Last semester, I was privileged to take a fiction workshop with Marilynne Robinson, the author of Housekeeping and Gilead. In one of our later class sessions, we were looking at a beautiful story by one of my favorite writers in the workshop, Jill Wohlgemuth. The story was in the form of an informal essay about kissing, written by a thirteen-year-old girl who wandered away from her academic thesis to meditate on her own impressions of love and desire, framed around her burgeoning sexual attraction to a boy named Theo who she described several times as being incredibly smart — which is ironic, because of course any thirteen-year-old girl who could write an essay as beautiful as this story was would have to be a prodigy herself.

Marilynne watched patiently as we students gave our opinions of and reactions to the piece. Then she sat back and said, “I’ve noticed a problem in the writing of young women.”

Instead of giving character traits to their female characters, Marilynne argued, young women writers give those traits to male secondary characters — in this case, repeatedly describing Theo as intelligent when it was the narrator who was brilliant.

I’ve been thinking about that comment a lot lately.

Now, I don’t think that the particular story we were looking at was actually a black and white case of this happening. There are a lot of reasons why a particularly smart thirteen-year-old girl would fixate on describing the object of her affection as “so smart” — I did that a lot as a kid, particularly with boys I had crushes on, because I had swallowed some line that men needed to be smarter than their female partners. Still, I think that Marilynne’s observation is keen and insightful. Looking at broader media trends, it’s definitely possible to uncover cases where a female character’s personality is rendered through male characters, or not rendered at all.

Girl Detective talks about one such case in her review of Jonathan Lethem’s latest novel, You Don’t Love Me Yet. The plot of the novel literally revolves around the female main character, Lucinda. She acts as a middleman, conveying McGuffins (sought-after objects) and witnessing plot points. However, the story is happening to other people. Her characterization — personality and praxis — are deferred onto male characters.

Girl Detective writes, “Although Lucinda’s consciousness is what binds the novel together, her actual place in the story is minimal; her only motivation is superficial attachment and lust, and she spends the entire story either having sex, wanting sex, or masturbating while wanting sex. All the male characters in the story have traits, interests, and personalities… Lucinda, however, is completely devoid of any desires, aspirations, thoughts, or goals that don’t involve finding a penis to put into her vagina.”

“What’s really sad,” Girl Detective continues, “is that our culture is so ignorant of women’s inner lives (50% of the population, people! Seriously!) that this substitution of sex for psychology still very often passes for legitimate characterization in even the highest ranks of literature.”

And now that I’ve discussed a high brow example, you know what this reminds me of? Lost.

Read the rest of this entry »

The pace has certainly picked up in this third issue of the Buffy Season 8 Comic book. We have plot, relationships, and many unanswered questions. This of course gives me even more to pick at. Since I’m about to rip it to shreds, I should make it clear that I enjoy the Buffy comic and would recommend it.

I’ve already written about the awfulness of Part III’s cover.

Even worse than the cover was the Andrew sequence. There are non-drawing problems with that sequences. I am not OK that in a world where there are heaps of women coming together to fight, men are acting as the leaders. I can’t stand the ‘heh Andrew’s gay’ jokes, which are lacking in the funny and try to compensate with the offensiveness. It’s even worse when the ‘joke’ is basically a set-up to have pictures of women in their underwear (because Andrew doesn’t find naked women interesting, isn’t that just the funniest thing you ever heard). The artist ‘just happened’ to have the woman with the most exaggerated hourglass figure front and centre in that panel (although my friend Rowan thought one of the slayers had a strap-on - which would have made for a much more interesting reading of the comic - unfortunately it is probably just underpants with a teddy bear on them).

The art is getting worse - women’s bodies are objectified more each week. There is no reason at all why Rowena is recovering in a sports bra and skin tight pants, except that in a comic her body isn’t created for her, but as a signal to readers of the position of women.

I guess I should be grateful that inside the book they’ve gone for the hideous witch look of OMWF for Willow.

Because I suspect someone will ask, there is an important difference between the way women’s bodies are portrayed throughout this issue, and how Angel and Spike were portrayed in the (hilarious) dream panel. In the three issues so far women’s bodies have been casually objectified and posed for the male gaze no matter what they’re doing. Fighting, healing, sleeping, standing, whatever - it’s been for men. If, in that context, there’d been a similar dream from Xander’s perspective, it wouldn’t have meant anything - just a continuation of the rest of the art. The only reason that panel stands out from the rest of the comic is because the artist isn’t randomly objectifying men.

There’s obviously a lot more to a comic than the art (particularly to someone as non-visual as me). For me, the most satisfying part of the comic were the dream sequences, which were pretty much perfect. I’ve always liked Joss’s dream sequences and this worked particularly well. I liked the idea of dreamspace - and like every other geek who owns this comic I’ve spent considerable time identifying what’s in the cubes (definitely Joss by the way) .

I thought the battle between Willow and Amy was pretty fantastic as well. I still think that Amy’s reappearance had more to do with a whole in the plot, than the character she had been, which sucks. But the fight was well done, I loved both the Zombie ball, and Giant Dawn.

I thought not telling us who kissed her was a bit of cheap tension. I hope they resolve the kiss soon, and not in a Chosen - whatever you want to happen that was what happened - kind of a way.*

I’m worried that Warren, like Amy, has been chosen for convenience rather than character (I don’t even care that there’s no way he could have survived). Unless the rest of Warren’s plotline involves intense Misogyny, then he was the wrong person to bring back.

