Ttv- u*\4n*cM 4 ***w*A Shirts» NA^wite. Pepper Schwartz The Social Construction of Heterosexuality Much of modern sex research has grown from the social constructionist viewpoint articulated by Simon and Gagnon in Sexual Conduct, the pathbreaking book that encouraged a generation of young scholars to look beyond the collection of data points and into the cultural construction of sexual norms, values, perceptions, and behaviors. Way ahead of their time, Simon and Gagnon made all things problematic and asked us to at least understand the cultural lens we used to interpret behavior and gender. Inhn Gagnon's later work continued to teach us not to lake the ordinary for granted. Since this volume is in his honor, it seems appropriate to write on the most ordinarily taken for granted aspect of sexuality that there is: heterosexuality. Not its facts, figures, behaviors, and other statistics, but rather the very fact that it exists as a location on this planet. [ would not be surprised to get a ho hum reaction to this enterprise. We tend to explain the exotic and problematize the exception. If most people are five foot ten, we try to explain under five feet or over seven, if something is common and normative, we think we understand it, and we certainly feel no need to explain it. But, in fact, that tendency merely constructs a black box, a familiar shape that fools us into thinking we can explain something merely because we come in contact with it every day This acceptance of the common obfuscates in two ways: we create post hoc justifications about why what exists is supposed to exist (and mistake that for wisdom), and by accepting a "natural order of things" we hide all the nuances of "fact" by inhibiting further investigation or critique. As a result, we have neglected the social construction of heterosexuality as if it was unproblematic—as if we are born, and poof! we are totally and adequately heterosexual, a mere outcome of some natural selection with an invariant program that creates heterosexuality as a tmiiorm product, w ith no other markers or interesting differences within until other shades of sexual orientation are introduced. In fact, "doing heterosexuality" is no less problematic than homosexuality- though its punishments are more for failure than for accomplishment -and the norm is enforced and sanctioned differently from exceptional behavior. Reactions to failures of heterosexual enactment are less violently corrected than portrayals of homosexual identity--except, of course, when a failure of adequate enactment causes an attribution of homosexuality, and psychic or physical violence follows in order to preserve normative heterosexual roleplaying along narrowly constructed and strongly idealized stereotypes. lust what are those stereotypes and idealistic portrayals of heterosexuality? They vary by region of the world, country, and subculture, but they share a common body of work, and those normative expectations are fed to us at the same time we are being breast-fed. Countless research papers have shown that even infants are programmed into adult sexual niches: we are socially constructed as heterosexual as soon as we are propelled out into the world. Hospitals still paste blue or pink bows on babies' heads, and oohs and ahs about the "little man" and baby girl usually quickly include comments on chests, legs, and genitals, creating expectations for the man or woman to be. Baby boys are held less and cooed at less, says the research, not because they are loved less (there is certainly some evidence that they may be loved more in some families) but because they are being handled in a way that preserves their manliness— their heterosexuality—right from the start. Little girls are dressed in brighter colors and friilier outfits because they are supposed to be supremely adorable as part of their core equipment right from the beginning. Heterosexuality has its grave expectations. They are not articulated all at once-some are never openly articulated—but we all know that a lack of articulation of norms doesn't mean they don't exist. Briefly, I would like to mention some of the presumptions and social scripts that guide our management of heterosexuality, and comment on some ot the consequences of our peculiar rules and regulations. There are several overarching requirements of helerosexuality that I believe organize the major script of being heterosexual in American society. First of all, heterosexuality is confabulated with gender performance Whatever the culture, its norms about masculinity and femininity are supposed to co-vary with heterosexual enactment, and gender itself is expected to be unambiguous and performed according to the cultural outlines of the moment. Even today, after the sexual and gender revolutions of the late-, 1960s and 70s, heterosexual dress codes, mannerisms, and body language are still strictly mandated. Although our culture has antiheros who disdain these conventions (most notably located in the worlds of rock and roll, grunge, heavy metal and other communities of art and counterculture), the majority culture creates cultural icons in its magazines, TV shows, movies, featuring models that tell us what exact gender displays portray heterosexual correctness. Fashion designers and media stars are quite important. "Ihey become the cultural trend setters for the young. No one who has observed the fashion impact of Britney Spears, Lindsay l.ohan, and other teen idols can deny with a straight face (as it were) that popular culture creates gender norms. And. I should add. it is not