (Mosse, 6). Similarly, "the ultimate definition of the Jewish body has been by that of those who hated them" (Konner, 19). Then, if stereotypes about "jewish" bodies still exist, they may retain this need to mark the Jew as a rejected Other.
The Jews' education was one of the main causes for their being considered physically weak. As previously mentioned, in the middle ages Jewish men started focusing on developing their mind rather than their body (Brod, "Some Histories",
91). This was a way of "not conforming to dominant, more brawny standards of masculinity" presented by hegemonic society (Brod, "Some Histories", 91). Yet the construct of the "weak jew" in contemporary culture seems to stem from more recent history, from racial theories. Around the end of the nineteenth century Jews were determined a race rather than a religion. This meant that Jewishness was a biological, physical trait; one that is inherent and cannot be changed. This marked the Jew as
Rozenblatt 58
"'different' from the Aryan in every way" (Gilman, Jew's Body, 203). The Jew's supposed weakness was used to differentiate him from other races. The "jew" was considered "inherently weaker, 'degenerate', more at risk for certain types of diseases"
(Gilman, Jew's Body, 39). There are two historical reasons for this perception. One, as previously noted, is the marriage of Ashkenazi Jews within a small group, which led to various genetic diseases and disorders (Konner, 242). Two, is the consequences of the urbanization of Jewish communities (Gilman, Jew's Body, 49). The effect of modern living: crowdedness, disease and a relative lack of physical activity, was the cause of actual physical deterioration among the Jews (Gilman, Jew's Body, 49).
The weak body of the "jew" was also associated with circumcision, which before the nineteenth century was the main physical difference between Jews and non-Jews. Circumcision, seen as mutilation of the penis, created the image of the effeminate Jew; his manhood was perceived as damaged (Gilman, Jew's Body, 74).
Also, as noted previously, in the middle-ages it was believed that Jewish men menstruated, which made them similar to women (Resnick, 244). The "jews" had physical qualities of females rather than males: a damaged penis (likened to the missing penis of the female) and periodical bleeding.
Nowadays, Jewish men are not thought to have a menstrual cycle and are not unique in being circumcised. The old marker of Jewish men, circumcision, is no longer a purely Jewish trait. This, and the assimilation and secularity of many
American Jews, is why it is hard to recognize a man as Jewish. This may explain why many Jews embrace some of the old stereotypes about their appearance. The commonly agreed upon definition of a Jew is a person born to a Jewish mother, or a person who has converted to Judaism. There is no physical, behavioral or nominal way to determine one's Judaism. In this chapter I will look at various ways in which
Rozenblatt 59
the Jewish body was depicted as different, and see how they apply to modern sitcoms.
First, I will look at the discussion of circumcision of the penis. Circumcision, which was an actual physical marker of difference until the twentieth century, was seen as a sign of the diseased and effeminate "jew" in Eastern Europe in the late nineteenth century (Gilman, Jew's Body, 76). I will also examine cases where a damaged penis
(not necessarily circumcised) is related to castration anxiety and emasculation.
Afterwards I will examine the subject of athleticism. The depiction of the "jew" as physically weak was so prevalent at the end of the nineteenth century that it had to be corrected through the creation of the ideal of the "muscle Jew". Following that, I will examine the issue of disease and health. Jews were considered sickly, and were even said to have unique diseases such as flat feet (Gilman, Jew's Body; Konner). I will see whether Jewish characters are shown to be more diseased than others. Lastly, I will discuss clothing. Though they are not an inherent part of the body, clothes may change the shape and representation of the body. In the past, Jews were marked by being forced to wear certain items of clothing. Though not forced to wear such items today by the hegemony, are Jewish characters still marked somehow through their clothes? Are their clothes effeminizing?
As mentioned in the first chapter, all the main characters are middle class and none of them work in physical labor. As a result, no character is considered athletic or muscled. On Seinfeld and Friends, most characters are of average build, and all partake in physical activity occasionally. On The Big Bang Theory, since its premise is that the main male characters are nerds, they are all depicted as physically weak and inept. There are other relevant physical differences between these characters, though.
Most of the women in all three shows are also of average build and strength. There
Rozenblatt 60
are some instances where the women are shown as physically stronger than the men; these instances are used to ridicule the men.
Circumcision and the Penis
As previously mentioned, circumcision was in the past a physical marker of
Jewish difference and consequently of "jewish" emasculation. Currently, however, circumcision is common among Christians as well. The spread of circumcision began at the end of the nineteenth century in the United States and Britain ("Circumcision",
68). The process was seen as a sort of status symbol for middle class families, who could afford having a doctor come and deliver and circumcise the baby
("Circumcision", 68). Later, in the United States in the twentieth century, circumcision was seen, thanks to "Jewish thinkers", as "a hygienic practice" (Gilman,
"The Jew's Body", 67). This led to circumcision being considered part of an "'ideal' and healthy American" body, and to American Jews becoming "invisible" (Gilman,
"The Jew's Body", 67). Thus the same marker of physical difference and emasculation became a marker of social status and health. Circumcision no longer differentiates between Jews and non-Jews.
On contemporary sitcoms, though, circumcision is still at times used as a marker of difference. Each of the shows I discuss treats the subject in a different manner. On The Big Bang Theory circumcision is a physical marker of Jewishness, but not of "jewishness". That is, circumcision might mark the Jewish character as different, but it does not represent any negative or positive traits of Jewishness. On
Friends, the depiction of circumcision is somewhat representative of its status in
American society, as the sitcom shows that non-Jewish men are now also circumcised. On Seinfeld, circumcision seems to still be associated with the
Rozenblatt 61
emasculate "jew", even though the show acknowledges the fact that most men are circumcised.
Despite circumcision's prevalence among both Jews and non-Jews in the
United States, in The Big Bang Theory circumcision is always used to mark Howard as Jewish. It signifies the male Jewish body. However, unlike its historical image, circumcision on The Big Bang Theory does not carry with it the connotation of an emasculate, damaged and diseased body. For example, in the episode "The Porkchop
Indeterminacy" three of the main characters try to court a Christian woman, Sheldon's sister Missy. Raj tries to impress her by mentioning his ethnicity, citing for example that Indians invented pajamas. Howard responds by saying that the Jews "invented circumcision" ("The Porkchop Indeterminacy"). The juxtaposition of these two
"inventions" suggests that circumcision is used as a marker of ethnicity. This is evident by Raj and Howard's interaction after Missy rejects both of them:
Howard [imitating an Indian accent]: I’m a fancy Indian man, we invented
pajamas!
Raj [mocking Howard]: Hey, look at me, I don’t have a foreskin ("The
Porkchop Indeterminacy").