But the big hole in the issue for me is Willow. Call me over-invested in these characters, but Willow, Xander and Buffy are friends. Now we’re landed in a situation where Willow hasn’t contacted Xander and Buffy for a long time. This is in a world with cell phones, and psychic communication. I’m not saying that it can’t work, but I think this is the wrong place in the story to bring us in.

I’m not saying that it can’t work, but I’m not sure this dynamic will hold my interest long enough for Joss to explain what’s going on. A month is a long time between issues, and the comics cost $8 each here.

Although while I’m being over-invested, enough with the retconning Willow’s sexuality. Willow was straight in high school, she totally ran with the stubbly crowd, from that badly dressed vampire in the first episode, to the stupid robot episode, to sex at graduation. Am I the only person who remember Oz?**

* I want Spike not to have been in Chosen at all and since I have a fan’s selective memory (Magic!Crack? I don’t know what you’re talking about) that’s relatively easy to achieve.

** Hey, maybe they’ll bring Oz back, that would be extremely awesome.

Some friends and I saw August William’s Fences last night (the same production seen by Strange Quark and Heather). It’s a great play, of course, and the production – actors, set, lighting — was impressive.

Fences is part of Wilson’s 10-play “Pittsburgh cycle,” about Blacks in America in the 20th century. Each play takes place in a different decade of the 20th century, all but one in the same black neighborhood in Pittsburgh; some characters in plays set late in the cycle are descendants of characters from earlier in the cycle. I’ve been fantasizing about seeing the entire Pittsburgh cycle, in order.¹

Fences, despite some humor and despite stunning, lyrical dialog, is as grim a play as I’ve ever seen; one character has some hope in act 1, but it’s crushed by the start of act 2 and very little new hope comes to replace it. Any great play will have multiple interpretations, but for me Fences is about how racism’s scars do not go away quickly, if at all.

Read the rest of this entry »

1. In my fantasy world, not only does some theatre company in extremely-white Portland miraculously choose to stage 10 August Wilson plays, but they price tickets so low that I can afford to see ten shows in a row. Also, I own a pony. (back)

On Rachel’s thread about ‘tween girls and shopping, Mandolin and Joe had this exchange:

Mandolin: We’re talking about a society-wide pattern of representation, wherein shopping and materialism have, yes, been condensed as part of a larger narrative wherein women are portrayed as frivolous (interested in unimportant things) and unable to handle money. Check out a few episodes of I Love Lucy.¹

Joe: I think the simpsons/everbody loves raymond/king of queens/life according to jim/whatever have done a decent job of spreading that stereotype across gender lines. Fat dumb lazy guy married to thin pushy competent woman has become a staple.

It’s conventional for both feminists and (more frequently) MRAs² to construct playing the frivolous, lazy and incompetent character in sitcoms as a sign of oppression; that is, feminists say the incompetence of the Lucy character (are her need to always be rescued by level-headed Ricky) is a sign of how women are denigrated in society, while MRAs point to the incompetence of Homer Simpson or Raymond (and their need to always be rescued by level-headed wives) as a sign of how men are denigrated in society.

Although in this instance a feminist, Mandolin, brought it up first, in my experience MRAs bring this argument up more often than feminists, presumably because the male-idiot-spouse is much more common on TV nowadays than the female-idiot-spouse. As “Mens’ Rights Online puts it, “Turn on your TV and you will see the sitcoms and advertisements that portray dads as speechless dolts in the face of the superior wisdom of their wives and 11-year-old children.”

Read the rest of this entry »

1. I disagree with Mandolin here; I think that I Love Lucy, which portrayed women as constantly constrained by an enforced housewife role, was actually quite subversive and feminist for its time. I far prefer Lucy, who was constantly fighting against the constraints of her life, to the “happy to be secondary” housewife character found in many older family sitcoms. (back)
2. MRA = Men’s Rights Advocate. I’m not assuming that Joe is an MRA, or that he’d necessarily disagree with anything I say in this post; his exchange with Mandolin just brought this stuff to my mind. (back)

I read this in the New York Times yesterday, and it didn’t sit well with me. Here is a quote:

But on this day I’ve come not to bury Abercrombie. I am here to observe my daughter and her two friends make their way around a suburban mall to help me understand why shopping seems to have become an acceptable hobby, even an obsession, among some young girls. And to see how stores like Abercrombie and American Eagle Outfitters, as well as luxury brands, successfully court these young girls and turn them into customers.

This is why it bothered me:

1) It seems to be promoting the idea that girls are materialistic and superficial, and I don’t know that young girls are any more materialistic than boys.

2) These kids who don’t have a job or any money are getting designer clothes. Why would any parent pay for a 10 year old to have “Juicy Couture”? Why?

3) It is the most class biased piece of writing I have seen in a long time, and the author seems utterly unwilling to acknowledge that.

There are other things that I just can’t put my finger on since my brain is toast (always happens at the end of the semester). BTW, I love Juliet Schor, the sociologist mentioned in the article. Here is a really good article I have the students in my mass media class read on the politics of consumerism.

Go read it and tell me what you think.

This discussion over at Pandagon reminded me of an article I wrote a few years ago. Here are a few quotes.

On criticism of Hip Hop:

Rap music has long been the target of criticism from the popular media, White politicians, and even some older African Americans. Often, antirap sentiments are thinly veiled anti-Black comments. Moreover, these antirap comments are often framed differently from those attacking White musicians, as Binder’s (1993) analysis of media accounts indicates. Her study indicated that White heavy metal fans were viewed as potential victims of the music, whereas predominantly Black rap fans were viewed by media outlets as potential victimizers. A small number of African American leaders have also criticized rap on similar grounds. C. Deloris Tucker and Reverend Calvin Butts have both argued that rap music promotes violence and misogyny and have publicly criticized rap music on these grounds (Ogbar, 1999; Rose, 1994). White media outlets, possibly in search of African Americans to make criticisms, have quickly picked up Black leaders’ criticisms. In the new millennium, critics from within the hip-hop community have argued that many contemporary artists have abandoned antiracism messages and focused instead on money and sexual exploits (Powell, 2000). They go on to say that corporate control and the desire to reach a “wider and Whiter” audience has led rap away from overtly antiracist sentiments. Although hip-hop artists have always been diverse and self-critical (Ogbar, 1999), criticism from within hip-hop seems to have increased in recent years.