just children or so ! teens w ho use movie stars and band members as guides to sexual correctness: the Acad-emv Awards telecast is watched by millions of avid viewers with one ot the central agendas of the entire evening being the observation of who wears what, who appears with -.shorn, and how all of this translates into sexiness, lust about every sitcom and drama is a commentary on who is a man's man, who is a man's woman, and how do characters carrv off their evocation of male and female sexual power. Even as we note characters as caricatures, they serve as sexual ideals. The tan magazines exist and prosper because millions of Americans want to follow the stars' lives, copy their wedding dress, gossip about their love affairs, and resemble them as much as possible. This goes way beyond casual ogling; stars are the new royals and their lifestyle choices—such as turning to plastic surgery—begin national trends, in this case creating a new acceptance of plastic surgery so that standards of attractiveness in middle-aged women are changing (helped, of course, by television shows making the process as well as the product fascinating. The Swan and several other programs actually show operations or stages of recovery, touting the self determination of the patient while minimizing the pain and possibility of complications. Of course, in the very act ot setting standards based on stars, gender roles become more problematic, since it is hard to measure up against the fantasy embodiment of mast ulirhty and femininity.) It is fair to assume that for manv who mimic the style and look ot a sex god or goddess, the gap between their idol and themselves serves to erode the individual's confidence in competent heterosexual performance, Who can ever be as "male" and macho as Bruce Willis, wisecracking as he incinerates a building full of bad guys, saves his buddy, and beds the astounding!)' beautiful women who populate action films? Who can be as charming as Cameron Diaz—perfectly proportioned and the object of everyone's desire? Who can be as winsome and pure of heart as Julia Roberts, a woman leggier than most runway models, in the storybook romances in which she stars? In drama after drama, she offers the eternal portrayal of female heterosexual-ity: seeking Prince Charming, losing Prince Charming, regaining Prince Charming. The themes of romantic acquisition and loss may be recast within the frame of a professional woman's life, but this reframing pales next to the strong outline of normative female het-erosexuality: that is, for a woman, the central and most important theme in her life will be love. Love is the question, love is the answer, and whatever it takes to get it, keep it, maintain it, and cherish it is what the movie is really about. We venerate and create fantasy masculinity and femininity—often, ironically enough, portrayed through the exquisite acting of gay or lesbian actors—but the truth really doesn't matter. The James Bonds, the lone wolves, and the cynical detectives and cops tell us what male sexuality in America is supposed to look like. The young lovelies and studmuffins of the movies and TV sitcoms tell us what adequate heterosexuality is supposed to look like. The unspoken sub clause is that the rest of us who could not fit well in the ensemble casts of Friends. C$1, or Grey's Anatomy have a sexuality that is unfinished, inadequate, and somehow unworthy. This is a disastrous recognition for those who have already experienced self-doubt about their masculinity or femininity within their peer group. Most young girls and women are insecure about whether they are attractive, articulate or desirable. Even without comparison to mythic media icons, they struggle mightily to feel sexually worthy. Women turn themselves into wraiths trying to be thin enough, and put themselves in physical jeopardy by paying surgeons to sculpt their bodies so that they can have thighs, abdomens, and breasts that tit the sexual profile ot what they believe men want. Women, and increasingly men, spend thousands of scarce discretionary dollars to change their faces and physiques to fit prevailing Stan dards of beauty so that they will be able to compete in the heterosexual mating mar kef or retain spouses who might otherwise stray to better models of masculinity and femininity. One can't help but reflect on this: while noblemen of the eighteenth century might have had to work at being dandies, twenty-first century men are spared these indignities. Just being male used to be enough to be granted provisional heterosexual status. However, increasingly, in some sort of cosmic justice, men seem to be following suit: commercial interests have finally realized that having both sexes terminally insecure is better for business than |ust having one sex feel inadequate, so now men are in the mix of creating better bodies, more hair (on their head; now many men feel required to get electrolysis for the stuff on their back!), and stifter erections to make sure that they look and act like the cultural cut-outs they belie\e will ensure their sexual selection by women. The medical establishment is only too happy to oblige these neuroses. The past decade has seen the collusion ot pharmaceutical research with the medical establishment to create a cultural crisis about potency. The new standard of genital adequacy is to have penises that could compete with the fantasy penises in purple passages in X rated books and movies. Now "rock hard penises" and "hot throbbing members" will actually exist in life as they do on porn stars. The vision of what a