Being a "fancy Indian man" is juxtaposed with being circumcised, and thus being circumcised equals being Jewish. Similarly, in a later episode Howard tells Bernadette that, in regards to following Jewish custom, "as long as you got your [penis] clipped and don’t wear a cross, you’re good" ("The Habitation Configuration"). Here circumcision is used as a physical marker of Judaism, one which is unrelated to emasculation.
Rozenblatt 62
In contrast, Friends seems to discuss circumcision more realistically. That is, the show acknowledges the fact that non-Jews are now also circumcised. In the episode "The One with Ross and Monica's Cousin", Joey, who is a Catholic-Italian, is revealed to be circumcised. In the episode, Joey wants to audition for the movie role of a Catholic-Italian immigrant in the early twentieth century. Joey fits the role in all aspects apart from the fact that he is circumcised. The role requires full-frontal nudity, and the leading man must be uncircumcised in order to portray a non-Jewish man.
This is important because the film is historical, and deals with a Jewish woman having an affair with a non-Jew. In the film's time period, circumcision was still a sign of Jewishness. The depiction in the episode seems to be representative of the status of circumcision in America; circumcision used to be a sign of difference, but is no longer one.
The Seinfeld episode "The Bris", as the title implies, deals most directly with the subject of circumcision. In the episode, Jerry is asked to be godfather (the person who holds the baby during the ceremony) at the bris of his friends' son. Throughout the episode, all of Jerry's actions relating to the bris are emasculating. For example, because he is named godfather, Jerry tries to mimic the voice of Marlon Brando's character from the famous film of that name. However, nobody recognizes the impersonation. Jerry cannot be a good godfather as in the film (a masculine character
– an intimidating head of a family and a crime organization). Later, Jerry is shown to be nervous about his role as godfather, because he must hold the baby and watch the procedure. Jerry's cowardice leads to him getting a second, symbolic, circumcision: the mohel accidentally cuts his finger ("The Bris"). Circumcision here is associated with the emasculate, cowardly, "jew". The mohel is depicted as a neurotic man as
Rozenblatt 63
well. Circumcision is not a marker of physical disease, but rather of "jewish" cowardice and neurosis.
However, while the Jewish custom of circumcision is shown negatively, having a circumcised penis is depicted as the norm. During the episode, several characters ask one another whether they had ever seen an uncircumcised penis. They treat seeing one as a strange and unusual thing. Even the Christian Kramer, who opposes circumcision, is himself circumcised ("The Bris"). The episode presents a duality in regards to circumcision. As a Jewish custom, it relates to "jewish" stereotypes. However, as a marker of most American men, it is the norm. This ambivalence is exemplified in the episode's ending. In the last scene, the baby's parents ask Kramer to be the godfather (here referring to the secular role of guardian) of the now circumcised child. The scene alludes to the film The Godfather by using the same background music. This allusion marks Kramer, the secular godfather, as masculine. Kramer does not reject the child, even though the baby is circumcised. It is not circumcision itself which is emasculating, but its context as a Jewish tradition.
The episode perpetuates the stereotype that Jewish men are emasculate, while also acknowledging the fact that what used to mark them as such has become the norm. It is the ethnic and religious context by which "jews" are marked, not by their bodies.
Circumcision is, then, a complex image. It seems that it is still a Jewish marker due to its historical origins. However, because most men in the United States are circumcised, it no longer indicates that one is emasculate.
On Seinfeld, the non-Jewish men are those said to have a damaged penis. Both
George and Kramer experience emasculation related to their member. In the episode
"The Hamptons", George is seen naked by Jerry's date. George fears that she will tell his own date about the size of his penis, which he claims has temporarily shrunk due
Rozenblatt 64
to swimming in cold water. In a later scene, George confronts his date about its supposed lacking size, and she leaves him, thinking he is lying. She leaves because she thinks his penis is small. Here the non-Jewish male member is tied to emasculation. It becomes damaged (shrinks), and this leads to George's failure in attaining the affections of a woman. During the episode, the penis itself is described in emasculating terms, as "a frightened turtle" ("The Hamptons"). Though George has several "jewish" traits, his "damaged" penis is not portrayed as one such trait. The damaged penis here may be emasculating, as it relates to a fear of castration, but it is not a marker of "jewishness".
A fear of castration, or castration anxiety, is a fear which is said to be common among men. It is the fear of the potential loss of power and emasculation due to the loss of, or damage to, the penis. In the early twentieth century, Freud writes that
"[c]astration anxiety is the deepest unconscious root of Anti-semitism" (Freud,
"Analysis", 36n1). The connection between castration anxiety and Jewish hatred is due to circumcision: "Little boys hear that a Jew has something cut off his penis – a piece of his penis, they think – and this gives them the right to despise Jews" (Freud,
"Analysis", 36n1). "Circumcision … evokes fears of castration" (Junte-Pace, 100). As seen previously, though, in today's American society, and in sitcoms, circumcision is common for most men. As a result, castration anxiety no longer relates to circumcision. It is currently an image of emasculation which does not necessarily relate to the perception of Jews.
However, castration anxiety today might still relate to the issue of impotence in men (Keylor and Apfel, 63). There do not seem to be representations of impotent men in the sitcoms I look at, possibly because the subject is too risqué for mainstream television; it deals too closely with sexual relations. The related issue of infertility is
Rozenblatt 65
represented, though. Infertility is a sign of emasculation in many cultures – an infertile man is thought to be unable "to prove [his] virility, paternity and manhood"
("Infertility", 335). Interestingly, no Jewish man in the sitcoms is depicted as infertile, though only Ross of Friends fathers children. In the Seinfeld episode "The Chinese
Woman", Kramer is diagnosed with having low sperm count. The cause of Kramer's low sperm count is said to be his wearing tight underwear. This fashion choice hints at an overt sexuality, since this type of undergarment accentuates the male form. Indeed, later in the episode Kramer claims that he finds boxers uncomfortable, and in the end decides that he prefers wearing no underwear at all. Kramer's sexuality becomes frightening. When Jerry finds out that Kramer is not wearing underwear, he says to
Elaine: "the only thing between him and us is a thin layer of [cloth]", and the pair step back from Kramer ("The Chinese Woman"). This scene marks Kramer as overly sexualized. The "him" Jerry refers to is not Kramer, but a synecdoche for Kramer's penis. Similarly, Kramer says "I'm out there", again referring to his member ("The
Chinese Woman"). Kramer becomes so virile that the scene equates him to his phallus. Kramer does not represent a perverse sexuality, but rather a frightening virility. The only other infertile male character is Chandler from Friends, who is a non-Jew. It seems then that infertility in men is not a "jewish" image in sitcoms.