Although many leaders have argued about the effects of rap on its fans, studies exploring effects of rap are few. This is partly because the small body of research on hip-hop focuses more on artists, lyrical content, and the history of hip-hop. Moreover, any social differences (gender, age, race, social class, etc.) in fans that could be correlated with influence are generally overlooked.

On race and preference for rap:

The most striking finding from this study is that the racial gap in preference for rap music is closing. Unlike the previous research (Epstein et al., 1990), this study shows that preference for rap was not significantly different for Blacks and Whites; however, this may be misleading. Black adolescents named more rap artists and were more likely to say that theywore clothes like rappers and used words or phrases similar to rappers. Moreover, African Americans were more likely to say that they listened to rap because it was truthful and taught them about life. Although White adolescents say they like rap, many of the White respondents in this survey had difficulty naming three rap artists, which indicated that they did not have a high level of commitment to the music. Rap may only be a fad and a phase…….

The responses to the open-ended questions on the survey support the idea that African Americans have higher commitment to rap. The wider variety of rap acts Black adolescents listed provides evidence that they have a broader knowledge of rap. Some of the White respondents’ answers to the question, “Why do you listen to rap?” indicated that Whites were listening to rap because it has a “good beat,” so the message of the music was not as important as the sound. This leads me to believe that although Black and White adolescents are saying that they like rap, they may be getting two different messages from the same music. Many young African Americans appear to be looking at rap for its messages about life and its aesthetically pleasing sound, yet Whites seem to be listening almost exclusively because of the aesthetically pleasing sound. In many ways, these findings support Berry’s (1994) and Martinez’s (1997) arguments that rap is a form of resistance. Although young African American rap fans are not arguing that rap leads them into social protest, they seem to be indicating that it offers a counterdominant message that they use as an affirmation of their experiences.

Not only are rap music and hip-hop culture a potential form of resistance, they may also have broad-reaching implications for identity development and maintenance. Although many may see music as a passing phase, it is often a source of information about one’s group (or other groups), and it can also be a (re)affirmation of one’s identity. This could be particularly true for young African Americans, who are less likely to have their experiences reflected in the dominant culture.

Therefore, future research needs to examine not just how much adolescents report they like to rap but their knowledge and commitment to the music. Furthermore, the extent to which Black and White adolescents are getting different messages from the same rap songs must be clarified.

On rap as an interracial socializer:

Because so many young Whites listen to rap, future research should also focus on rap as an interracial socializer. Whites in this study (who were fans) indicated that rap had affected their opinions about racism. The survey did not measure how rap had affected their opinions of racism or how it has affected their opinions of African Americans more generally. However, rap as an interracial socializer may be detrimental for many reasons. First, many Whites who listen to rap may be motivated by curiosity. Rap may allow White adolescents to satisfy their curiosities without ever having face-to-face contact or interpersonal relationships with any African Americans, so rap can be a way for Whites to vicariously learn about African Americans. They may be able to satisfy curiosities about African Americans and even mimic what they may see as African American life without having an understanding or appreciation of African American experiences. Second, rap music does not reflect the diversity of African Americans. Rap often operates from the perspectives of young, urban, Black men. White adolescents may get a picture of African American life that is not inclusive of those who are older, from rural areas, or female (or other important social characteristics). The third reason this could be detrimental is because it may perpetuate prejudices, particularly the view that African Americans are materialistic and hedonistic, which could inadvertently promote stereotypes more than it dismantles them. Although rappers themselves are not fully accountable for how their music is interpreted, many fans may not be accessing alternative sources of information about African Americans. In addition, many rap songs are fictional and do not even represent the artists’ true beliefs or those beliefs of African Americans in general. Rap, like any other cultural product, is also subjected to corporate control, which could potentially limit antiracist messages because those messages may not be as economically profitable.

I am not making the case that rap sends only negative messages to White adolescents. Many artists do have images that are less stereotypical (Ogbar, 1999); however, those voices are often less commercially successful. Rap would probably be best when combined with other forms of interracial socialization, particularly in a society that has been built on racism, sexism, and capitalism. Daily interactions or interactions that are not from media could be beneficial.

Bibliography

Sullivan, Rachel E. “Rap and Race: It’s Got a Nice Beat, but What about the Message?” Journal of Black Studies 2003; 33; 605-622.

Berry, V. (1994). Redeeming the rap music experience. In J. Epstein (Ed.), Adolescents and their music: If it’s too loud you’re too old. New York: Garland.

Binder, A. (1993). Constructing racial rhetoric: Media depictions of harm in heavy metal and rap music. American Sociological Review, 58, 753-767.

Epstein, J. S., Pratto, D.,&Skipper, J., Jr. (1990). Teenagers, behavioral problems, and preferences for heavy metal and rap music: A case study of a southern middle school. Deviant Behavior, 11, 381-394.

Martinez,T. (1993). Recognizing the enemy: Rap music in thewake of the Los Angeles riots. Explorations in Ethnic Studies, 16, 115-127.