penis ought to look and act like can come true by using Viagra, Levitra, or (.Talis, even if few-men naturally match the size or performance of these porno-penises unaided by a drug Viagra, so the media and doctors on lease from Pfizer have said, can give vou the erection you've always dreamed of, and as a result, a new baseline standard of erections and performance gets created. Penis performance, always a potential problem for men, now invokes new fears: readiness throughout the lifestyle becomes standard. The natural aging of the organ becomes deviant as we try and create genitals that conform to standards created by chemists rather than nature. Male heterosexuality requires a stiff erection unto death. In order to make male heterosexuality unambiguous, we create a new version of what constitutes achievement of competent sexuality. There is, of course, a female equivalent. Far before Viagra became a global brand, women's and fashion magazines created yearly standards for the years "look," which of ten meant a new kind of body. The mass media would launch cover stories announcing "breasts are back" (I'm not kidding—this was a real cover in 2u05) or "the six secrets to making him go crazy all night." Women's magazines, and increasingly mens magazines, do not have stories on sex—the magazines are almost entirely about mating and dating—and even the products are advertised to help live the good life of a popular sexual being. If we stand back for a moment, it becomes clear that the entire message of advertising is that heterosexuality is not natural: it is not easy—and, indeed, it will take everything they can sell you for you to even hope to sustain a decent sexual presentation and the possibility of creating a successful seduction, engagement, and marriage. Being successful—as a body—as an actor—as a heterosexual —is certainly not seen as a fact of nature. No—if is seen as an act of will. Which leads us to the obvious conclusion that, far from being normal, heterosexual identity is fragile. Very fragile. Easily polluted. Given all the possible paths leading to failure of sexual competence, we are warned that we must be very careful in our construction ot it. This ability to fail publicly brings us to our second proposition: that our performance of beterosexuality is supposed to be accepted and applauded by others. All ot this dressing up and strutting out is not just to attract the opposite sex—it is supposed to fend off criticism and attribution as a homosexual. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are like twins: no matter how different they become, they are part of the same piece, the same drama. Homosexuality exists in its own right—but if it did not, it would be invented to enforce compliance to proper gender enactment. Straight men dress in ways to announce their sexuality, much the way the homosexual men often mimic it to announce their own: exaggerating the costumes of masculinity into mating signals lor men with men. The two sexualities, considered so polar, actually butt up next to each other, trying to accomplish different things with the same cultural and physical equipment. But that is the point, is it not? Heterosexual men and homosexual men, have the same socialization, as do heterosexual women and homosexual women, so it takes some work to distinguish our sexual presentation from one another. No wonder then that we have "fey" gay men and "butch" lesbians. Gay men and women need to work hard to create territory that is unambiguously in revolt against heterosexuality because hetero-sexuality itself is much more subtle and problematic than we pretend it to be. Hence, exaggerated performances exist among both heterosexuals and homosexuals as each group tries to demonstrate who they are to like others and elicit appropriate reactions. Still, no matter how broad a sexual display is, the audience may not react to even the most coun-ternormative gender role if sexuality is not seen as problematic in that area. For example, there are some locales where people seem almost naively unconscious. One sees, for example, environments where women present themselves as "butch" and may even have the build and demeanor of a man, and men who are as fey as anyone who ever cross-dressed in a San Francisco gay rights parade are benignly unconscious of the thin line they walk in the gender role enactment wars. Part of this is innocence is one of place: residents of small towns that cannot imagine that anyone in their town could be gay and so integrate their friends and neighbor's generally non-normative gender display into some other social construct ("weird," "eccentric," "not vain," etc.) rather than gay-ness. Even though the butch farmer's wife may be secretly hankering after the farmer's wite next door, "audiences" may attribute the non-normative gender or sexual display to asexuality rather than homosexuality. As long as the person in question does not claim an alternate sexuality, they may be spared approbation. On the other hand, this is not always the case. The young who resemble disapproved-of, nonheterosexual attributes can justly cjuake in school halls, worrying that they will be attacked emotionally or physically—or just disdained. This brings up a third specification: we are supposed to have certain kinds of bodies that reveal our heterosexuality. For all the jokes about "Pat" on Saturday Night Live (the person we could not figure out as male or female, who would confuse us by tempting us with a clue as to her "real" gender and then add another clue that would cancel out the first