The Body
While the circumcised penis no longer signifies a damaged body, the "jewish" body as a whole might still be depicted as damaged. In this section I will look at the depiction of the male body in general. An ideal masculine man according to the hegemony is one who is strong, tall, muscular, athletic and good at sports (I will expand upon these last two in the next section). In the sitcoms I observe, most male
Rozenblatt 66
characters have an average build, and average physical capabilities. While stereotypical "jews" have "small statures, large noses and flat feet", and are considered weak and lazy, the Jews in the sitcoms lack most of these features
(Presner, 6).
The only exception to this is Howard, who is both very short, and has a large
"jewish" nose. The show addresses his "jewish" body in the aforementioned episode
"The Porkchop Indeterminacy". After Sheldon refuses to let Howard ask his sister on a date, Howard wonders if it is because he is Jewish. Sheldon answers: "This has nothing to do with religion. This has to do with the fact that you’re a tiny, tiny man who still lives with his mother" ("The Porkchop Indeterminacy"). Howard's being short and living with his mother is tied to his representation as a Jew on the show.
Like in nineteenth century Europe, "jewish" images from "the sphere of religion" are applied to other spheres, here to the body (Gilman, Jew's Body, 43). In another episode, Howard's height is mentioned in comparison to Leonard, who is not Jewish but also quite short. After Leonard jokes about Howard's height, the following exchange occurs:
Howard: Short jokes? Really? You’re, like, a quarter of an inch taller than me.
Leonard: Yeah, and don’t you forget it ("The Hot Troll Deviation").
Howard is reminded that he is the shortest, perhaps to hint that he is physically inferior. Like with his lacking education, Howard's lower height marks him as different and inferior to the rest of the group, even though he is nearly the same height as a non-Jew. The group marks the Jew as different, despite his many similarities to them.
Rozenblatt 67
George Costanza of Seinfeld is similarly physically emasculate. He is short, fat, balding and bespectacled. However, while he has a "jewish" body, he is not
Jewish. As mentioned earlier, George's ethnicity is ambiguous. A number of researchers perceive him as Greek or Italian (Gabler, Television's Changing Image, 8;
Krieger, 396). On the other hand, "everyone in America", that is, the show's viewers, perceive George as Jewish, including researchers C. Johnson, and Cooper (Gabler,
Television's Changing Image, 8). It appears that a non-Jew may be perceived as a Jew if he has "jewish" physical characteristics.
Though it seems that the image of the short "jew" still exists, only Howard in
The Big Bang Theory truly fits it. Jerry and Ross, the Jewish characters from the other sitcoms, are of average height. It is interesting that the newest of the shows is the one which depicts the old stereotype. This depiction is especially problematic since fewer
Jews appear in shows from the 2000's. If few Jews are represented, and those that are shown have stereotypical traits, then perhaps Jews are becoming less accepted in recent years.
Athleticism
By athleticism I am referring to aptitude in sports and other physical activities.
The "jew" is weak, damaged and diseased. He is associated with learning rather than physical activity. There is a counter image to this stereotype: the "muscle Jew". As mentioned previously, muscular Judaism was a movement inspired by Max Nordau at the end of the nineteenth century (Presner, 1). It used as its principles the masculine ideals of "discipline, agility and strength" in order to create "healthy, physically fit … and militarily strong Jews" (Presner, 2). Muscular Judaism was a Zionist ideal, and seems to be more associated with Israeli Jews than any others. Still, whether or not
Rozenblatt 68
the Jews in the sitcoms exhibit aspects of "muscular Judaism", their physical prowess seems to be depicted as equal to the other main characters.
On Seinfeld, the Jewish main character is usually shown as equal in strength, if not stronger, than other characters. In "The English Patient", Jerry is challenged by a man with the Jewish name Izzy Mandelbaum. Jerry wins without even moving, as
Izzy, who is an old man, hurts his back. As the episode progresses other male relatives of Izzy hurt themselves in a similar manner. In the end, Jerry proves his strength by casually lifting a television that one of the Mandelbaums could not move (in fact he got injured trying to move it) ("The English Patient"). While the Mandelbaums are presented as likely to be Jewish, their weakness is not linked to their ethnicity, but to their age. Izzy is said to be eighty, and his relatives look as if they are over fifty.
In terms of athleticism, Jerry is shown to participate in casual sports and recreational activities, such as playing basketball. Even George, though he is lazy and has a "jewish" body, is shown to participate in the same physical activities. A similar situation regarding athleticism occurs on Friends. In "The One with the Football", as the name implies, Ross plays football equally with his male friends. Though the episode mocks Ross for being physically equal to his sister, the sister, Monica, is implied to be as physically capable as all males. The comparison between Ross and his sister is used to mock the siblings' exaggerated competitiveness, rather than their physical prowess.
Despite their relative equality to other men, there are two instances where both
Jerry and Ross are shown to win by cheating. In the Seinfeld episode "The Race",
Jerry is challenged by an old classmate to a race. The reason behind it is that Jerry cheated on a school race, and only the classmate, named Meyer, suspected him of it.
Rozenblatt 69
Jerry admits to his friends that he cheated (though by mistake), and that he is probably not fast enough to win. When the second race takes place, Jerry again cheats by mistake, leaving his real ability unknown ("The Race"). On Friends, Ross cheats when playing rugby with his girlfriend's male friends. At first he plays fairly, and poorly, since his opponents are stronger and more familiar with the game. Ross only gains an advantage after his girlfriend tells him of her friends' weaknesses ("The One with all the Rugby"). In both cases, the "jewish" body is not fit or strong enough to win fairly. It seems that in cases where the Jewish character must prove himself against non-Jews, he must cheat in order to win. However, one must note that in both cases the "jewishness" of the characters is not stated as the cause for their lack of ability. While Jews are no longer shown to be physically weaker, it seems that they are not shown as strong either. To be stronger, a Jew has to cheat, perhaps hinting at the old conception of the weak and cunning "jew".
“jewish” Diseases
The "jewish" body is not only marked as being small and weak, but is also perceived as diseased. Being diseased was "a sign of the Jew's inherent difference"
(Gilman, Jew's Body, 49). The "jew" in nineteenth and twentieth century Europe was linked with various illnesses, with some conditions being known as "Jewish disease[s]" (Gilman, Jew's Body, 162; 56). In sitcoms, depictions of illness are uncommon. This is likely due to two reasons. One, a sick character has limited options of interaction. This means that writers are less likely to write such a plot, as it limits both them and the actors. Two, jokes about disease might be seen as inappropriate by viewers. I will discuss instances of illness as well as depictions of allergies, since they also represent bodily weakness.
