The Carol Duvall Show explores the various uses of household items which, when given a little creativity and the right amount of paint, moms everywhere have the ability to engage in all things cute. Yet when assessing the cuteness factor in homemade crafts, one must adhere to certain guidelines. First, anything and everything has two functionary purposes: a primary or logical use and a second “discovered” use. By utilizing both uses, a good crafter increases the value of the item and enhances the cuteness of the craft. For example, Mini Hot Wheels can be launched off the stairs by a five-year-old, or they can be stolen by the child’s craft-crazed mother and reassigned for paint duty; remember “season your tires.” A good mom, however, knows the value of providing toys that have multiple purposes and a “mother who plays” understands how tire tracks only add detail to a craft project. This eye for detail is the second rule of crafting; since most crafting is done in the solitary confinement of suburbia, a good crafter can see the details necessary for a project without help from fellow crafters. And indeed if you have a better eye then Susie next door, you may be well on your way to cuteness before her. The third rule of craftiness involves the process of reusability. A good crafter recycles all of her utensils, always thinking ahead to the upcoming project.

So obviously, crafting is a woman’s domain with the objective of creating the cute cheaply, easily, and with everyday efficiency. Crafting isn’t supposed to stress people out or require excessive amounts of time, although it does. Theoretically, women craft to give them some sense of personal satisfaction in a project well done, and to show all their pretty junk to other women. Men, in most instances avoid crafting at all costs. Society has trained men to embrace masculine shows, thus segregating the sexes into two juxtaposed yet disproportionate categories: men as macho and women as cute. A man should never be labeled cute… this is why craft shows avoid segments on “designing your husband’s fall sweater.” No self-respecting man would allow his wife’s obsession with cute to attack his wardrobe.

However, this issue of cute for women adds another layer when one considers why exactly women adore the cute. What’s the payoff, do men really appreciate the cute, or just tolerate it for the sake of their counterpart? It seems that women do not seek the cute in the interest of a man’s reaction… after all, if this was so, where are all the male audience members commenting on the cuteness factor of hand-stitched scarves? These men don’t exist. Instead we have women affirming cuteness for other women. By this notion, one may observe that cuteness is not intended for men, but made by women for other women. Although women have a driving desire, in most cases, to secure a male mate and will utilize whatever assets to attract the attention of men, when is comes to cute, there is an apparent conundrum. So, at what point do women shun the sexy, the alluring, and the hot—to embrace the cute? The answer may be found in marriage. Women who craft are usually past the stages of wedded bliss and entering the joys of motherhood and perhaps their early thirties. With the days of wowing husbands at the dinner table apparently long gone, women seek other venues in which to capitalize on their abilities to color-coordinate and find creative uses for household items. Thus the crafting industry is born. Women will offer the encouragement for the skills that most men fail to notice, and women are able to create their own competitions for obtaining the cute through crafting. This notion also perhaps satisfies the need for a challenge, similar to the competition single women face when seeking men in the first place. A vicious cycle—how cute.

To crafters, men do not exist. This is to say that not only are men excluded from the realm of crafts in a vernacular sense, but also the standard male/female binary is subverted. In the standard male/female binary the balance of power lies with the man. In crafting (and cuteness in general) the power lies with the woman. However, it is nearly impossible to switch, on a large scale, a power distribution so engrained in the culture. To move power to their side, women have to completely switch from the male/female binary to a mother/child binary. Just as in the case of a mother taking a crying baby away from the father (and comforting it, thus leaving the father embarrassed and erased), the male is completely overshadowed by this shift.

This shift is apparent in almost every aspect of crafting as presented in the screening. The speech of Carol Duvall and her guests gives the first indication of this shift. When the first guest mentions rubber stamps, Carol says, off-hand, “the two or three people in the world who don’t own rubber stamps.” While it is a hyperbole, the word 'people' deserves special focus. Men and women are both covered by the word ‘people.’ No man owns rubber stamps, at least not in the capacity Duvall suggests; only women do. Men are removed from both the connotation and denotation of ‘people.’ They simply do not exist. Children have taken the place of men. Since children cannot provide for themselves, they can rightly be considered ‘not people’—the binary is preserved and Duvall’s statement is true.