lead), the truth is that the real joke on us was how much anxiety it caused the viewer to watch a character without a gender and/or sexual identity we could identify. In general, we hate the idea that someone is not firmly assigned to a body type and look that telegraphs both gender and sexuality. In fact, it occurs to me that this intolerance of gender ambiguity maybe one ot the reasons our society hates tat people. Fat pads out physical differences between the sexes; the roundness we associate with women tov ers both men and women who are fat: breasts and chests look alike, genitals shrink in reference to the greater bulk of the body, and facial contours become more similar. It is another kind of androgyny, and most people are extremely uncomfortable with it when it is so extreme that they cannot distinguish biological sex. Extreme androgyny like Pat is seen as sexual failure—and therefore sexual identity may be imputed as homosexual even though homosexuality really has nothing to do with body type. Still, all kinds of gender ambiguity or cross-referencing the other gender (especially using the other gender's costumes or customs) has been historically grounds for severe punishment (including death, in some countries and during certain periods of history) or humiliation (open season as a target for humor or bullying). Interestingly, temporary trespass of gender/sexual confabulation is allowable for certain kinds of ritual celebrations such as fraternity costume parties, English music hall performances or Halloween. Anyone who wants to continue the joke too long, however, is quickly labeled deviant, and- -to show how strong our feelings are—subjected to violence or contempt. Our culture does not want to lose the hard edges of gender, precisely because people depend on the standards of gender enactment to help them delineate heterosexuality trom homosexuality. Imprecise as that may be, it is the tool most people use for a quick assessment of sexual identity. This brings me to a fourth point about heterosexuality, which has to do not with the body, but the psyche: In order to be considered heterosexual, individuals are presumed to be singularly and unproblematically aroused to the opposite sex and the opposite sex only, Within sexual identity, the heterosexual package includes the idea that heterosexuality is unitary—all or nothing. We are not supposed to have to learn heterosexualitv: it is supposed to come with our genitals and gender behavior. Any indication of flexibility (a continuum of arousal and attraction that may be greatest towards people of the opposite sex but has some arousal to same-sex persons) is, even among the most sophisticated of people, seen as discrediting heterosexuality. In some American Indian cultures, bisexuality is acknowledged as having a place in the sexual pantheon and can be seen as a gift; heterosexuality can co-exist with homosexuality in the same person without putting either into question, in most Western societies, however, and in many non-Western societies, same-sex arousal immediately incurs identity reassignment; we do not want to think of our sexuality as polymorphous. Indeed, the Freudian phrase would be "polymorphous perverse": a disordered drive rather than merely a lusty or extensive one. In our society, sexual identity as a heterosexual allows tor no trespass ot this eentral vision of unadulterated heterosexuality. Interestingly, though, we have developed a pragmatic out tor some people who can satisfy the gender norms of heterosexuality so satisfactorily that if they choose the right explanation for same sex behavior we will not discredit them. While, in most cases, we disallow any behavior but heterosexual conduct, we do have a vision ol male and female sexuality that allows a "loophole" —if you will, an apt phrase tor the conundrum. Indeed, there are men who so satisfy the norms ot masculinity that they can get away with non- heterosexual behavior, at least for 4 time, and not be reassigned a gay identity. These are the men who are so hypermasculine we believe their accounts ot a sexuality so brutish that, when they say any hole will do, we believe them! Rock stars who are outrageous in every other respect are often allowed to have both male and female partners and continue to maintain their dominant sexual status as heterosexual. Another common example are men in prisons, men who have a scarcity of females, or men from cultures where maleness is considered so sexually powerful that they can just enforce their definition of the situation on anything as long as they take in certain cultural scripts that protect heterosexual identify. As an example, I once interviewed a Greek man named Spiro who was sexually adept with both men and women. He seemed to have no trouble having both male and female partners without having either leave him because of his bisexual activity. When I asked him how he could have sex with both men and women without being labeled as gay, he replied, "It is no problem. You see we have four types of men in Greece: men who fuck men, men who fuck men and women, men who fuck women, and queers." 