Rozenblatt 70
As said, characters in sitcoms are rarely shown being sick. On Friends, two of the female characters were sick. Of the males, Joey had a hernia caused by weight lifting. Thus even when sick and injured, Joey is associated with masculinity ("The
One Where Joey Loses His Insurance"). On Seinfeld, Kramer gets sick most often, usually with a cold. Jerry, on the other hand, is presented as obsessed with cleanliness and avoiding germs. Jerry's character may not be a diseased "jew", but his fear of germs is emasculating. This emasculation seems unrelated to a "jewish" stereotype. In
"The Outing", where Jerry is mistaken for a homosexual, it is suggested he is seen as gay because he is very "neat".
Allergies are more likely to be depicted in sitcoms than illnesses. It is acceptable to make fun of allergies, as they are common and often seen as harmless.
Jerry on Seinfeld, for example, is shown to have one allergy, in "The Slicer". Since allergies are so common, a character having one allergy is usually not emasculated by it. Allergies are more associated with the "nerd" than the "jew". Having many allergies is seen as a weakness. Ross on Friends is said to be allergic to lobster, peanut and kiwi ("The One with the Baby on a Bus"). On The Big Bang Theory, three of the main cast members are said to have allergies. This is fitting, since they are all nerds. Of them, though, Howard is the most associated with his allergies. They are mentioned several times and even shown on screen in "The Staircase
Implementation", where Howard eats a candy bar with peanuts in it to trigger a reaction. Actual disease, though, is associated with almost all of the male characters on the show. Leonard and Howard are both said to have genetic inclinations for disease, and Sheldon is shown being sick most often. It seems that the Jew is no longer coded as diseased, and is similar to the non-Jew.
Rozenblatt 71
Clothes
Clothes have been a marker of Jewish difference for centuries. Jews were forced to wear clothes to distinguish them from others. In the fifteenth century, for example, Jews wore red garments, and had earrings similarly to prostitutes (Hughes,
17-8). Today, in multiethnic America, most Jews are secular and assimilated, and wear clothes similar to the White majority. However, clothes are still a marker of difference between social class, age and gender. It is a common joke in sitcoms for a character to wear a set of clothes that does not fit them. The character may wear clothes which are too big or too small, or clothes that do not fit the character's social role. For male characters, this often means female clothes, or drag. In this section I will focus on male drag in sitcoms. I will also address other instances where clothes are used to emasculate a character in some way.
Drag
As mentioned in the introduction, gender is not a biological quality, but a social construct which must be performed (Butler, Gender Trouble, 179). That is, being male or female means behaving in a certain manner. For example, a male performs his gender by wearing men's clothes. Drag is used to depict the uncertainty of gender (Butler, Gender Trouble, 146). When men dress as women, they perform in a way that does not suit their gender. This may be seen as emasculating; when men dress in drag they are behaving like women (or rather, like society expects women to behave).
There are two approaches to the use of drag in comedy. One is that drag is emasculating: Jewish drag on television "fuel[s] anti-Semitic suspicions about Jewish men as weak, disempowered and unmasculine" (Berger, 97). It perpetuates the image
Rozenblatt 72
of the "jew". Jewish drag is almost solely emasculating, while other depictions of men in drag might have different interpretations (Berger, 97). The second approach is that drag can also be "an empowering strategy", especially when it is a conscious choice of the male to dress in such a way (Garber, 38). This means that even Jewish drag can be empowering. Each sitcom I examine depicts drag (Jewish or otherwise) differently, with some depictions being neither emasculating nor empowering. As is the case with circumcision, the contemporary image is more complex than the stereotype.
On Friends, the depiction of drag seems to fit the old stereotypes. When the
Jew wears drag, it is depicted as effeminizing and emasculating. When non-Jews wear drag, the act is more complex, and used as a discussion about masculinity. Ross, the
Jew, is shown as wearing (or is implied to wear) drag twice. Both times he is in denial of what he is wearing. In "The One with the Tea Leaves", Ross searches for a shirt he claims is a "faded salmon color". Monica, his sister, mocks him by calling it "pink", while he insists it is "salmon" colored ("The One with the Tea Leaves"). Pink is seen today as a feminine color. Later in the episode Ross discovers that he left the shirt at his ex-girlfriend's apartment. The ex's current date, a tall, muscular man, is shown finding the shirt and thinking it is a blouse ("The One with the Tea Leaves"). In another episode, Ross is shown buying a new shirt, which is this time clearly a blouse
("The One with the Birth Mother"). When Joey tries to persuade him to change his shirt, Ross wonders if Joey is "afraid of some competition with the ladies". To this
Joey answers that Ross "is the ladies" ("The One with the Birth Mother"). Later in the episode Ross goes on a date and discovers that his female partner is wearing the same shirt ("The One with the Birth Mother"). Drag is effeminizing for the Jew when he denies that he is wearing drag, or is unable to distinguish between male and female
Rozenblatt 73
clothing. In this sense, the "jew" fails in performing his gender. The joke stems from
Ross being clueless to markers of gender.
When the non-Jewish characters on Friends wear drag, its use and meaning are different. In "The One with Chandler's Dad", Joey wears women's underwear in order to prove his masculinity. According to the episode, a man who is sure of his manhood can wear women's underwear. Drag will not affect someone who is truly masculine. While in Ross' case the Jew refused to acknowledge that he was wearing women's clothes, here the non-Jew admits it. Furthermore, though in both cases drag is used as a joke, in Joey's case drag might be said to be empowering, as it is used as a test of manhood (Garber, 38). In another episode, Chandler mentions that he also wore women's underwear ("The One after the Superbowl"). It is unknown whether
Chandler actually donned a pair, as he jokes about it: "the[] [underwear] were my
Aunt Edna's. And there were three of us in there" ("The One after the Superbowl").
His joking answer means that, whether he actually wore such an item or not, he treats the act lightly. He does not deny wearing drag like Ross. His wearing of women's clothes is not emasculating, but simply a joke.
On The Big Bang Theory, there is surprisingly little drag considering the emasculate nature of the characters. Currently there has been only one instance where the main characters wore drag. They were forced into female superhero costumes after losing a bet ("The Wheaton Recurrence"). Drag is here treated as a form of punishment, by forcing men to dress as women. All of the male characters in the cast are effeminized by this. Though one of the men, Raj, embraces the drag and does not see it as punishment, his reaction does not depict him as masculine ("The Wheaton
Recurrence"). Raj's reaction is used to further mock the character's effeminate nature.
