Back to the Future (1985): From a Patriarchal Past to a Postfeminist Future

Back to the Future

In 2025, it is forty years since the movie Back to the Future (1985) first took the world by storm as what some have called “the greatest cinematic adventure in movie history” (Brad Gilmore 2020, p. 14). The movie has been widely canonised as one of the most famous and popular science fiction films of all time (Back to the Future Popularity & Fame | YouGov, n.d.). While the adventures of Marty McFly and his friend Doc are a source of great entertainment, they are also symptomatic of a hegemonic (white) masculinity in crisis that dominated the west in the 1980s (see, for example, Powrie, 1997; Contois 2021; Walsh, 2010). Scholars have dived into popular cinema from the eighties to discuss how it portrays various topics such as populism (Quinn 2022), motherhood (Thomas 2022), and fatherhood (Hamad, 2014), among others. I argue that it is relevant to examine Back to the Future and its presentation of masculinity for at least three reasons: firstly, to illustrate how hegemonic masculinity have dovetailed neoliberalism with postfeminism. Secondly, to pinpoint the roots of the “toxic” masculinity that feminist scholars criticise and that is still overt in popular culture today (see, e.g., McGlashan and Mercer 2023) — an analysis of Back to the Future is thus not only indicative of its timeframe but also of contemporary norms of gender. And thirdly, I engage with a culturally significant film like Back to the Future not merely to criticise it or to advocate for its revocation from the cultural canon — rather, I investigate its potentially harmful presentation of hegemonic masculinity precisely to promote its preservation. Hopefully, we will be able to enjoy Back to the Future for forty years longer — but with nuance.

Drawing on Godfrey’s (2022) analysis of the representation of masculinity in crisis in British movies from 1990-2010, I explore how masculinity is portrayed in Robert Zemeckis’s Back to the Future (1985). More specifically, accepting the premise that hegemonic masculinity is hierarchised in relation to class and gender (Heynders, 2022), I consider the question: How is hegemonic masculinity represented in relation to women, men, and class in Back to the Future (1985)?

First, I outline the theoretical framework of, inter alia, Godfrey (2022) on the crisis of masculinity; Gill et. al. (2017) on postfeminism; and Beauvoir’s (2016) theory of women as the Other. Secondly, I analyse hegemonic masculinity presented in the movie in relation to women as the Other, to men as traditionally masculine, and to class. Finally, I conclude that the movie presents hegemonic masculinity in Othering women through sexualisation and lack of agency; by presenting “correct” masculinity in its traditional sense, particularly through agentic and confrontative character traits; and by its neoliberal approach to poverty, thus reasserting the importance of traditional, patriarchal masculinity and heralding postfeminism. 

Theoretical Framework: Postfeminism and Hegemonic Masculinity

The analysis conducted here rests especially on the theories of Godfrey (2022). In her work, Godfrey analyses cinematic representations of a crisis in masculinity. Focusing especially on the convergences between neoliberalism and postfeminism in Britain and how these produce cinematic masculinity, Godfrey argues that a thorough analysis is necessary to better understand the discursive function of these representations in cinematic culture (Godfrey, 2022, p. 2). While her focus is specifically on 1990-2010s Britain, her methods are deemed useful for the purposes here of analysing a 1980s American movie representation of masculinity still consumed today. Godfrey argues that ideas of masculinity in crisis, and subsequently restored, reasserts the “symbolic importance of traditional codes of masculinity.” (Godfrey, 2022, p. 52) Importantly, Godfrey argues that crisis discourses dovetail with postfeminist discourses, “reproducing an implicit understanding that feminism has […] challenged white male power to the point of downfall” (Godfrey, 2022, p. 54).  Thus a discourse of restored hegemonic masculinity goes hand in hand with a discourse of postfeminism.

Postfeminism has been a widely contested concept (Gill et. al., 2017, p. 227). In some understandings of the term, postfeminism is a sensibility intimately linked to neoliberalism (Gill et. al., 2017, p. 228). The link between postfeminism and neoliberalism is evident in numerous ways, including their individualism and self-regulating, free-choosing, and supposedly autonomous subjects (Gill et. al., 2017, p. 231). Drawing on the analysis of Gill et. al. (2017), postfeminism is characterised here by its formulation of issues in individual, subjective terms and discounting structural perspectives (Gill et. al., 2017, p. 231). According to some research, postfeminism threatens the feminist movement in its belief that women are equal, and in some cases privileged, over men, thus portraying feminism as redundant and even harmful (Gill et. al., 2017, p. 237). Understood in this sense, it becomes important to understand the ways in which representations of masculinity enhance the current rise of postfeminist discourses (Mack & Ott, 2013, p. 207).

