Drawing on a first-hand account from co-author and participant in a recent season of a popular romance-based reality TV show, this study considers how such shows construct and reinforce stereotypes about women’s relational dynamics with men and other women. It is argued that through careful production and gender scripting, these typologies are situated within a hierarchy of women’s relational interaction that normalizes aggression and bullying among adult women, reframing the ‘mean girl’ from an undesirable role to one that is portrayed as a normal and empowering role for adult women, especially in service of the pursuit of a male partner. The implications of this transformation extend to other women who are portrayed as ‘the other’ and as a result often subordinately positioned in the relational hierarchy reflected on the show. Implications for future research on gender scripts in popular media, the social construction of women’s relational dynamics, and manifestations of covert and overt bullying in these dynamics are discussed.
Allen-CollinsonJHockeyJ (2005) Autoethnography: Self indulgence or rigorous methodology. In: McNameeMJ (ed.) Philosophy and the Sciences of Exercise, Health and Sport: Critical Perspectives on Research Methods. London: Routledge, pp. 187–202.
2.
ArcherM (2007) Making Our Way through the World: Human Reflexivity and Social Mobility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
AslamaMPanttiM (2006) Talking alone: Reality TV, emotions and authenticity. European Journal of Cultural Studies9(2): 167–184.
4.
Behm-MorawitzEMastroDE (2008) Mean girls? The influence of gender portrayals in teen movies on emerging adults’ gender-based attitudes and beliefs, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly85(1): 131–146.
5.
BergerPLLuckmannT (1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
6.
BiondiO (2007) Gender Stereotypes in Reality TV: An Investigation of ‘The Real World’. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press.
7.
BjelskouP (2012) When people become corporations: Product placement and gender construction on Bravo TV’s The Real Housewives of New York City. Dissertation. Buffalo, NY: State Univerity of New York.
8.
BourdieuP (1986) The forms of capital. In: RichardsonJ (ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood, pp. 241–258.
9.
BourdieuPWacquantL (1996) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge: Polity.
10.
BoylornR (2008) As seen on TV: An autoethongraphic reflection on race and reality television. Critical Studies in Media Communication25(4): 413–433.
CavenderGBond-MaupinLJurikN (1999) The construction of gender in reality crime TV. Gender and Society13(5): 643–663.
13.
CecilD (2008) From heathers to mean girls: An examination of relational aggression in film. Journal of Criminal Justice & Popular Culture15(3): 262–276.
14.
Chesney-LindMIrwinK (2004) From badness to meanness: Popular constructions of contemporary girlhood. In: HarrisA (ed.) All about the Girl: Culture, Power, and Identity. New York: Routledge, pp. 45–56.
15.
CloudD (2010) The irony bribe and reality television: Investment and detachment in The Bachelor. Critical Studies in Media Communication27(5) 413–437.
16.
ColeEDanielJH (2005) Featuring Females: Feminist Analyses of Media. Psychology of Women Book Series. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
17.
CoxN (2015) Banking on females: Bravo’s commodification of the female audience. Communication, Culture & Critique8(3): 466–483.
18.
DeidreKPomerantzS (2009) Mean, wild, and alienated: Girls and the state of feminism in popular culture. Girlhood Studies2(1): 1–19.
19.
DriessensO (2014) Expanding celebrity studies’ research agenda: Theoretical opportunities and methodological challenges in interviewing celebrities. Celebrity Studies6(2): 192–205.
20.
DubrofskyR (2011) The Surveillance of Women on Reality Television: Watching The Bachelor and The Bachelorette. Plymouth: Lexington Books.
21.
DubrofskyRHardyA (2008) Performing race in Flavor of Love and The Bachelor. Critical Studies in Media Communication25(4): 373–392.
22.
EllisCBochnerAP (2000) Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: Researcher as subject. In: DenzinNKLincolnYS (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 733–768.
23.
FergusonCSalmondKModiK (2013) Reality television predicts both positive and negative outcomes for adolescent girls. The Journal of Pediatrics162(6): 1176–1180.
24.