1 was somewhat flummoxed since 1 knew he had sex with both men and women and would not consider himself "queer." So 1 asked him, 'Who are the people you consider queer'?" "Oh," he said "The queers are the ones who get fucked." Or, put another way. Spiro had a culture that created a vision of men as voracious sexual creatures who naturally will have what they can—as long as they are not degraded by taking the female role, a humiliation from which, apparently, one is denied reentry into the club of heterosexual men. If you are a man who wants to have sex with men in Greece, yet do not want to he thought of as homosexual, you can accomplish this goal, as long as you do not blunder into the "female" sexual role. How this translates intrapsychically may be more difficult, except if you are, like Spiro, from a culture where sexually available women are scarce and sex, any way you can get it, is approved of by your friends. The allowances for women are different, though not entirely. There are some women whose heterosexual credentials are so impeccable that they evoke increased erotic interest in men rather than relabeling when they take on a same-sex lover. Madonna, for example, gave a well-publicized passionate kiss on the lips to Britney Spears which, while it got headlines, did not hurt Madonna's draw as a performer or her perception by fans as an outrageous heterosexual woman. In some parts of the United States there are those who would give erotic points to women who have sex with women even if they are not superstars ... as long as the sexual encounter is clone for the pleasure of men. Women can have sex with women as performers—or as the hors dbettvre in a meal that will be consummated in heterosexual intercourse. Simply put, in our contemporary urban culture, situational biscxualitv is sexy, but real lesbianism is an affront. One exemption from that reaction is lesbianism as a heterosexual porno fantasy. Women who look like Playboy bunnies, who are voracious sexual creatures—wild enough to do anything—are asked to do the inevitable porno three-way, and doing so does not endanger their heterosexual status. As long as female performers in porno eventually show that they are sexually available to men, their homosexual sex is seen as kinky rather than as deviant. These women never take on a lesbian identity; their job is to be u arm up artists, create sexual tit illation, and make sure that the male viewer simply sees them as an erotic surrogate until he "finishes' the 'job." The women in porno movies who make love to one another create a drama of female ecstasy that excites the male viewer rather than threatens him. These actresses do not leave the folds of hetero- sexuality even 111 fantasy (although, in reality, many ot them are stalwart)} lesbian), For our purposes, however, what is interesting is that there are these temporary havens for homosexuality—but sexual identity is preserved because ot the belief that beautiful, sexy women will be steadfastly immune to female charms when men are available. Furthermore, if the women who have had sex with each other follow convention and don't trv to also take on male prerogatives (such as male dress or demeanor), same -sex appetite is seen as an erotic augmentation rather than a substitution. It is an odd erotic peccadillo ot male sexuahtv that almost ail female sexual behavior is catalogued as a dress rehearsal for male sexual enjoyment. Only when the male is truly convinced that the woman has absolutely no desire for the male voyeur, does the wrath ol homophobia come to rest at lesbian destinations. Lesbians to most men are bisexuals, and bisexuals are heterosexuals-in-waiting; however, this fluid assignment is often not so gently experienced by the women who must decide if there is a sexual central self that is not really performing for men, but instead seeks a way to justify erotic and/or emotional desire tor other women. This relates to the fifth point: that heterosexual arousal is supposed to be strong and unambiguous. Ihis is a very interesting requirement, and it (lies in the face of almost every fact we know about sexual performance. More correctly, sexual arousal is always problematic some of the time: there when you don't want it, absent when you are hoping it will overwhelm you. Arousal is highly sensitive 10 other emotions—fear of rejection, tension, performance anxieties, distraction, and fatigue: in other words, numerous states of mind and body. Additionally, we are affected by subtle cues in the environment or in the other persons behavior that may consciously or unconsciously affect our behavior: the wrong words, the wrong look and suddenly we are deflated; a serious performance problem for men. especially it if happens often and becomes habitual. Many men, reflecting back on their boyhood, have talked about how disorienting it was not to have an erection under conditions one was supposed to (or to have it when one was not supposed to) and the doubts and tears and dysfunction that loilowed. Because an erection is supposed to be "natural"—both a perk and prerequisite of heterosexuahty-- its absence, or the presence of ambivalence, is supposed to be instructive of malfunction, or, in the eyes of society, potential deviance. In other words, your status as a heterosexual goes up or down with your penis. Women have a variation of this theme, albeit not such a publicly noticeable one. For example, in a sexual interaction, women may be quite worried about the presence or absence of lubrication. Some women's vaginas lubricate quite copiously when aroused, other women remain quite dry no matter how aroused they are, or become less lubn *.ated as they age and approach penmenopause or menopause.. Women, like men, varv in the way their body reacts to stimulation. However, in the Book of Heterosexuahty, aroused women are supposed to lubricate, and the lack thereof has been known to cause women—and their partners—some worry that the body is the truer source of information than the mind, and that not lubricating