Rachel Eisen

Submission for HBI Prize – Graduate

Written for NEJS 161b

Page 1 of 2

“I carried a watermelon”:
Jewish Women Writers Confront the JAP Stereotype

Introduction

The “Jewish American Princess,” or “JAP,” is, by all accounts, a misogynistic stereotype created by Jewish men. The JAP is “selfish and pampered,”[1] “loud, emotional, pushy and aggressive,”[2] “manipulative,” “both sexually frigid (withholding) and…a nymphomaniac;”[3] she is “the female counterpart to the schlemiel,”[4] who “depends on men in order to adorn herself.”[5] In short, she is a horror who preys on men, taking their money and giving nothing in return. Male writers, notably novelists Herman Wouk and Philip Roth in their respective characters, Marjorie Morningstar and Brenda Patimkin, created the JAP in the postwar period.[6] Sandford Pinsker has called Brenda the “ur-JAP…the archetype” after which all JAPs model themselves.[7]

What makes the JAP so misogynistic, however, is not her negative characteristics, but rather, her two-dimensionality and her purpose as a foil for men. According to Riv-Ellen Prell, who has studied the JAP stereotype extensively, both Marjorie and Brenda “were conduits through which the males transacted their… relationship” with other men.[8] The JAP, then, is not her own character, but rather merely the female version of an existing Jewish male stereotype: she cannot even exist on her own without being defined by her relationship to a man.[9]

In the 1980s, however, Jewish women began countering the JAP stereotype. After numerous incidents of “JAP-baiting” on college campuses, scholars,[10] the Jewish community,[11] and journalists[12] noted the dangers of the stereotype. These rebukes followed the publication of several novels by female Jewish authors that brought the Jewish woman to the forefront as a means of “talk[ing] back” to the men who had previously thoroughly skewered them.[13] These heroines, as well as the Jewish women who began taking center stage on the big screen, were fully fleshed-out characters, whose JAP-like qualities hid “real tears” and “real pain.”[14]

As Ruth D. Johnston, Roberta Mock, and Joyce Antler have argued, female Jewish authors use comedy and mimicry to poke fun of, and poke holes in, the stereotypes that classify women as two-dimensional stock characters. Johnston understands Jewish gender performance through the lens of Homi Bhabha’s concept of mimicry; she argues women’s films’ portrayal of the JAP flips the stereotype on its head by “explor[ing] sympathetically” the characteristics of the stereotype.[15] Building on the work of various feminist scholars such as Luce Irigaray, Mock argues much of Jewish comediennes’ work represents instances where “the ‘other’, who has previously only been described as an object…suddenly acquires her own voice.” When Jewish women admit they do have the JAP’s flaws, they engage the oppositional gaze, forcing “the social body” to confront their prejudice; therefore, Jewish women’s works serve to “counter-balance the limitations” of stereotypes.[16] Similarly, Antler has argued that, “when women use humor to express and laugh at their visions of the world, they cannot help but challenge the social structures.”[17]

It was in the context of feminist pushback against the JAP through comedy and literature that Dirty Dancing (1987) was released. Clueless (1995) followed less than a decade later. Both films were written by Jewish women. In this paper, I will analyze the portrayal of the two heroines and argue both films use mimetic comedy to confront and dismantle the JAP stereotype.

The JAP in Dirty Dancing and Clueless

Dirty Dancing and Clueless present different portrayals of the JAP stereotype, providing varied opportunities to understand the stereotype. While both focus on teenage girls dealing with romance and their relationships with their fathers, the two heroines are very different. Though both are marked as Jewish through their last names and fathers’ professions rather than through explicit Jewish references, only Baby of Dirty Dancing is marked as Jewish through her body. Baby has brown, curly hair and a “Jewish nose,” unlike Clueless’s Cher, who has blonde, straight hair and a decidedly not-Jewish nose. Clueless takes place contemporarily and Dirty Dancing is set historically, in 1963. And while Baby could be seen as an anti-JAP, Cher could just as easily be dismissed as the ultimate JAP with no redeeming qualities. Yet an in-depth understanding of the two characters and their actions belie such surface-level impressions.

Baby Houseman, heroine of Dirty Dancing, which was written and co-produced by Eleanor Bergstein,[18] is at first glance an unlikely subject for analyzing the JAP stereotype. She is not the “rich spoiled girl who…contributes nothing to society.”[19] Her sister, Lisa, is a far better candidate. When we first see Lisa, she is staring into a mirror while in the car to Kellerman’s resort in summer 1963. Upon arrival, Lisa immediately complains she did not bring her coral shoes, and her mother has to remind her that she actually brought ten pairs of shoes. Baby joins her father in chastising Lisa for her frivolity, reminding Lisa that tragedy isn’t forgetting a pair of shoes, tragedy is “monks burning themselves in [political] protest.” Lisa is wooed by future-doctor Robbie, who brags about saving up enough money to buy Lisa’s favorite car. Lisa obsesses over her looks. Baby, on the other hand, hasn’t bothered to straighten her big, curly hair or have her nose “fixed” (classic JAP behavior[20]). When Baby’s father, Jake, introduces her as someone who is going to “change the world,” Baby quips that Lisa is going to “decorate it.”