For our purposes, it is accepted as a premise that masculinity as hegemonic is hierarchised in relation to class and gender (Heynders, 2022). This means that masculinity is asserted through its subordination of women, the working class, and men who are not masculine in the traditionally correct sense. These “incorrectly masculine” men are understood as portraying traditionally feminine or “soft” traits, such as passiveness, powerlessness, limited control, and being the sexual object rather than subject (Mack & Ott, 2013, pp. 198-205). Importantly, many of these traits are negatively defined. This corroborates Beauvoir’s (2016) theory of man being the absolute human type and woman the Other (Beauvoir, 2016, p. 2). This way, women are defined as not-men, and are thus a secondary concept. The intersections between gender and other identities are important to analyse because, as Butler (2022) argued, gender is impossible to separate from its political and cultural context (Butler, 2022, p. 3).

These theories are applied to Robert Zemeckis’s science-fiction comedy, Back to the Future (1985). The plot concerns, briefly, the young high school student Marty McFly, who accidentally travels thirty years back in time and disrupts the meeting between his parents, George and Lorraine. Inconveniently, Lorraine falls in love with Marty instead, who then must help his adolescent father develop into a more confident, proactive person, who dares stand up to his tormentor, Biff, as well as approach and win over his future wife.

Hegemonic masculinity in Back to the Future (1985)

I consider hegemonic masculinity as represented in Back to the Future (1985) and its relation to the three categories: Subordination of women, traditional masculinity, and the neoliberal portrayal of class. For this purpose, the multiple timelines of the film are used as a frame of analysis. In comparing the original, unhappy timeline with the altered, successful timeline created through Marty’s time travel, I will identify and outline the different mechanisms of masculinity in each category. This is done to show how hegemonic masculinity - particularly when presented as in crisis and afterwards restored - enhances and proliferates discourses of postfeminism. 

“Mom, You’re So Thin!”: Hegemonic Masculinity In Relation To Women

I will first consider the portrayal of hegemonic masculinity relating to women. In the initial, relatively unhappy timeline, the movie’s female characters are presented as desexualised, unappealing, and unhappy. This is in contrast to the altered timeline, in which the female characters are (seemingly) sexually active, more attractive, and appear more content.

In the initial timeline, Lorraine, the main character’s mother, is portrayed as an uptight, miserable, sexless woman. Complaining about Marty’s girlfriend calling him, Lorraine argues that she herself “never even called a boy” at Jennifer’s age (Zemeckis, 1985, 0:15:16). She seems unhappy in her marriage with George McFly, saying that she started dating him out of pity (Zemeckis, 1985, 0:16:09). Linda, Marty’s sister, complains that she is unable to meet any boys, thus appearing desexualised and unattractive. Thus, the misery of the women is articulated through their lack of sexual appeal. Jennifer, Marty’s girlfriend and the only woman appearing to be happy, has few lines other than those consoling Marty and supporting him with his band (Zemeckis, 1985, 0:09:13). As such, she is more a device than an actual character, functioning to illustrate Marty’s likability and position as the main character.

In the altered timeline at the end of the movie, Jennifer is still pretty, supportive, and otherwise trivial - a device to illustrate Marty’s relief at returning home (“Aren’t you a sight for sore eyes!”) (Zemeckis, 1985, 01:45:36). Lorraine, on the other hand, appears happier, sober, and healthier (“Mom, you’re so thin!”) (Zemeckis, 1985,01:43:46). Her appeal as a sexual object is illustrated by her husband pinching her buttocks (Zemeckis, 1985, 01:43:48), at which she giggles overbearingly. Now, Lorraine also states how much she likes Jennifer, insinuating that her sexual liberation has made her both more likeable and more liking towards other people. Linda, too, has acquired a multitude of boyfriends, implying her increased sexual appeal as an object (Zemeckis, 1985, 01:43:02). This plotline emphasises the importance of attractiveness and (moderate) sexual looseness in women, equalling it with happiness. Thus, in line with Godfrey’s (2022) theory, it values traditionally feminine traits and thus promotes a discourse of postfeminism – one where feminism is unnecessary.