Martinez, T. (1997). Popular culture: Rap as resistance. Sociological Perspectives, 40, 265- 286.

Powell, K. (2000, October 9). My culture at the crossroads:Arap devoteewatches corporate control and apolitical times encroach on the music he has loved all his life. Newsweek, p. 66.

Ogbar, J. (1999). Slouching toward Bork: The culture wars and self-criticism in hip hop music. Journal of Black Studies, 30(2), 164-183.

Rose, T. (1994). Black noise: Rap music and Black culture in contemporary America. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press.

I can forward you a copy of the entire article if you would like to read it and don’t have library access.

I’ve decided that the problem is that comics are too short. 24 pages a month is not enough, if you’ve been used to 42 minutes a week. A month is a long time between mouthfuls.

At the moment all I can say is that I’m enjoying the Buffy comic.¹ It feels foolish to pass judgement on any of the major plot-lines yet (although I’m not OK with any of the potential candidates for Buffy’s true love except Willow), since I don’t know where they’re going. Generally I’m excited by Giant Dawn, and the evil army, and everything else I’m going to wait and see.

It’s pretty cool to have the old characters back (and their dream sequences - I love a Joss dream sequence). I’m even beginning to like some of the slayers, which I never did with the potentials.² Although one of them has terrible taste in men.

The art bothers me more this issue. Mostly because Joss randomly set a scene while Dawn is washing in a water hole that won’t fit all of her. But apparently if Georges Jeanty ‘two women in their pyjamas attacking an intruder’ he thinks ‘butts, waists and thighs’. What he thinks when he hears ‘Buffy chained to a bed’ is even more predictable.³

1. Did you see Amp now has a ‘Buffy’ category - I’m so proud (back)
2. Except Milly from Freaks and Geeks, because Freaks and Geeks was awesome. (back)
3. I didn’t understand that at all actually, the bed looked like it had holes for her arms and what was this mystical protection that stopped her being stabbed, but didn’t stop her being tied up or enchanted? (back)

In honor of the passing of Kurt Vonnegut, I present the The Last Rites of the Bokononist Faith:

God made mud.
God got lonesome.
So God said to some of the mud, “Sit up!”
“See all I’ve made,” said God, “the hills, the sea, the sky, the stars.”
And I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
Lucky me, lucky mud.
I, mud, sat up and saw what a nice job God had done.
Nice going, God.
Nobody but you could have done it, God! I certainly couldn’t have.
I feel very unimportant compared to You.
The only way I can feel the least bit important is to think of all the mud that didn’t even get to sit up and look around.
I got so much, and most mud got so little.
Thank you for the honor!
Now mud lies down again and goes to sleep.
What memories for mud to have!
What interesting other kinds of sitting-up mud I met!
I loved everything I saw!
Good night.
I will go to heaven now.
I can hardly wait…
To find out for certain what my wampeter was…
And who was in my karass…
And all the good things our karass did for you.
Amen.

That’s from my favorite Vonnegut novel, Cat’s Cradle. I invite “Alas” readers to let us know their favorite Vonnegut novel (or essay, or short story) in the comments… or anything else y’all would like to say.

Echdine quotes from Vonnegut’s God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater:

Hello, babies. Welcome to Earth. It’s hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It’s round and wet and crowded. At the outside, babies, you’ve got about a hundred years here. There’s only one rule that I know of, babies — “God damn it, you’ve got to be kind.”

There are more blog posts on Vonnegut’s passing then I could possibly link to, but here’s a few: Bad Astronomy, Pandagon, Muttering In A Corner, Chris Abraham has but together a brief biography, Because I Say So, Critical Mass, Lisa Rein, Crossroads Dispatches, Return of the Reluctant, and Boing Boing.

That’s a quote from Don Imus.  Because he felt the women of the Rutger’s University basketball team were not sufficiently feminine, he felt it was ok to call them nappy headed hos.  This site has the actualy clip of Imus and his sidekick making racist and sexist remarks (For good measure the site also has edited in a clip of Billy Packer saying “fag.”).  The national Association of Black Journalists called for an apology from Imus.  Imus subsequently issued an apology, but is that enough?

Quaker Dave is calling for Imus to be ousted from MSNBC.  He also has the contact information.

Media Matters on the comments by Imus and his partners Sid Rosenberg and Bernard McGuirk.

Last Wednesday I think I doubled my life-time total of geek points. It went something like this:

1. I bought a single issue comic book
2. that I’d pre-ordered,
3. from a comic book store,
4. on the first day it was released.
5. I had a conversation with the guy in the store about the quality of the book
6. that ended with me saying “of course it’s good it’s written by Joss Whedon.”

I am now the proud owner of the first issue of Buffy: Season 8. I even have it in my hands, which is rare - it’s been lent out to various people pretty constantly since I bought it.

I’ve never tried to review a comic book before, and it seems to be quite a difficult exercise. I’ve only got a very small part of the story. It’s like reviewing a TV show at the end of the first Act

I’ll start with the art-work - it’s not as bad as I’d thought it would be. The preview art showed the most obvious distortions of women who already have a body-type. It helps that I like the cover, while the proportions are annoying, the basic image is of Buffy strong and confident. Or maybe I’m getting desensitised already

As for the words (far more important to me, since they were the bits done by Joss), I’m excited. There’s not much there, and I’m nitpicking all over the place. But it’s definitely worth reading, and I’m excited about what’s going to happen next.

Now the problems:

• Xander the general of the slayer army - it’s not OK to have only one man in an organisation and have him in a leadership position. I’m fairly sure that goes against the message of at least two season finales (3 and 7).