Baby literally embodies the opposite of what a JAP is. Whereas Riv-Ellen Prell asserts that, “the JAP is personified by a passive body,”[21] the plot of Dirty Dancing revolves around Baby being active: in order to save the job of Penny, one of the resort’s dance instructors, who has gotten pregnant and needs an illegal abortion, Baby must learn how to dance the Mambo in Penny’s place. The main action of the film shows Baby sweating and working hard to master a physical discipline.

Yet, it is clear much of the criticism leveled against the supposed JAP could easily be brought against Baby. For example, Baby is inextricably defined by her relationship to Jake, not unlike the JAP, whose entire existence depends on her father or husband.[22] Though Baby may introduce herself with a voice-over that situates her as an intellectual character, in the same breath she also claims she “never thought she’d find a guy as a great as [her] dad.” She depends on her father’s money to fix problems: when Penny cannot pay for her abortion, Baby asks Jake to borrow $250. Even though she won’t tell him the reason, Jake obliges anyway and kisses Baby on the forehead.

For all her posturing about joining the Peace Corps, it is clear Baby has never worked a day in her life. When she first meets Johnny, the handsome male dance instructor with whom she will eventually partner (on the dance floor and in bed), Baby justifies her presence at the staff party by claiming she “carried a watermelon”—as if carrying one watermelon is equal to the staff’s day-long toiling. Throughout the film, she is shown to have no understanding of the realities of working-class life. Baby in some sense is a passive body: despite sweating in the dance studio, she has no idea what it means to labor for a living. Prell argues that, “Jewish American Princesses require everything and give nothing;”[23] this is exactly what Johnny accuses Baby of when she appears unable to stand up to her father for their relationship.

Compared to Baby, Cher Horowitz, heroine of Clueless, is a blatant JAP. Written and directed by Amy Heckerling, Clueless opens with scenes of California opulence, and Cher’s stated belief that living in a mansion paid for by her $500-an-hour-earning litigator father is “a way normal life for a teenage girl.” She shops for designer clothes as therapy anytime something doesn’t go her way. In one scene, as Cher is held up at gunpoint, she protests when her assailant demands she get down on the ground, because she does not want to ruin her name-brand dress. She accuses a classmate of wearing knock-off perfume. Her ex-step-brother, Josh, jokes that Cher’s only sense of direction is toward the mall and berates her for not following current events.

However, just as elements of the JAP are hidden beneath Baby’s desire to do good, Cher’s desire to do good is hidden beneath her JAP exterior. Cher may like to shop and be, at times, clueless, but she is not someone who “fails to care for the needs of others.”[24] In fact, a recurring theme throughout Clueless is that Cher’s father, Mel, is in poor health due to his eating habits and Cher is constantly trying to get him to eat better and follow his doctor’s advice. In their first encounter on screen, Cher attempts to convince him to drink orange juice for vitamin C. Later, when she and Josh buy Mel and his colleagues food as they work late, Cher makes Mel—not for the first time—eat a salad rather than meat. Her caretaking is acknowledged by Mel toward the end of the film when he specifically reminds her that by taking care of him, Cher has demonstrated her “good-doing.”

UnlikeBrenda Patimkin, who “doggedly resists self-analysis,”[25] Cher is open to understanding her flaws and working to correct them. When Josh accuses Cher of being “selfish,” she is genuinely concerned she might actually be selfish. And, importantly, toward the end of the film, Cher is willing to admit she was “wrong” and “clueless,” a conclusion she comes to on her own, through her self-analysis. She not only admits her flaws to herself, but also apologizes to her friend, whom she has hurt with her cluelessness.

Discussion

Despite portraying the Jewish teen girl in different ways, both Bergstein and Heckerling confront and dismantle the two-dimensional stereotype by suggesting there is more to her than vanity and laziness. Whereas the JAP has no desire to labor, Baby at least recognizes her lack of work experience. “I carried a watermelon” is a ridiculous line and Baby knows it. When Johnny walks away after she says this, she incredulously repeats it as if she cannot believe the words came out of her mouth. Furthermore, at the end of the film, when Johnny is going to lose his job after being falsely accused of theft, Baby speaks up and provides his alibi, revealing she was with him in his room at night. By having an active, sexual body, unlike the JAP, Baby actually does something for Johnny, even if that results in Johnny getting fired anyway, for sleeping with a guest. Baby may not know how to labor productively,[26] but she does not reject labor. The difference is subtle but suggests that rather than having an inherent character flaw, Jewish women can turn their passivity into activity if they are self-aware. Baby’s self-awareness and ability to subverts the idea that Jewish always women are “lazy” or “parasites.”[27]

Cher’s “shallow materialism”[28] is not a true portrayal of who she is. Roberta Mock argues that, “the JAP’s actions can only occur when bankrolled by her father or lover.”[29] But Cher’s most important actions do not rely on Mel’s money. Ultimately, Cher transforms herself by captaining her school’s collection drive in response to a natural disaster. She takes initiative to donate items she already owns and harnesses her popularity for good by getting her classmates involved. As she reflects that her friends all have something they are each very good at, it becomes clear that Cher has a talent, too—organizing and mobilizing—and that when she makes an effort, she can make a difference by herself, without anyone else’s monetary assistance. Cher’s ability to transform herself and act of her own accord speaks to the activeness and depth of her character.