FinlayL (2006) ‘Rigour’, ‘ethical integrity’ or ‘artistry’? Reflexively reviewing criteria for evaluating qualitative research. British Journal of Occupational Therapy69(7): 319–326.
25.
FrithH (2004) The best of friends: The politics of girls’ friendships. Feminism & Psychology14(3): 357–360.
26.
GagnonJSimonW (1973) Sexual Conduct: The Social Sources of Human Sexuality. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
27.
GravesJKwanS (2012) Is there really ‘More to Love’?: Gender, body, and relationship scripts in romance-based reality television. Fat Studies1(1): 47–60.
28.
GrindstaffLMurrayS (2015) Reality celebrity: Branded affect and the emotion economy. Public Culture27(1): 109–135.
29.
HadleyM (2008) Relational, indirect, adaptive, or just mean: Recent work on aggression in adolescent girls—Part 1. Studies in Gender and Sexuality4(4): 367–394.
30.
HaslangerS (2003) Social construction: The ‘Debunking Project’. In: SchmittF (ed.) Socializing Metaphysics: The Nature of Social Reality. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 301–325.
31.
HornS (2004) Mean girls or cultural stereotypes?Human Development47(5): 314–320.
LippmanJWardMSeabrookR (2014) Isn’t it romantic? Differential associations between romantic screen media genres and romantic beliefs. Psychology of Popular Media Culture3(3): 128–140.
34.
McRobbieA (2015) Notes on the perfect: Competitive femininity in neoliberal times. Australian Feminist Studies30(83): 3–20.
35.
MertenD (1997) The meaning of meanness: Popularity, competition, and conflict among junior high school girls. Sociology of Education70(3): 175–191.
36.
Morr SerwiczMGaleE (2008) First-date scripts: Gender roles, context, and relationship. Sex Roles58(3–4): 149–146.
37.
MruckKBreuerF (2003) Subjectivity and reflexivity in qualitative research—The FQS issues. Forum: Qualitative Social Research4(2): Article 23.
38.
PapacharissiZMendelsonA (2007) An exploratory study of reality appeal: Uses and gratifications of reality TV shows. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media51(2): 355–370.
39.
PoznerJ (2010) Reality Bites Back: The Troubling Truth about Guilty Pleasure TV. Berkeley, CA: Seal Press.
40.
PutnamR (1997) Democracy in America at Century’s End. In: HadeniusA (ed.) Democracy’s Victory and Crisis. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 27–70.
41.
ReissSWiltzJ (2004) Why people watch reality TV. Media Psychology6(4): 363–378.
RingroseJ (2006) A new universal mean girl: Examining the discursive construction and social regulation of a new feminine pathology. Feminism & Psychology16(4): 405–424.
44.
RosenM (1991) Coming to terms with the field: Understanding and doing organisational ethnography. Journal of Management Studies28(1): 1–24.
45.
SkeggsB (2009) The moral economy of person production: The class relations of self performance on ‘reality’ television. The Sociological Review57(4): 626–644.
46.
SkeggsBWoodH (2012) Reacting to Reality Television: Performance, Audience and Value. London: Routledge.
47.
Spector-MerselG (2006) Never-aging stories: Western hegemonic masculinity scripts. Journal of Gender Studies15(1): 67–82.
48.
SpigelL (2004) Theorizing the Bachelorette: ‘Waves’ of feminist media studies. Signs30(1): 1209–1221.
49.
SternDM (2007) Women and reality TV in everyday life: Toward a political economy of bodies. Dissertation. Athens, OH: Ohio University.
50.
SungC (2013) Doing gender in conflict talk: An analysis of gendered discourses in a U.S. reality TV show. Journal of English Studies11: 213–232.
51.
Tsay-VogelMKrakowiakM (2015) Exploring viewers’ responses to nine reality TV subgenres. Psychology of Popular Media Culture6(4): 348–360.
52.
WardMSeabrookRManagoAet al. (2016) Contributions of diverse media to self-sexualization among undergraduate women and men. Sex Roles74(1–2): 12–23.
53.
WisemanR (2002) Queen Bees and Wannabes. New York: Three Rivers Press.