The one time that a male is mentioned, it is in the capacity of the husband. The reason that this does not break down the new binary (which would cause the show to come to a screeching halt) is that this comment is surrounded with icons and discussion of children. This keeps the husband/man out of the position of power by relegating him ‘utility.’ He is only a necessary part of childbearing. Her tone and word choice position this man (her husband) as some great and dark other. And indeed he is, as his presence upsets the mother/child binary by forcing the male/female binary.

The last segment of this show is dedicated to knitting. The patterns and models used imbue the knitted objects with a ‘look what mom sent me’ connotation. Nothing is male; everything here still relates to the child. Even though the child is grown up, as represented by the models, it can still be considered a child.

Crafting is an anomaly. It is one of the few areas of life where the male gaze is not operative. The male presence is not even recognized. Like the much discussed ‘motherly bond,’ the world of crafting is a world that exists between the mother and her children, all but inaccessible to men.

To be cute or not to be cute, that is not the question. Cuteness is not an option. It’s a necessary trait by today’s societal standards set for women, by women. Cuteness has consumed our culture and most cultures around the world. It has taken over clothes, books, home accessories and yes, television. The epitome of the adult woman’s focus on the art of cuteness a can be witnessed in a nearly intolerable television program known by the creative name of The Carol Duvall Show. Beware; for an entire half hour, the importance of crafty creativity/cuteness is embedded into the audience’s mind by various means and “various” guests.

“Cute” is not a word generally associated with men. Any type of “cute” association with a grown man could possibly be taken as an insult and a gash to one’s manhood. Not to worry. The Carol Duvall Show makes certain that no male influence is apparent to the viewing audiences. The host is an older woman. All of her guest “artists of cuteness” are women. Even the owners of companies she mentions are women. The show is for women and run by women with no room for men or their masculinity. In this episode, the only actual visible reference to the male gender exists as a photo of a small boy on an ‘envelopment.’ Even here, the small boy does not exude the inherent traits of masculinity. He is still small, round, soft and cuddly. He is still cute and in his most feminine stage of life. The boy’s father isn’t even mentioned as a possible receiver of the party picture.

The directions and explanations of the projects during the excruciating half hour have even embraced the cuteness tone. Directions are commonly given by males in strong, clear fashions. Moses read the Ten Commandments in a loud booming voice from a mountain top. The instructions here are explained in high pitched, gentle tones with a complication level equal only to that of a kindergarten arts and craft project. The inflections in the voices of the demonstrators could not possibly be more motherly or feminine. The references to youthful innocence by such actions are almost unbearable, but necessary for the women on this show to prove to one another that they indeed are cute or more specifically, the most cute.

The final bit of evidence that this show is for women to develop and hone their cuteness skills all on their own is represented in a quote by the women making the lovely party invitations, “ I always get called and thanked for my thank you cards!” The cuteness she exudes out of every visible and psychological part of her being is not for her enjoyment or her husband's. She does not need male approval or acceptance of her cuteness to receive her reward; she needs the acceptance of other women. The assurance that they see her as cute and crafty is all she needs to keep the peace in her bright gingham world.

I’m going to use three concrete aspects from The Carol Duvall Show to confirm how these cutesy-craft shows are obviously geared towards women, but use male-ness to achieve it. Forget about the obvious commercials that were geared towards women (cleaning and cosmetic products) and the referrals to other show numbers that housewives around the world would be able to instantly remember; men were the constant subtext. One aspect that I couldn’t help thinking about while we screened the show was there were a males working behind the scenes (cameramen, directors etc.). Although it is only an assumption that men are doing this type of work behind the camera, it seems most natural. This is an aspect that Mulvey would be most interested in. Males are contributing to the way that the women are being viewed by other males and females. They are creating “the Gaze” in the physical sense by using/operating the camera that is taping them. They are turning them into objects just as the women on the show are turning crafts into cute, sexual objects for other women. Although it is the women who are on the screen performing for other women, it is my opinion that they wouldn’t be there without the male presence making it possible. Even though women could do the actual taping/camera work, they are too busy making knitted shirt cuffs and having ribbon orgasms.

The other way that males contribute to this world of female cuteness is involuntarily. The guest on the show who used her son’s (or other male’s) toys to create her innovative crafts also used male-ness in order to succeed in the business. She took a sign of male dominated fun and turned it into a girly and cute paint apparatus. The little boy had no say in whether or not this grown woman could use his toy for this purpose. The poor guy probably got made fun of when others saw pink paint shellacked onto the bottom of his monster truck. The guest even made a joke and said that she could get some paint and use her vehicle to decorate the driveway for her husband. What husband would want a pink tire-tread trimmed driveway?