Baby and Cheralso have complex relationships with the men—particularly the fathers—in their lives, that go beyond the “economic;”[30] Riv-Ellen Prell argues this complex relationship is a critical feature of women’s novels in the 1970s that similarly confronted the JAP stereotype.[31] Baby wants more from her father, Jake, than his money, as evident in her breakdown after he chastises her for assisting in something illegal and lying to him. Unlike Brenda Patimkin, who easily chooses her family over Neil Klugman when he calls her out for not valuing their relationship or her own beliefs,[32] Baby is genuinely torn when Johnny accuses her of not “fighting” for their relationship. Instead of choosing her father, she chooses both her father and Johnny, returning to Johnny’s side but also telling Jake she loves him. Because Brenda is merely a foil for Neil, she cannot have complex relationships with either him or her parents. Babycan, however, because she subverts the two-dimensionality of the JAP. Additionally, the simplicity of Brenda’s relationships with men is constant. Whether with Neil or her father, Brenda always acquiesces. Baby’s relationships with Johnny and Jake both change over the course of the movie, not unlike her transformation from passive to active body. Once again, Baby’s character challenges the static, flat nature of a stereotype.

Likewise, Cher’s father, Mel, is no victim, and he is unwilling to let Cher coast. He may finance her shopping sprees, but he simultaneously gives Cher a hard time about her grades and her plans in life. Comparing her to Josh, Mel scolds that, “at least he knows what he wants do…I’d like to see you have a little direction,” a criticism he later repeats. In the end, Cher goes to Mel for advice—not money. When he reminds Cher she is the one who takes care of the household, Mel demonstrates their relationship is not based on one-way financial transactions, but rather on mutual care and love. The mutuality of that care is significant because it demonstrates Cher is unlike the JAP, who “sucks men dry”[33] by not giving anything of herself.

Finally, and importantly, both films propose these two heroines’ JAP-ness is performative. Judith Butler’s theory on gender performativity highly influences Michele Byers, who suggests being a JAP is no less performative than any other social role.[34] Comedy, then, is an important medium for confronting the JAP because it is inherently performative, that is, the comic takes on certain repeated characteristics to create a persona. Through “comic mimesis”[35] of the JAP stereotype, the Jewish women writers of Dirty Dancing and Clueless use fictional roles in the same way Jewish female comedians use their personas to mimic and stare back at stereotypes that would flatten them. Even the characters themselves are performing their JAP-ness. Baby is a different person when she is with her family as opposed to Johnny. The film suggests she is her true self with Johnny—underscored by his famous line, “nobody puts Baby in a corner.” If being with her family is her untrue self, then her reliance on “daddy” and her lack of labor is just a role she takes on. Cher names this performativity when she is choosing a “lighting concept” and making “costume decisions” as she plans for a romantic rendezvous. In doing so, Heckerling (through Cher) claims these aspects of the JAP—designer clothes, snobbishness, gauche displays of wealth—are really just an act. By suggesting that being a JAP is no more than a role to play, Dirty Dancing and Clueless call out the JAP stereotype as merely performance and show that underneath the type-cast is a real, if flawed, woman.

Conclusion

In discussing “the subversive tradition of Jewish female comedians,” Joyce Antler argues these comediennes “wanted to give [women] their dignity, rather than render them as caricatures.” Antler elaborates that, “because expectations are that men do the joking and women receive (or are targets of) humor, for women merely to take the mike as comic performers upsets role norms.”[36] In Dirty Dancing and Clueless,Eleanor Bergstein and Amy Heckerling take the pen (instead of the mike) to “upset” expectations and accepted norms.

Both Baby and Cher appear to suffer the JAP’s flaws of relying on their fathers and not laboring productively. Neither Baby nor Cher, however, are two-dimensionally flawed, unlike the original JAPs created by men. Instead, their flaws are partnered by strengths, including real desires to do good, to labor, and to have complex relationships with their fathers. In mimicking the stereotype while simultaneously dismantling it, Bergstein and Heckerling suggest Jewish women can have the characteristics of the JAP while still being fully developed characters. By giving a strong female character like Baby the JAP’s flaws and by giving a JAP like Cher complex strengths, Bergstein and Heckerling subvert the two-dimensionality of the JAP stereotype.