indicates lesser sexual interest or excitement, lubrication, while easily fixable by modern water-based 01 silicone products, is perceived to be telling the woman (and her partner) something elemental. A standard of competent heterosexuahty is unmet. Women have been let off this hook somewhat by being defined as having a mostly reactive sexuality (i.e.. "you do not have to be the first to be sexually aroused," "as a woman you are entitled to be only mildly interested until you are aggressively aroused by a man"). In this scenario, it you are not amused, it is not that you are not heterosexual, it is just that this is the wrong person, you are not in love enough, or that your lover is not man enough to arouse you. In general, however, women's heterosexuality is perceived to be awakened by love. Love is supposed to be the motor or' women's sexual emotions. In fact, female sexuality is supposed to be so relational that even inappropriate (i.e., homosexual) arousal can sometimes happen without necessarily impacting heterosexual identity. In this perspective, women are turned on because the)' are m love, and love is the motivating sexual force. Same-sex behavior, rather than exhibiting an essential part ol a woman's true nature, is merely another act of true womanhood—female sexuality created by the power of love. Many women who have had extended lesbian relationships in their biography but do not wish to identify as a lesbian may, post hoc, deiine their same-sex love affair as primarily a love relationship with a sexual component that could only last for the length of that relationship. This vision of self limiting sexuality 'over when the love relationship is over) is not sustained by our culture when it concerns men. One moment of adult non-heterosexual arousal—no matter how passing the moment—is likely to be seen as definitive evidence ot a core homosexual set of desires. Sixth: the appropriate—that is to say, the opposite sex—is supposed to be attracted to us. Sexual identity can be so shaky that it can also be changed by other people's attention to us rather than our own feelings about ourselves. In the movie In ami Out, actor Kevin Kline is woefully out of touch with his sexual psyche. He is in his early forties and has gone with his girlfriend for years and years without any genital contact. When one of his tamous students assumes he is gay—because of inappropriate gender behavior (including, if you will, that he is neat!) and "outs" him, it is the first time he is forced to confront himself. The gay news reporter who is sent to cover the story immediately sees the Kline character as a "closet case." Not one really sexual moment happens that shows Kline demonstrating sexual desire for another man, but the beginning of his uncloseting is not proved by who he is attracted to (or not attracted to, as the case may be) but also bv how others see him and bv u/io wants him. Thus, every heterosexual who is not claimed by the opposite sex as a heartthrob in their youth has doubts- and not only because of being ignored or feeling invisible, but also because of sexual aspirations lofted his or her way by other people with insecure sexual identities. Teenagers, young men and women, anct women and men with sexually mixed biographies are all unsure ot who they are and who they want, and so they all are more likely to project their own lack ot ease onto another person. Straw Dogs, a subtly homophobic film released several decades ago. insinuates that the central hgure Dustin Hoffman is emasculated because he cannot control his flirtatious, wayward wife. This does not mean an immediate homosexual label, but it does mean that his character is not adequately heterosexual because he isn't macho enough to make the men fear him when they ogle and sexually harass her. Written to be a "ball buster" by nature, she is humiliated when the men verbally insult her and he does nothing. In turn, the "virile" workmen have nothing but contempt for a man who will not get physically aggressive when other men decline to respect his woman and ogle her without retribution.. The local men hate him for his effeteness and his social class (he has been pilloried by the working class men fixing his house as being a "poof "I and it becomes a war to the death when the working men get more and more contemptuous" of him and turn into sexually salivating males who plan to lay claim to the wife. They study Hoffman and decide that he is a putz because they can see his wife is running around on htm, and they are pretty sure he knows that she is. Whether or not he knows or docs not know, in their minds he should know, and do something about it. They decide to do with her as they will since he is obviously not a manly man who deserves to have his female property respected. In the end, however, in order to protect his home, woman, and life, Hoffman "gets if' and resorts to primordial battle to retrieve his wife and his self-respect. They attack him and he triumphs over them, but m order to do so, it is necessary for him to kill every one of these men. At the end ot the film, in the eyes ot his wife, himself and the director, the Hoffman character becomes a true man in the deepest sense of heterosexual glory. For women, the archetypal story is the transformation story- -that of a woman not sufficiently self-discovered enough to take on the accoutrements ot femininity and win her man. Pure evocations ot this theme can be found m the musical Annie Get Your Vmii when the Annie Oakley character cleans up to try and get her man, or when the Ranch er's Daughter in Ro