Another way that the show used male-ness was the narrator. At the end of the show the male voice over described all the cute crap that would be on the next show. He excitedly described what fun things that Carol would be doing with seashells on the next program. The voice wasn’t female, it was male; a deep male voice at that. Women use cuteness as a way to prove their femininity (to both men and other women), but it wouldn’t be possible without the help of males (whether it’s voluntary or not).

The Carol Duvall Show is an example of shows geared to women, complete with all of its frilly, pastel painted cuteness. Gender coding is engrained in every aspect of our society. Though there are a large number of shows that appeal to both men and women, many networks and shows appearing on cable now cater strictly to one gender or another. Shows like Monster Garage, American Chopper, and Monster House appeal strongly to the male demographic because of their raw masculine settings, language and content. On the other hand, shows such as The Carol Duvall Show, and for the most part everything on HGTV and similar networks, strongly caters to women and their interests.

The clear gender coding can’t be missed as it is peppered—no poured—from a cute dump truck, throughout every aspect of The Carol Duvall Show. To begin with, all the sets are various rooms typically associated with women. The show starts off in a kitchen setting for the first craft segment, and then later on moved to a set that closely resembles the living room. All the rooms are brightly and carefully decorated to match, filled with little trinkets, knick knacks and frilly extras—making it clear to just about any male who clicks past that The Carol Duvall Show is one to pass during even the most desperate of channel surfing sessions. These sets and decorations are in stark contrast to all male oriented shows on the air. While The Carol Duvall Show has these sharp decorated sets, shows like American Chopper and others usually feature dirty white disheveled buildings and garages which epitomize the guy mentality and lack of caring about “cuteness.”

Men usually seek competition in physical acts and achievements to impress women; women without doubt take “cuteness” and apply those same competitive aspects in attempts to impress each other (since most men could care less about how to make “envelopements” or other cute things). For example, in one of the later segments of The Carol Duvall Show where Carol is being taught how to do wonderful stenciling using various children’s toys, Carol is issued a challenge by her guest: to stencil a flower using small toy shoes. The offer to try was received by Carol almost as a direct challenge which she attempted to turn down at least three times before being forced to try on the air. It was as if Carol knew she was not as skilled at stenciling these “Shoe Flowers,” and did not want to be shown to be clumsy and un-crafty to her audience. So, in a fear that her persona could be damaged, she attempted to not place herself where she could be compared. After she made the first attempt and realized that she was doing a decent job you could see her demeanor instantly change. She goes from trying to shy away, to acting as if she is refusing to stop because she was getting so good at it. Once she knew she was capable she seemingly did the female equivalent of re-asserting her dominance in the craft arena and wanted so show that she was a “worthy competitor.”

Finally, the segment that established the gender coding in the most clear and striking way was the stenciling using children’s toys, specifically where they used the boy’s toys to create these prissy, frilly painted craft works of art. Half the fun of the segment seemed to be the de-masculating of the male toys and men in general, almost as a little jab to men, making the women savor the idea that they could take even the most masculine of things, cars and trucks, and turn them into prissy frilly patterns and flowers. Watching women turn male toys into floral painting tools is clearly not something that men want to see, while women on the other hand are empowered, drawn in, and enjoying every minute.

Cuteness is to women what sports is to men, it’s a direct competition and it’s what they are drawn to. Shows like Monster House, American Chopper and others have men creating arguably “cute” things, they always have flair, a competitive edge, and plenty of testosterone-related yelling and cussing which draws in the male viewer. Women’s shows, such as The Carol Duvall Show, take the approach of women trying to out-priss and frill each other to such a level that most men would have trouble sitting through five seconds of a show, and thirty minutes is for the most part out of the question. The gender coding in these shows is very clear in all these shows and plays extremely well to the sexes. While many don’t think of craft shows as a giant competition, it’s clear what the drive behind them is.

>  >  >  >   m  a  n  o  n  '  s     c  o  u  r  s  e     p  a  g  e  s 


Page layout and design ©2004 by Hugh S. Manon for the Oklahoma State University Film Program. Some images on this page are the property of a third party and are used with permission. The marks of Oklahoma State University are controlled under a licensing program administered by The Collegiate Licensing Company.

Last update: 1/22/2005