Importantly, in none of the timelines do any of the female characters have much agency. Used as devices to highlight the likability or unlikability of the male characters, the female characters are plot devices and signifiers rather than creators of meaning. Perhaps the most striking illustration of this is in the way sexual assault of Lorraine is used as a way for George McFly to appear a hero who can “protect her”, deliberately planned by Marty (Zemeckis, 1985, 01:10:27). Throughout the film, Lorraine is an object or a damsel in distress - never an agentic actor with power to alter the plot. She is, in Beauvoir’s words, “relative to [men]; she is not regarded as an autonomous being.” (Beauvoir, 2016, p. 3)

As such, hegemonic masculinity is presented in the film through the subordination of women as sexual objects of the male characters and in their lack of autonomy as the Other. In the altered, “happier” timeline at the end of the movie, emphasis is placed on the attractiveness of the female characters. This re-establishes the traditionally valued traits of women and enhances discourses of postfeminism.

 “Don’t Be So Gullible, McFly!”: Hegemonic Masculinity In Relation To Men

The hegemonic masculinity in relation to men is portrayed especially through the character development of George McFly, Marty’s father. The main drive of the plot this endeavour to transform Marty’s adolescent father into a confident, confrontational, and traditionally masculine man.

In the initial timeline, George McFly is portrayed - almost caricatured - as an incorrectly masculine man. An example of this is in his complacency and lack of resistance to the tyranny of his coworker, Biff (Zemeckis, 1985, 0:11:46-0:13:47). Acknowledging Marty’s disappointment in seeing his father this way, George apologises and says he was never “confrontational” (Zemeckis, 1985, 0:13:37). In the framework of Mack and Ott (2013), these traits are traditionally feminine, and thus incorrectly masculine. The drive of the plot becomes Marty’s quest to eliminate these traits in his father. This makes the primary conflict of the film the crisis in George McFly’s masculinity.

In the altered timeline, the contrast is stark. George has become rich, proactive, and confident. This is exemplified in his sexualisation of Lorraine, the success in his career, and, most importantly, in the way Biff submits to him (Zemeckis, 1985,01:44:25). The reversal in dominance between George and Biff illustrates Beauvoir’s dialectical understanding of sex - for George to assert himself as the One, he must negate someone as the Other (Beauvoir, 2016, p. 3). Particularly, Biff has now lost the otherwise masculine traits of dominance and activity and is instead submissive, passive, and compliant (Zemeckis, 1985, 01:44:36).

The film thus presents a narrative of masculinity in crisis, which is subsequently restored. The reinstated masculinity consists of traditional traits such as the negation of the Other and sexualisation of women - thus reasserting the importance and superiority of traditional, hegemonic masculinity.

“If You Put Your Mind To It, You Can Accomplish Anything!”: Hegemonic Masculinity In Relation To Class

The hegemonic masculinity presented in the movie is also emphasised in signifiers of class and wealth. This is done particularly by equalling wealth with success and presenting a neoliberal perspective on poverty.

In the original timeline, the family appears to be part of the lower middle class. Dave, Marty’s brother, works at Burger King, and the family owns one car (Zemeckis, 1985, 0:14:10, 0:13:48). George McFly is bullied by his colleague Biff into writing reports for him, thus forced to work over dinner due to his lack of confrontation and confidence. In the altered timeline, however, the main difference is George’s self-assuredness. This apparently has a ripple effect: Dave now has an office job, and the family owns multiple cars. Marty, in particular, has his dream car in the garage (Zemeckis, 1985, 01:45:22). George has become a successful author, and the house is designed more luxuriously. Most importantly, George says “(...) if you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything!” (Zemeckis, 1985, 01:45:09) Thus a narrative is constructed in which the family’s relative poverty is caused entirely by George’s initial incorrect masculinity, and where wealth and status is gained through confidence. This fits with the neoliberal idea of individualism and the subject’s self-reinvention; if George can take radical responsibility for his own development, and remodel himself, he can become rich (Gill et. al., 2017, p. 231). As such, the narrative discounts any structural or political contexts that may have shaped the economic situation of the McFly family (such as social and cultural systems that neglect and disvalue incorrectly masculine men). This insinuates that poverty is the fault of those who are subject to it, rather than of a biased system.

