84
Popular Culture Review
his fathers-in-law, Roman Grant, also known as the Prophet. Head of the
fundamentalist compound from which Bill was expelled during his adolescence,
Roman wields a great deal of power and uses his influence to threaten Bill’s
financial security. Despite Bill’s having repaid the original loan, Roman insists
that their agreement entitles him to a percentage of the profits of all future
stores. Of the loans, Bill explains, “Barb, if I didn’t keep constantly moving the
ball forward, we would sink under our bills” (“Barbecue”). These loans are the
modern day equivalent of a skeleton in the closet for Bill in that if anyone
outside the family unit were to see the perilous arrangement of his finances and
his dependence on outside sources of money, he would be seen as failing at
providing for his family. If the public were to discover that Bill has three homes
or that he is financially tied to Roman Grant, his name would automatically be
associated with polygamy, and he would risk losing a great deal of business at
his stores.
The second category, deplorable debt, is equally telling in the definition of
Bill’s masculinity, because it was accrued in secret by his second wife, Nicki. A
compulsive shopper, she has spent over $60,000 using various credit cards, all
behind Bill’s back, and is being hounded by creditors, inviting investigation of
her financial affairs. Nicki also borrows money from her father, Roman, to pay
off part of her debt without asking Bill’s permission and therefore endangers the
family by strengthening the ties between the Henricksons and the Prophet. Even
after this indiscretion has been revealed, Nicki continues to spend, knowing that
if Bill were to disown her, he would be damaging his own reputation and, in
turn, his masculinity. Bill’s responsibility to repay this debt siphons resources
from family funds and threatens his financial stability, just as it siphons away at
his masculinity, taking him further and further away from the ideal.
The tandem siphoning of masculinity and money proves that the two are
intrinsically linked in the social construction of masculinity, and though Bill
must appear to maintain a stable financial state, he is in fact gradually becoming
an empty shell. He appears to be the same Bill Henrickson, but the exterior
stability no longer matches the interior turmoil that would betray his “failure” to
perform the masculine ideal. The average American family apparently struggles
with this same issue of exterior stability as a mask for interior financial disarray.
According to recent statistics, approximately 43 percent of American families
spend more money than they earn, and the average household carries $8,000 in
credit card debt (Khan). Thus, while Bill’s financial woes are certainly
exaggerated in comparison to those of the average man, he is still in the
company of many men in terms of financial instability. While the average man’s
masculinity is determined by his financial autonomy, Bill is utterly dependent on
others (his wife and father-in-law) to define him, though he must never appear to
be, or he would risk losing the facade that positions him as a “real” man.
The man-as-provider is directly related to the third part of the stereotype
being examined: the categorization of the man as the center of authority. As the