Rozenblatt 74
This is an Oriental stereotype. Howard's reaction, it is noted, is similar to that of the
White men – he is embarrassed and uncomfortable.
Instances of drag on Seinfeld's are more complex. The characters rarely wear garments which are identified as women's clothing. On one occasion George accidentally buys a pair of women's eyeglasses, and immediately tries to get rid of them ("The Glasses"). He is embarrassed at being seen with a woman's item of clothing. George's father, on the other hand, is shown to embrace a form of drag. In the episode "The Doorman", Kramer and the father (named Frank) invent a brassiere for men. Frank and Kramer even try to define this item as masculine by naming it
"The Bro", and "The Manssiere", names which associate it with men. However, in the end, the undergarment serves to emasculate Frank. When Frank tries on the brassiere, he is coded as a homosexual – he is shirtless, with another man (Kramer), and the two are dancing to music. It is almost an intimate moment. Frank is later further emasculated when his wife leaves him after seeing him wearing the brassiere ("The
Doorman"). Though Frank is not Jewish, it might be said that the episode codes him as such, since he is shown cooking "kasha", a dish that is associated with Ashkenazi
Jews (Krieger, 398). However, it is never stated whether Frank is Jewish or not.
Furthermore, his emasculation does not seem related to "jewish" stereotypes. Despite their "jewish" traits, Frank and George's emasculation through clothing is not implied to be "jewish".
Kramer is also associated with drag, again in a way which is not "jewish". In
"The Susie", George's girlfriend leaves him right before they were meant to attend a ball, and so Kramer accompanies George in her stead. Though Kramer wears a tuxedo, his outfit turns into a form of drag. When they enter the ballroom, George accidentally rips the back of Kramer's jacket, which causes Kramer to enter the ball
Rozenblatt 75
by turning around and showing his bare back. This is the exact way in which George wanted his girlfriend to enter the ballroom. Though this is not true drag, the performance is coded as feminine. On Seinfeld, drag is applied to non-Jews, and can be effeminizing or emasculating to all. Here drag is not used to empower, as both the characters who reject it, like George, and those who are unbothered by it, like Kramer, are in some way emasculated by wearing drag.
Emasculating Clothes
Similarly to Kramer's bare backed tuxedo, male characters in sitcoms at times wear clothes which may be seen as emasculating or effeminizing without being considered women's clothing. On Seinfeld, Jerry sometimes wears such clothes, and it is rarely outright said that those clothes are emasculating. In "The Jacket" Jerry wears a jacket with "pink lining and candy stripes". When Elaine's father, an imposing, humorless man, who fits the image of a masculine man, sees the lining of the jacket, he refuses to let Jerry wear it. He says that Jerry will look like a "fool" ("The Jacket").
At the end, though, Elaine tells Jerry that her father liked him, and that Jerry reminded him of someone he knew in the army, a masculine space ("The Jacket"). Despite the pink color, Jerry is never emasculated due to the jacket. In another episode, Jerry is tricked into wearing a white frilly shirt, which the episode is named after ("The Puffy
Shirt"). While the shirt can be seen as effeminate, since today blouses are frilled, the shirt is never associated with women's clothes. Most characters say that the shirt looks like a pirate's shirt ("The Puffy Shirt"). Pirates are masculine icons, as they are linked with physical prowess, masculine bodies (which are bearded and scarred), and an adventurous life. Indeed, at the end of the episode Jerry sees two homeless men wearing puffy shirts, one of which calls himself a "buccaneer" ("The Puffy Shirt").
Rozenblatt 76
Jerry then observes that "it's really not a bad looking shirt" ("The Puffy Shirt"). The homeless men, resembling pirates in appearance, make the shirt look appropriate.
There is one case where Jerry admits to wearing feminine clothing. In "The
Reverse Peephole", Jerry replaces his wallet for a "European carry-all" (actually a purse). He denies that it is a purse throughout the episode, until the end, where he admits: "I carry a purse" ("The Reverse Peephole"). Jerry's wearing a purse is juxtaposed in the episode with two male non-Jews who wear fur coats. Unlike Jerry's
"carry-all" being constantly called a purse, the fur coats are nicknamed "man fur"
("The Reverse Peephole"). The Jew's item is feminized, while the non-Jews' is given a masculine title. However, the "carry-all" being marked as feminine seems to be an exception. Most of the time, the show seems to ignore instances where Jerry's clothes are feminine, as seen with the jacket and the puffy shirt. When Kramer forces Jerry to wear a fur coat (one of the "man-furs"), he tells people that Jerry wears it because he is a comedian, and likely to act strangely ("The Reverse Peephole"). The explanation revolves around eccentricity rather than a lack of masculinity. For the most part,
Seinfeld avoids implying that the Jew is emasculate through his clothing.
In The Big Bang Theory, Howard does not wear feminine clothes, or traditional religious Jewish clothes, yet his form of dress has been linked with his
Judaism a few times. In "The Staircase Implementation" Howard is shown in a flashback with "jewish" black curly hair, and a necklace. His normal outfit is somewhat different, with straight hair and no necklace, but is still linked in the show to his being Jewish. In "The Holographic Excitation", Amy asks Howard's wife
Bernadette: "Do you think your husband’s fondness for turtlenecks is an expression of longing for his missing foreskin?". Again circumcision is used to mark Howard as a
Jew, this time through his clothes. Howard's outfit in general can be seen as phallic.
Rozenblatt 77
He wears false turtlenecks called dickeys. The name is close to the word "dick", a euphemism for "penis". Furthermore, Howard's tight clothes and mushroom haircut can be seen as phallic in themselves. His clothes mark him as a "pervert jew", even though they are not "jewish" clothes.
Conclusion
It appears that, in many respects, the Jewish body on sitcoms is identical to the non-Jewish one. As circumcision is now common for most men in America, it is seen as the norm. As a result, Jewish characters are not shown to be emasculated by having a circumcised penis. However, when the custom is discussed with relation to its religious Jewish origin, there are still stereotypes linked to it. The Jew's body in general is also usually seen as normal in relation to non-Jews. However, while the Jew is not weak, he is not strong either. He can only win physical challenges by cheating.
Disease is no longer a "jewish" trait. Jews and non-Jews are shown being sick and having allergies. Clothes and drag may still mark a character as "jewish". However, each show depicts a different approach toward the subject. The Jew on Friends is shown as effeminate through drag, while the Jew on Seinfeld is almost never shown wearing drag, to the point that the show seems to deny or ignore the effeminate appearance of some outfits. In cases where the shows acknowledge Jews who wear feminine clothes, the Jewish characters themselves often deny it, which emasculates them. The Jew on The Big Bang Theory is equal to the Christian characters when wearing drag, but his normal clothes still mark him as different and perverted.