• Amy? Really? That really disappoints me, and makes it clear that Joss’s thinking of her more as an object than a character - hey she’s someone we can bring back - people have heard of her so they’ll be excited. In the high school episodes Amy was a great character, and The Witch is one of the most successful metaphors they ever put together. I don’t see why they had to do this to the girl who was so excited about eating brownies. I’m aware that this is actually an objection to Season Six - so I’ll add, I didn’t actually need to be reminded of the Magic!Crack plot-line - I’m doing a good job of blocking that out - just like I block out Spike’s existence post Seeing Red.
• I trust Joss enough to believe that Dawn didn’t actually become a giant by having sex with a thricewise, because we really don’t need to go there again.

So those are my gripes. I love the dialogue (of course I love the dialogue, Joss wrote it). I’m very excited that the US military are treating Buffy like a terrorist cell - definitely a plot with a lot of potential.* I like where Buffy is emotionally, it seems quite realistic to me - the thing about changing the world is that when you do it the world’s all different. Sounds like a good starting point.

* Although hopefully less annoying than the actual potentials.

My friend Rowan and I have a bit of an Emma Thompson thing going. We’re planning a grand rewatch of all her movies (except Maybe Baby and Henry V) that will end with Sense and Sensibility. Tonight we were watching Much Ado About Nothing. I don’t think I’d seen it since it came out when I was 15. It was the first movie I ever went to see twice at the cinema - I loved it.

Seeing it tonight was a little different; I no longer consider Emma Thompson and Kenneth Branagh the perfect celebrity couple (which is good because neither do they). But we found one plot-line distressing.

Like most Shakespeare plots it’s quite ridiculous. Claudio and Hero are betrothed and the villian* sets it up so Claudio will think that Hero is having sex with another man. Claudio confronts Hero at the wedding, throws her across the room. Her father is also abusive. Hero then pretends to be dead, but than makes no sense at all.

We couldn’t listen to it; we changed the language to Polish so we wouldn’t have to deal with how awful Hero’s situation was. There were some nice moments - Emma Thompson was taking it all seriously, and Kenneth Branagh was backing her up, and choosing the abused women over his abusive friend.

But then Claudio and Hero marry - and we’re supposed to be joyful about it.

There is a version of this play that I could watch - where the horror of Hero’s situation was given weight, where their marriage is not a joyful event, but one the audience dreads. I feel the same way about Taming of the Shrew, from what I’ve read a feminist version of the play is usually one where Katherine implies she has some sort of power. I disagree, a feminist version would be one that played those events absolutely straight. Taming of the Shrew is a tragedy; a tragedy that occurs far more often than young lovers commit suicide because their parents don’t like each other.

* Played by Keanu Reeves! He’s only the second worst actor in the movie too - Robert Sean Leonard plays Claudio and we cracked up when he tried to act sad when it was revealed how wrong he was.

Jean Kilborne, I hope you’re reading (I know she probably isn’t, but I figured I would give her a shout out anyways.). I’ve got some pictures you can add to your award winning films on misogynistic media.

First, we have last night’s episode of America’s Next Top Model, where the photo shoot consisted of simulations of murdered models. Jill mentioned it over at Feministe, and Jennifer at WIMN’s Voices has a much longer post, including this link to the actual pictures. The pictures also include the comments of the judging panel, which adds another touch of misogyny to the photo shoot. I saw the episode last night and dropped my jaw in amazement.

A few weeks ago the NYT magazine featured another blatantly misogynistic fashion spread. This spread included women in nooses and bondage. I was able to find the blogger Musings of a Working Mom who posted a few of the pictures on her site (You can see all of the photos here.). The photo from above is one example from the NYT Magazine.

I say we start a letter writing campaign. If you want to email the New York Times Magazine about their photo shoot. Here is the email: magazine@nytimes.com

America’s Next Top Model is sponsored by a few companies. One such company is Sprint. I found the name and email of some folks at Sprint. I’m not really sure exactly who one is supposed to contact, but you could CC an email to each of these folks:

Sprint Nextel Executive Services
866-398-4606
executive.offices@sprint.com

Director of Consumer and Business Communications Laura Lisec
Laura.m.Lisec@sprint.com

I had a hell of a time finding contacts for Cover Girl, but they also sponsor ANTM if you can find a contact. In fact, if anyone knows the right people to contact, feel free to tell me in the comments section.

MadTV parodies Music of the Heart, the story of a teacher (Meryl Streep) who bucks the system to bring love of music to the underprivileged colored kids she teachers. Or maybe they’re parodying Dangerous Minds, the story of an ex-marine teacher (Michelle Pfeiffer) who inspires her inner-city students with a great opening credits song. Oh, wait, I think that was Freedom Writers, the story of a history teacher (Hilary Swank) who inspires underprivileged inner-city students by making them read the diary of Anne Frank. (”See, underprivileged inner city students? Things could be worse!”)

All of these movies were based on true stories, and I don’t doubt that the women these movies were inspired by are terrific teachers and all that. But I somehow doubt their real lives were as simplistic and, well, soppy as these films are. Why does our culture have this hunger to see at-risk youth rescued by the pure hearts of gorgeous white women? And isn’t there something smary about, well, about an image like the one below this paragraph?

It’s like a generation of filmmakers saw Up The Down Staircase when they were kids and are now determined to remake it… and remake it… and remake it.

Anyhow, the MadTV parody (YouTube link) totally cracked me up. Via Assault On Black Folks’ Sanity.

Apparently, many NASCAR fans have a penchant for Confederate Flags, and some of them are upset about this editorial discouraging people from flying the Confederate Flag at a race at the California Speedway.  They decided to come into the newspaper’s website and overwhelm the comments section with all the typical arguments.  The same kind of comments I delete from here nearly every day. 