As such, the narrative of the movie equates wealth with success and poverty with failure. In particular, it places a radical responsibility on the individual which constructs a direct correlation between a crisis in masculinity and poverty, and between restored, traditional masculinity and financial success. This ties in with discourses of neoliberalism and valuing traditional masculinity, thus proliferating postfeminist discourse.

Conclusion

Through this analysis, the aim was to answer the question of how hegemonic masculinity is presented in Back to the Future (1985) in relation to gender and class. The film, when analysed in the current feminist framework, presents a clear narrative: Namely, that to be correctly masculine, one must be virile, self-assertive, wealthy, and dominating over women and incorrectly masculine men as the Other. In the plot of George McFly’s crisis of masculinity and subsequent development into a traditionally masculine man, the movie presents a hegemonic masculinity which is clearly hierarchised in relation to women, “incorrect” men, and class. As such, it presents a clear crisis discourse which is intimately linked with postfeminism and neoliberalism. Emphasising the value of traditional gender roles, the narrative charts the way for postfeminist discourses arguing for the redundancy of feminism. In its presentation of class, the film presents the neoliberal idea of personal responsibility and individualism, rather than structural inequalities. While the film is likely to remain popular, feminists may gain value from criticising and better understanding the danger of a white, wealthy, traditionally masculine man telling the audience that they can do anything they put their mind to - thus undermining collective and structural perspectives, and placing the blame and responsibility for misery on disempowered individuals who, unlike the successful protagonists, do not have a time-travelling DeLorean.

References

Adu-Poku, S. (2004). Envisioning (Black) Male Feminism, A Cross-Cultural Perspective. In P. F. Murphy (Ed.), Feminism and Masculinities (pp. 255-271). Oxford: OUP.

Back to the Future popularity & fame | YouGov. (n.d.). https://today.yougov.com/topics/entertainment/explore/movie/Back_to_the_Future

Beauvoir, S. d. (2016). ‘Account of Woman: The Second Sex’, in Feminist Moments, Reading Feminist Texts, pp. 139-146.

Butler, J. (2022). Gender Trouble. Routledge Classics.

Contois, E. J. H. (2021). Real Men Don’t Eat Quiche, Do They?: Food, Fitness, and Masculinity Crisis in 1980s America. European Journal of American Culture, 40(3), 183-199.

Gill, R., Kelan, E. K., & Scharff, C. (2017). A Postfeminist Sensibility at Work. Gender, Work and Organization, 24(3).

Gilmore, Brad. (2020). Back from the Future : A Celebration of the Greatest Time Travel Story Ever Told. Mango Media.

Godfrey, S. (2022). Masculinity in British Cinema, 1990-2010. Edinburgh: EUP.

Hamad, H. (2014). Postfeminism and Paternity in Contemporary U.S. Film: Framing Fatherhood (1st ed., Vol. 28). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203798713

Heynders, O. (2022). Masculinity in Crisis? [Powerpoint slides]. Tilburg University Canvas page. https://tilburguniversity.instructure.com/courses/11638/files/2134121?module_item_id=478736

McGlashan, M., & Mercer, J. (2023). Toxic Masculinity: Men, Meaning, and Digital Media (1st ed., Vol. 1). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003263883

Ott, B. L., & Mack, R. L. (2013). Critical Media Studies : An Introduction. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uvtilburg-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1557284.

Powrie, P. (1997). French Cinema in the 1980s: Nostalgia and the Crisis of Masculinity. Clarendon Press.

Quinn, J., Gerrard, S., & Middlemost, R. (2022). Gender, Ideational Populism and the Eighties Action Cinema. In Gender and Action Films 1980-2000 (pp. 155–168). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80117-506-720221011

Thomas, B., Gerrard, S., & Middlemost, R. (2022). Motherhood and Machoism: The Multi-Dimensional Ellen Ripley of James Cameron’s Aliens. In Gender and Action Films 1980-2000 (pp. 77–89). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80117-506-720221006

Walsh, F. Male Trouble: Masculinity and the Performance of Crisis. Palgrave Macmillan.

Zemeckis, R. (1985). Back to the Future. Universal Pictures.