Rozenblatt 78
Conclusion
This thesis compared the representations of masculinity of Jewish and non-Jewish characters. It examined the question of whether Jewish characters' masculinity was depicted differently than that of non-Jewish characters, and if this representation of
Jews reflects old stereotypes of the emasculate "jew".
It seems that, in sitcoms, most men are shown as emasculate, many times in similar ways. On the whole, male Jews and non-Jews are depicted as emasculate through similar representations. For example, nearly all men in the sitcoms are mocked for "homosexual" behavior. There is little that differentiates the Jew from the non-Jew on sitcoms – they have similar professions, similar relationships, and similar bodies. There are few "jews" on television sitcoms. Furthermore, what used to be
"jewish" stereotypes are now applied to all men: the "nerd" replaced the "bookworm jew", and the "schlemiel" can be anyone of any ethnicity.
There are a few overt representations of "jewish" stereotypes. Surprisingly, most of them appear in the newest of the sitcoms. In The Big Bang Theory's first seasons,
Howard Wolowitz was a "jewish pervert". Though his character later changed, it was due to his marrying a Christian woman – another "jewish" stereotype. This stereotype of intermarriage, though, seems to be modern and American, as it reflects the rise of
Jewish exogamy in the United States. While it marks the Jew as different, the stereotype at the same time acknowledges the Jew's place in American society.
In addition to the few instances of overt stereotypes, there are some cases where old "jewish" images are hinted at. For example, while the Jew is shown to be moderately athletic, when he competes with others he cheats in order to win. The Jew is still depicted as incestuous at times. Jews are shown several times in drag (or
Rozenblatt 79
emasculating clothes), which they almost always deny wearing. The Jew does not use drag to empower his masculinity.
In some cases, non-Jewish characters are mistaken for Jewish because they fit into
"jewish" images. In these cases, though, the character is often portrayed by a Jewish actor. What does this mean about Jewish acceptance? Do viewers still perceive
Jewishness through stereotypically "jewish" characteristics? The ambiguity in these sitcoms suggests that despite Jews seemingly being assimilated into American society for decades, the attitude towards them is still shifting. At times Jews are depicted as short perverts like Howard, while at other times they are average men like Jerry.
There is almost no single common thread between the representations of Jews in sitcoms.
What is in common, though, seems to be underlying "jewish" stereotypes which relate to sexuality and gender. Perhaps this is because of the sitcoms' focus on relationships, which leads to jokes about sex and gender. Perhaps, though, there is a fear of the Jew as a sexual Other. Jews in America seem to have some similarity to the gay community. Both groups are seemingly accepted and mostly invisible. Though homosexuals do not have the same equal rights as Jews, current legislation allowing more gay rights suggests that they will become more accepted with time. Aside from this similarity, the relative equality in the representation of Jewish and non-Jewish masculinity, especially the use of "jewish" archetypes such as the schlemiel for non-
Jewish characters, suggests that Jews are relatively accepted and integrated into society.
My conclusion is, then, that the Jewish minority is accepted, but not fully. The
Jew's invisibility is still a source of fear. Perhaps, as incest is a common stereotype,
Rozenblatt 80
there is a fear of Jewish inbreeding, or simply of Jews breeding more Jews. This is offset by the excessive use of the image of exogamy. The Jewish man will not produce Jewish children if he marries a gentile. The representation of the Jew suggests that he is accepted only if he assimilates.
Rozenblatt 81
Bibliography
Primary Sources:
Friends. Prod. David Crane, Marta Kauffman and Kevin S. Bright.
Bright/Kauffman/Crane Productions. NBC. 1994-2004.
Seinfeld. Prod. Larry David. Castle Rock Entertainment. NBC. 1989-8.
The Big Bang Theory. Prod. Chuck Lorre and Bill Prady. Chuck Lorre Production
Company. CBS. 2007-present.
Secondary Sources:
Abrams, Nathan. The New Jew in Film: Exploring Jewishness and Judaism in
Contemporary Cinema. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University
Press, 2012.
Antler, Joyce. "Not 'Too Jewish' for Prime Time". Television's Changing Image of
American Jews. Eds. Neal Gabler, Frank Rich and Joyce Antler. The
American Jewish Committee and The Norman Lear Center, 2000. 21-88.
Berger, Maurice. "The Mouse that Never Roars: Jewish Masculinity on American
Television". Too Jewish? Challenging Traditional Identities. Ed. Norman L.
Kleeblatt. New Jersey: The Jewish Museum, New York and Rutgers
University Press, 1996. 93-107.
Bhaba, Homi. "Joking Aside: The Idea of a Self-Critical Community". Foreword.
Modernity, Culture, and 'the Jew'. Eds. Bryan Cheyette and Laura Marcus.
Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998. xvi-xx.
Rozenblatt 82
Bial, Henry. "Jew Media: Performance and Technology for the 58th Century". TDR:
The Drama Review 55.3 (Fall 2011): 134-43.
Biale, David. Eros and the Jews: From Biblical Israel to Contemporary America.
New York: Basic Books, 1992.
---. "The Melting Pot and Beyond: Jews and the Politics of American Identity".
Insider/Outsider. Eds. David Biale, Michael Galchinsky, and Susan Heschel.
Berkley, California: University of California, 1998. 17-33.
Boyarin, Daniel. Unheroic Conduct: The Rise of Heterosexuality and the Invention of
the Jewish Man. Berkley: University of California Press, 1997.
Brod, Harry. "Some Thoughts on Some Histories of Some Masculinities: Jews and
other Others". Theorizing Masculinities. Eds. Harry Brod and Michael
Kaufman. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, 1994. 82-96.
Brodkin, Karen. How Jews Became White folks and What that Says about Race in
America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2000.
Brook, Vincent. Something Ain't Kosher Here: The Rise of the 'Jewish' Sitcom. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2003.
Buchbinder, David. "Enter the Schlemiel: The Emergence of Inadequate or
Incompetent Masculinities in Recent Film and Television". Canadian View of
American Studies 38.2 (2008): 227-45.
Butsch, Richard. "Five Decades and Three Hundred Sitcoms About Class and
Gender". Thinking Outside the Box: A Contemporary Television Genre
Rozenblatt 83
Reader. Eds. Gary R. Edgerton and Brian Geoffrey Rose. Lexington:
University Press of Kentucky, 2005. 111-35.
Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York:
Routledge, 1999.
---. "Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and
Feminist Theory". Theatre Journal 40.4 (December 1988): 519-31.