Check out a few of the lovely comments. Let’s begin with this racism apologist RT:

We are constantly reading from sports writers like yourself that too many times politics are brought into sports yet here you are starting a debate that doesn’t need to be debated. The fighting of the Civil War was not about slavery but of state’s and man’s freedom to govern themselves. Once that war ended the healing between brothers started and continues. Shame on you for fueling this debate and stick to what you are supposedly paid to do and write about sports. Or better yet, transfer to the commentary section.

What strikes me about RT’s comment is how he decided that the Civil War was not about slavery, but about “man’s freedom to govern themselves.”  Geez, I guess he has forgotten that slaves did not have the freedom to govern themselves because they were enslaved. (Grammarphiles I know this is a tautology :)) )  I’m also curious who the healing was with; does he mean between whites in the north and the south?  Does he mean whites and blacks?  I’m not sure, but this is the classic, “why are you even daring to talk about racism strategy?”  Where some racism apologist minimizes racism, pretends to be a neutral/unbiased observer, and subsequently chastises the person acknowledging racism by telling them politely to shut up. Classic colorblind racist strategy.

Next we have GM.  Who decides to play the “southern heritage card,” follows it up with nice rant against California, and then argues that he is a college professor who teaches constitutional law.

No, I agree as a proud Southerner who grew up in the shadow of the Darlington raceway and knew many of the early NASCAR drivers that the Confederate flag should not be flown at NASCAR events–in California that is. We would not want the proud symbol of our heritage and coursge in withstanding 142 years of illegal US occupation of our homeland to be smeared by being flown in the most socialist and un-American state in the union. To ignorance we can only say that no slave ship ever flew a Confederate flag. Our ancestors fought for the freedoms that had been written into the Constitution. When Lincoln proposed a Constitutional amendment that would protect slavery if the South would support his tariffs that would have, and did, bankrupt the South, the reponse was that slavery was dead and they would not support him. So please don’t fly our flag. As an educated, non-racist, Southern college professor who teaches American Constitutional history and government, I do not want it desecrated by ignorance Yankees who have no idea what it means.

I love how all of these southern heritage folks very conveniently forget that racism is part of that heritage. Don’t get me wrong I don’t think racism is unique to the south, but this country was built on the blacks of slave labor (I caught this typo and decided not to change it because it is just too ironic-the word is supposed to be backs.).  The Confederacy was organized, in part, to uphold the state’s rights’ to retain slavery.  If this guy has a PhD, I would hope that he had learned this in his history classes.

Next we have LDT, who can’t find anything “racist and regressive” about the south.  In fact, I think LDT is still fighting the Civil War.

Lincoln fought against the constitution of the United States and everything that the U S stood for. He began the striping of power from the people that is so obvious today. He also did away with the only power that the people and that States had to keep the federal government within the constitution and that was the right of secession!

I wonder what LDT thinks about the Iraq War.  Ok, sorry…I just thought the Civil War was over.

Next up is the classic “you are the real bigots strategy.”  It is first used by a poster with the initials HBO, but then Charles comes in to save the day for the “you are the real bigots” racists. 

Why is OK for blacks and other minorities to display pride in their heritage but when whites (especially southern whites)display pride or even indicate that they are proud of their heritage, they are immediately labeled racist and insensitive to others? This double standard has got to stop. If you are offended you have every right to leave. Nobody is forcing you to stay. If someone were to found a White Coaches Association or a National Association for the Advancement of White People you can bet Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would have a field day with the ensuing media circus. NASCAR’s roots aren’t in the north or the west or the east, it was started in the south and people should be proud of their heritage. There was a time when you weren’t anybody in NASCAR unless you had some “shine” in your background.

If you only knew, how many times I hear this crap.  The NAACP was founded for the same reasons as the Confederacy?  Well let’s investigate this. You can find more about the origins of the NAACP here, but I would just like to highlight this quote:

The NAACP was formed in response to the 1908 race riot in Springfield, capital of Illinois and birthplace of President Abraham Lincoln. Appalled at the violence that was committed against blacks, a group of white liberals that included Mary White Ovington and Oswald Garrison Villard, both the descendants of abolitionists, issued a call for a meeting to discuss racial justice. Some 60 people, only 7 of whom were African American (including W. E. B. Du Bois, Ida B. Wells-Barnett, and Mary Church Terrell), signed the call, which was released on the centennial of Lincoln’s birth. Echoing the focus of Du Bois’s militant all-black Niagara Movement, the NAACP’s stated goal was to secure for all people the rights guaranteed in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution, which promised an end to slavery, the equal protection of the law, and universal adult male suffrage, respectively.

Gasp!!!! The NAACP was founded by white people, gasp again!!! I guess they were race traitors, sell-outs, or anti-white bigots because giving black people their rights under the law obviously means taking rights away from white people.  Especially, their right to own slaves and fly the confederate flag. (Yes, I know I’m being unusually sarcastic and snarky, but how else do you respond to these people.)

Then, we have the “I know a black man who supports the Confederate Flag” argument.  Because if we can find one Black person who supports this, then it must be Ok.  This guy doesn’t realize it works better when the one black guy you cite is also your friend, but I digress.  Let’s get to the quote from LF:

We’ve been through this many times before: hate groups have no right to define the meaning of the Confederate flag. The flag means different things to different people. I have even heard that a black man said that he wanted to kiss this flag because it reminded him that he is probably much better off in the USA than he would have been in Africa. The Civil War is by far the greatest legend of American folklore. Without Confederate flags, America would not look like America anymore. These attacks on Confederate flags are cultural genocide. To me, the flag has little or no present-day political or social significance. I see the flag as a fun thing and also as a symbol of the South, peace, tolerance, and national unity. When we fight over this flag, we set a very poor example for places where civil wars are still going on, like Northern Ireland. Also, censorship and attempted censorship of Confederate flags impair objectivity in the interpretation of history concerning the Confederacy.