Chesebro, James W., and Koji Fuse. "The Development of a Perceived Masculinity
Scale". Communication Quarterly 49.3 (2001): 203-78
Cicone, Michael V., and Diane N. Ruble. "Beliefs About Males". Journal of Social
Issues 34.1 (1978): 5-16.
"Circumcision". International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities. Ed. Michael
Flood. Routledge, 2007. 67-8.
קונפורטי, יצחק. "היהודי החדש במחשבה הציונית: לאומיות, אידאולוגיה והיסטוריוגרפיה". ישראל 16
)סתיו תש"ע 2009(: 63-96.
Connell, R. W. Masculinities. 2nd ed. Berkley: University of California Press, 2010.
Cooper, Evan. "Well, It's Very Emasculating: Jewish Men and Women on Seinfeld
and Curb Your Enthusiasm". Conference Papers -- American Sociological
Association (2009): 1.
---. "We're Not Men: Representations of Jewish and Gentile Men on Seinfeld and
Curb Your Enthusiasm". Conference Papers -- American Sociological
Association (2006): 1.
Rozenblatt 84
Craig, Steve, ed. Men, Masculinity, and the Media. Newbury Park: Sage Publications,
1992.
Davison, Neil R. Jewishness and Masculinity from the Modern to the Postmodern.
New York: Routledge, 2010.
Deloia, Shlomi, and Hannah Adelman Komy Ofir. "Jewish Characters in Weeds:
Reinserting Race into the Postmodern Discourse on American Jews". Race,
Color, Ethnicity: Rethinking Discourses About "Jews" in the Twenty-First
Century. Ed. Efraim Sicher. New York: Berghahn, 2013.
Dennis, Jeffery P. "Men, Masculinities, and the Cave Man". The Handbook of
Gender, Sex and Media. 1st ed. Ed. Karen Ross. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell,
2012. 107-17.
Di Mattia, Joanna Li. "Male Anxiety and the Buddy System on Seinfeld". Seinfeld,
Master of Its Domain: Revisiting Television's Greatest Sitcom. Eds. Sarah
Lewis Dunne and David Lavery. New York: Continuum International
Publishing Group, 2006. 89-107.
"Eugenics". Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online Edition.
Encycloædia Britannica Inc., 2014. Last Accessed 06 May 2014.
Freud, Sigmund. "Analysis of a Phobia in a Five-Year-Old-Boy". The Standard
Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. Volume 10.
Trans. and ed. James Strachey. London: Hogarth Press, 1955. 5-153.
---. Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious. Trans. and ed. James Strachey.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1960.
Rozenblatt 85
Friedman, Jonathan C. Rainbow Jews: Jewish and Gay Identity in the Performing
Arts. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2007.
Gabler, Neal, Frank Rich and Joyce Antler, eds. Television's Changing Image of
American Jews. The American Jewish Committee and The Norman Lear
Center, 2000.
Galchinsky, Michael. "Scattered Seeds: A Dialogue of Diasporas". Insider/Outsider.
Eds. David Biale, Michael Galchinsky, and Susan Heschel. Berkley,
California: University of California, 1998. 185-210.
Garber, Marjorie. "Category Crises: The Way of the Cross and the Jewish Star".
Queer Theory and the Jewish Question. Eds. Daniel Boyarin, Daniel Itzkovitz,
and Ann Pellegrini. New York: Columbia University Press, 2003. 19-40.
Gilman, Sander. "Sibling Incest, Madness, and the 'Jews'". Social Research 65.2
(1998): 401-33.
---. Smart Jews: the Construction of the Image of Jewish Superior Intelligence.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997.
---. The Jew's Body. New York: Routledge, 1991.
---. "The Jew's Body". Too Jewish? Challenging Traditional Identities. Ed. Norman
L. Kleeblatt. New Jersey: The Jewish Museum, New York and Rutgers
University Press, 1996. 60-73.
Glenn, Susan A. "'Funny, You Don't Look Jewish': Visual Stereotypes and the
Making of Modern Jewish Identity". Boundaries of Jewish Identity. Eds.
Rozenblatt 86
Susan A. Glenn and Naomi B. Sokoloff. Seattle: University of Washington
Press, 2010. 64-90.
גלוזמן, מיכאל. הגוף הציוני: לאומיות, מגדר ומיניות בספרות העברית החדשה. הקיבוץ המאוחד, 2007.
Hughes, Diane Owen. "Distinguishing Signs: Ear-Rings, Jews and Franciscan
Rhetoric in the Italian Renaissance City". Past and Present 112 (1986): 3-59.
Itzkovitz, Daniel. "Secret Temples". Jews and Other Differences. Eds. Jonathan and
Daniel Boyarin. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997. 176-202.
Johnson, Carla. "The Schlemiel and the Schlimazl in Seinfeld". Journal of Popular
Film and Television 22.3 (1994): 116-24.
Johnson, Willis. "The Myth of Jewish Male Menses". Journal of Medieval History
24.3 (September 1998): 273-95.
Jonte-Pace, Diane. Speaking the Unspeakable: Religion, Misogyny, and the Uncanny
Mother in Freud's Cultural Texts. Berkeley: University of California Press,
2001.
Keylor, Rheta and Roberta Apfel. "Male Infertility: Integrating an Old Psychoanalytic
Story with the Research Literature". Studies in Gender and Sexuality 11.2
(2010): 60-77.
Konner, Melvin. The Jewish Body. New York: Schocken, 2009.
Krieger, Rosalin. "'Does He Actually Say the Word Jewish?' – Jewish Representations
in Seinfeld". Journal for Cultural Research 7.4 (2003): 387-404.
Lefkovitz, Lori Hope. "Passing as a Man: Narratives of Jewish Gender Performance".
Narrative 10.1 (2002): 91-193.
Rozenblatt 87
Miller, Diana. "Masculinity in Popular Sitcoms, 1955-1960 and 2000-2005". Culture,
Society & Masculinities 3.2 (2011): 141-59.
Morreall, John. "Philosophy of Humor". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Spring 2013 Edition). Ed. Edward N. Zalta. Last Accessed 27 June 2014.
Mosse, George. The Image of Man: The Creation of Masculinity. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1986.
Prell, Riv-Ellen. "Why Jewish Princesses Don't Sweat: Desire and Consumption in
Postwar American Jewish Culture". People of the Body: Jews and Judaism
from an Embodied Perspective. Ed. Howard Eilberg-Schwartz. Albany: State
University of New York Press, 1992. 329-59.
Presner, Todd Samuel. Muscular Judaism: The Jewish Body and the Politics of
Regeneration. London: Routledge, 2007.
Reese, Jodi M. "Heterosexual Masculinity in the Sitcom Genre: The Creation and
Circulation of the Male Idiot Character Type". Diss. Georgetown University,
2004.
Resnick, Irven M. "Medieval Roots of the Myth of Jewish Male Menses". The
Harvard Theological Review 93.3 (2000): 241-63.
Rubinstein, Rachel. "Not Just 'White Folks': Teaching Jewish American Literature as
Multi-Ethnic and Multiracial". Symposium: Jewishness, Pedagogy, and Multi-
Ethnic Literature. Spec. issue of MELUS: Multi-Ethnic Literature of the U.S.
37.2 (Summer 2012): 180-2.
Rozenblatt 88
Sartre, Jean-Paul. Anti-Semite and Jew. Trans. George J. Becker. New York:
Schocken Books, 1975.
Schneider, David. "Curb Your Judaism". BBC. 11 October 2011. Last Accessed 14
December 2013.
"Situation Comedy." Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online
Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2013. Last Accessed 12
December 2013.
Solomon, Alisa. "Viva la Diva Citizenship: Post-Zionism and Gay Rights". Queer
Theory and the Jewish Question. Eds. Daniel Boyarin, Daniel Itzkovitz, and
Ann Pellegrini. New York: Columbia University Press, 2003. 149-65.
Spitzer, R. L. "The Diagnostic Status of Homosexuality in DSM-III: A Reformulation
of the Issues". American Journal of Psychiatry 138.2 (1981): 201-5.
Stratton, Jon. Coming Out Jewish. London: Routledge, 2000.
Weininger, Otto. Sex and Character. London: Heinemann, 1906.
Wisse, Ruth R. The Schlemiel as Modern Hero. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1971.
תוכן העניינים
מבוא 1 הגדרה ותכונות הגבריות 1 סוגת הקומדיה 5 קומדיית המצבים 8 יהודים בקומדיה 11 יהודים באמריקה 14 סטריאוטיפים על יהודים 18 היהודי חסר הגבריות 18 היהודי החדש ויהודי השרירים 19 ייצוגים עכשוויים של יהודים 20 סקירת ספרות 21 מבנה התזה 22 פרק I: קבלה חברתית 25 בידוד חברתי, קבלה, ולבנּות 25 היהודי "תולעת הספרים" והחנון 27 ביטחון תעסוקתי וקרייריזם 32 עבודות גבריות ועבודות "יהודיות" 36 מסקנה 38 פרק II: מיניות 40 משיכה מינית 42 הסוטה ה"יהודי" 44 סטייה מינית 49 הומוסקסואליות 52 מסקנה 55 פרק III: הגוף 57 ברית מילה והפין 60 הגוף 65
אתלטיות 67 מחלות "יהודיות" 69 לבוש 71 "דראג" 71 בגדים מערערי גבריות 75 מסקנה 77 מסקנה 78 ביבליוגרפיה 81
תקציר
תזה זו בוחנת את הייצוגים של דמויות יהודיות בקומדיות טלוויזיה אמריקאיות בנות זמננו בכדי
לקבוע האם יהודים עדיין מיוצגים באופן סטריאוטיפי כלא-גבריים.
תזה זו באה להשוות בין גבריות של דמויות יהודיות ולא-יהודיות בשלוש קומדיות מצבים
אמריקאיות משנות התשעים עד ימינו: סיינפלד, חברים, והמפץ הגדול. התזה בודקת האם יש הבדל בין
ייצוגים של יהודים ולא-יהודים בקומדיית המצבים, ז'אנר בו רוב הגברים מוצגים כנלעגים בשל גבריות
בעייתית. המטרה העיקרית של התזה היא לבדוק האם סטריאוטיפים ישנים על גבריות יהודית – ה"יהודי"
כחלש, חולני, סוטה ונשי – קיימים, ומה משמעותו של הייצוג של דמויות יהודיות לגבי האסימילציה
והקבלה של היהודים באמריקה.
התזה מחולקת לשלושה פרקים, כאשר כל אחד בוחן היבט אחר של גבריות. הפרק הראשון
עוסק בקבלה חברתית. הפרק בוחן את דמותו של ה"חנון" והקשר שלו ל"תולעת הספרים" היהודי. לאחר
מכן הפרק עוסק בנושא של קריירה – המקצוע בו אדם עוסק וההצלחה בו – והקשר שלה לדמות
השלומיאל.
הפרק השני דן במיניות. הוא חוקר תכונות הקשורות לדמות "הסוטה היהודי": משיכה )או חוסר
משיכה( מינית, תאוותנות, וסטיות כגון גילוי עריות. לבסוף, הפרק בוחן הומוסקסואליות כתכונה שבעבר
נחשבה לסטייה, והיתה מיוחסת ליהודים, אבל כיום באמריקה מקובלת כתכונה מולדת שעשויה להימצא
בבני כל העדות.
הפרק השלישי עוסק בגוף. הייצוג של מבנה הגוף, אתלטיות ונטייה למחלות מושוות לדימוי של
ה"יהודי" כחלש וחולה. לאחר מכן הפרק דן בלבוש, במיוחד לבוש נשי, כתכונה המערערת גבריות אצל
יהודים.
התזה מציעה את הטענה שבעוד יש מעט ייצוגים בולטים של יהודים חסרי גבריות, יש עדיין
רמזים לייצוגים סטריאוטיפים "יהודיים" ישנים. אלו רומזים לכך שבעוד היהודים אינם נרדפים בארצות
הברית, קיים עדיין מתח בנוגע לקבלתם החברתית.
אוניברסיטת בן-גוריון בנגב
הפקולטה למדעי הרוח והחברה
המחלקה לספרויות זרות ובלשנות
ייצוגי גבריות יהודית בקומדיות-מצבים אמריקאיות בנות-זמננו
חיבור זה מהווה חלק מהדרישות לקבלת התואר "מוסמך למדעי הרוח והחברה" (M.A)
מאת: שני רוזנבלט
021692256
בהנחיית: פרופ' אפרים זיכר
חתימת הסטודנט: ______תאריך: ______
חתימת המנחה: ______תאריך: ______
חתימת יו"ר הועדה המחלקתית: ______תאריך: ______
חשוון התשע"ה November 2014
אוניברסיטת בן-גוריון בנגב
הפקולטה למדעי הרוח והחברה
המחלקה לספרויות זרות ובלשנות
ייצוגי גבריות יהודית בקומדיות-מצבים אמריקאיות בנות זמננו
חיבור זה מהווה חלק מהדרישות לקבלת התואר "מוסמך למדעי הרוח והחברה" (M.A)
מאת: שני רוזנבלט
021692256
בהנחיית: פרופ' אפרים זיכר
חשוון התשע"ה November 2014