I’m not even going to bother with the rest of the argument, but I have to admit that it is rather hilarious to bring up genocide.  Dude why don’t you go talk to some American Indians about genocide.  Now that’s a real genocide.  Plus, doesn’t genocide involve mass killings.  When was the last time white southerners were killed in mass, and don’t use the Civil War because nobody was fighting to kill off white southerners.  The fight was over maintaining the Union.  And last but not least, you have to ask yourself why the KKK and other hate groups so love the confederate flag.  Which came first the KKK or the Confederate flag?

Ok, this guy GL just can’t judge time properly, and he uses the “I know a black man who supports the Confederate Flag” argument, so I had to throw him into the mix for a good laugh.

The Rebel Flag is not a hate symbol, racist, It has nothing to do with that this is all opinion not fact because it happened almost 2000 years ago and you people who want to ban it from sports and everything need to get over it! I can give you millions of people who will play sports with the rebel flag flying above and most people can and will do it because it is a flag not a hate and racist symbol. I know Cowboy Troy played with charlie Daniels with the flag draped behind them and Cowboy Troy is black too and the guy who played Sherrif Little on the dukes goes to dukesfest every year and signs General Lee’s with the flag on top and I know a black man in one of the carolina’s also had the flag on a pole and walked up and down a Highway and proved the flag does not and will never stand for racism and a lot of black people fought for that flag wether you wanna believe it or not. So leave our flag alone dang you people!

If these folks don’t think the flag is offensive and it is about southern pride, not white supremacy, can somebody please tell me why they always have to find somebody black to back them up?  However, I am very happy to learn that the US has been around for well over 2000 years! 

Now if all else fails and you can’t convince them that the Confederate flag is not a symbol of hate, you can always blame the Jews like JM:

Any sign of white racial consciousness and racial solidarity is deemed “hate,” “racism,” — evil-ism by egalitarianists, and pretend-egalitarianists, (with 99.9% of the politically correct in the latter). While Jews and nonwhites are encouraged to be racially conscious, to organize along racial lines, to appoint racially defined leaders, and to discriminate when it serves their ethnic interests — whites are punished for showing just a hint of racial aggression. Why do you think that where Jews live as a majority, Israel, they aggressively, sometimes violently promote the interests of the majority. Where Jews live as a minority, they aggressively, sometimes violently, promote the interests of minorities.

Racists, you gotta love ‘em.  It doesn’t matter what the subject most of their arguments are the same–ignore the topic at hand, chastise the person willing to acknowledge racism, deny/minimize the existence of racism in the past or present, say your opponents are the real bigots, look for a lone person of color to support you, and blame the Jews. 

Before we get to the comments, I would like to admonish people to stay away from shameless NASCAR or southerner jokes.  The problem isn’t auto racing or southerners; it is racism.  While there may indeed be survey data that suggests racial prejudice is higher among white southerners, they are by no means alone in using these arguments.  There are also many white southerners who are on the side of racial progress, and many northerners who are not; let’s not turn this thread into an excuse to make blanket generalizations about southern folks.  These kind of arguments come up every time the subject is racism.

Footnote: Several of these people put their first and last names.  I am not reprinting their names in their entirty because I don’t want them Googling themselves and trolling around this site.  I am not trying to protect their identities, and if you want to see their names, you can click on the link to the article.

Sometimes its hard not to laugh at these headlines because they are so obvious.  I guess it is nice to have some research to back up the obvious–hence this report from the American Psychological Association on the negative effects of media sexualization on women and girls.  First, they operationalize sexualization:

The provocative research included a study of published research on the content and effects of virtually every form of media, including television, music videos, music lyrics, magazines, movies, video games and the Internet. Researchers also examined recent advertising campaigns and merchandising of products aimed toward girls.

Sexualization was defined by the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls as occurring when a person’s value comes only from her/his sexual appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics, and when a person is sexually objectified, e.g., made into a thing for another’s sexual use.

Then later they lay out the negative effects:

• Cognitive and Emotional Consequences: Sexualization and objectification undermine a person’s confidence in and comfort with her own body, leading to emotional and self-image problems, such as shame and anxiety.
• Mental and Physical Health: Research links sexualization with three of the most common mental health problems diagnosed in girls and women—eating disorders, low self-esteem, and depression or depressed mood.
• Sexual Development: Research suggests that the sexualization of girls has negative consequences on girls’ ability to develop a healthy sexual self-image.

The report also suggests families and health professionals take an active role in countering this trend.  They even suggest media literacy classes.  What is missing, unfortunately, is any direct accountability for media outlets.  The report does not suggest that media stop doing this; rather they suggest that we teach girls and young women how to cope with it. 

What do you think?  If we really wanted to take on patriarchal media capitalism, would it work, or should we focus more on teaching girls/women how to cope?  What kinds of actions could people use to get media outlets to change?  What about the good old fashioned boycott?  Is that dead?  What do you think?

Here is the link to the APA study.

Audra Williams has a really great question“:

I said at a Mediawatch board meeting this weekend that I feel like it’s impossible to get upset with young girls dressing in revealing clothing without also signing onto the notion that it’s possible to dress as if you are sexually available. I would like to talk about this, because I feel like most people disagree with me but I can’t find a way to separate those two streams of thought.

What I mean is, I feel like people around the table believed that girls were dressing as if they are sexually available, and I don’t think it’s POSSIBLE to dress as if you are sexually available.

I don’t understand how the same feminist women who fought for the idea that the way someone dresses is NEVER a green light for sex can now say that teenage girls are “dressing like skanks” or use terms like “prosti-tots”?

I think the point she’s making is a really good one. It’s one thing to talk about the range of clothing available to girls, it is quite another to make any sort of comment about the girls that wear them.

But I actually want to take this off in a slightly different direction. One of the comments on my recent post about the Buffy comic books talked about the artist ’sexualising’ Willow. I really object to that language. The character of Willow was sexual - she once spent an entire episode in bed (and not in a bad way like Buffy and Riley). Giving someone larger breasts and an impractical garment doesn’t sexualise them - it objectifies them, and being sexual and being an object of desire are not the same thing.

Of course this conflation is hardly rare. There are many, many different ways women are taught that for us being sexual is being desired, rather than desiring. It is very hard to shake this idea off entirely. Women who do not fit the conventional idea of what is desirable have no way to be sexual.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to be wanted, and I imagine most people find being found sexually attractive a turn on. The problem is that women’s sexuality is reduced to our desirability, and the extent to which we conform to a code of desireability, defines whether or not we’re seuxal.

Women can’t fight this by changing what we look like and particularly not by criticising what other women look like. Instead we need to reject any analysis which buys into the idea that women’s sexuality and appearance are one and the same and to talk about women’s desires and sexual agency, so that the next generation of girls knows that what they want matters.

I’d like to apologize about the amount I seem to be writing about the Buffy Season 8 comic book. Yes, I’m an obsessed fangirl, but it’s mostly because comics are a new medium to me. I find the sexism in comics new and kind of shocking, so I will be writing more about it than anyone wants to know.

So this is the cover of the third Buffy comic book:

That’s supposed to be Willow - who has grown a foot, had breast implants and stole Buffy’s pants. She has also apparently spent the years since we saw her last searching out the single most impractical garment ever made to wear as a top.

Bah - I was so excited about season 8, but I’m not sure I can take it if every female character is drawn for men.

I was sad to read that Joss Whedon was no longer going to write/direct Wonder Women. Not because I particularly care about Wonder Woman, in fact all I know about Wonder Women is her outfit, but because I’m enough of a fangirl that any Joss is good Joss (here’s hoping someone leaks the script on-line sometime soon - links welcome). Although what I actually want is for Joss to go back to television. I enjoyed Serenity, but I’d rather have had that story over a season of TV than a couple of hours of movie (and I think it probably would have cost about the same).

But Joss did an interview with MTV about the Buffy Season 8 Comic book, and I’ve officially become excited:

And speaking of Sunnydale, did anyone really think no one would ever notice if an entire town was destroyed? Now the army is involved, deeming Buffy’s squads terrorist cells. “They got power, they got resources and they got a hard-line ideology that does not jibe with American interests,” one general rants. So in addition to her regular crew of monsters and vamps, Buffy’s got a new battle coming her way.

Be still me heart - Buffy fights against the ‘war on terror’ - what could be better than that?

While we are on the subject of minstrel shows and blackface, I thought it would be appropriate to discuss how widely accepted “redface” is in American culture.  From the moment I saw this Honda Pilot commercial, I was struck by how similar the troll is to American Indian caricatures.  In fact, I was watching the commercial when my partner came in and asked, “Is that supposed to be an Indian?”  I said, no, but that’s what really bothers me about the commercial. 

Below is a picture of the Honda pilot troll commercial.  Now I’m not passing judgement on this commercial by saying it is racist.  Instead, I think it is useful to compare the troll to several American Indian mascots.

Here’s the Honda Pilot Troll…

Here’s an “Indian Chief” mascot costume that you can order from anytimecostumes.com

Here’s another costume, which is advertised in the “Animals and Mascots” section

Here are several random caricatures I found on the internet including the infamous Cleveland Indians “Chief Wahoo” mascot. 

Yes folks seems like we can’t even go a day without college students hosting “racially themed” parties. Today, the Smokinggun.com featured some pictures from a Martin Luther King Day party at Clemson University. The theme of the party was “Living the Dream.” Yes folk this is what some ignorant people think about the dream of the Civil Rights Movement. They could care less about providing equal opportunities, stopping hate crimes, ending segregation, and several of the other noble themes of the Civil Rights movement. No they would rather celebrate d-rags, malt liquor, big booties, and blackface. To them this is what Martin Luther King Day is about. Their dream is making fun of African Americans, claiming that they are parodying “ghetto culture” and if they are part of the academy awards, voting for groups like 36 Mafia, since they allegedly represent “real” black life and hip hop.

A few months back I put up a post called “Halloween for White People,” which included a few pictures I found on the internet of whites in blackface; this post is an extension of that post. Here I’ll be posting pictures from facebook and these parties. As I have highlighted before, facebook is rampant with racism, but on the positive side a group of over 2,000 students is fighting back by having a group called “Students against Racially Themed Parties” (you can only access this if you have a facebook account). First let me post a few pictures from the Clemson party:

Students Against racially themed parties has collected several pages of photos documenting racist parties and racism on facebook. Here’s picture that one guy decided to put up as his profile.

I was particularly struck by the friend comment on this profile. The friend says, “i’m lovin the nig costume.”

Here are a few more

Unfortunately some of these are a little grainy, but this is some of what’s going on on college campuses. I waiting for the apologists to come out of the woodwork on the last photo with the “look her black friend thinks it’s OK.”