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.”

I went to see Short Bus tonight. There are a lot of good things you could say about this movie. It’s got lots of lovely and real moments, humour and wit, and, most importantly, it shows people having sex. Not just soft lighting and fading to black, but people having sex in a way that an actual person might actually have sex.

I’m not going to say any of these things, instead I’m going to explore why, despite these features, the movie left me cold.

The most obvious reason was that there was just too much non-consensual sexual activity for me. A professional dominatrix has sexual contact with a man who repeatedly steps over her boundaries, and she can’t afford to enforce those boundaries. A stalker stalks a couple for two years, and culminates this in touching one member of the couple sexually when he is passed out. The climax of both the major plots involve scenes with sexual contact that is clearly non-consensual.

I don’t have a problem with movies depicting non-consesual sex. What I need is for a movie that depicts non-consensual sex to take that seriously. To give the viewer space to be creeped out. I need to know that the director also believes that non-consensual sex is a problem, or else I can’t play in his world. I can’t switch from creepy non-consensual sex scene to happy orgy party scene, where one woman’s orgasm restores power to a city.

Shortbus sold itself, both during the movie itself and through publicity, as a broad view of life and sex. I think if I hadn’t thought of the movie like that I would have enjoyed it a lot more, becuase my other problem was what a limited world this movie showed.

Partly it was limited in the way films set in Manhattan are so often limited. Ridiculously rich people are meant to stand for us all. I realised while watching that I’m prejudiced against Manhattan movies, or at least that subset of Manhattan movies that believe that by showing us Manhattan they are showing us the world. If what I’ve been told is true, then if you can afford an apartment that looks spacious in Manhattan, then you have a reasonably to very high income.

But it was more than that, the extras in the scenes set in the club were remarkably similar for a movie that was supposed to show us a broad section of human experience. They were almost all young, conventionally attractive and white. The exceptions were tokenised to an extent that felt insulting. The old man wasn’t just an old man who might enjoy sex like everyone else, he was also the only old person in the building (and as a side-note I don’t think he deserved any forgiveness or absolution). The non-white characters were given pointed roles (one of the main characters or one of the few lesbians who was shown twice), which presumably was meant to make us forget how few of them there were. There were two fat people in there, but both were meant to show how weird and freakish this club was, and didn’t actually do anything (because that would be too much).

I discussed all this, as we were walking home afterwards. We agreed on the points I mentioned above, But my friends felt they had gained something from this movie, and many people gave it rave reviews. I understand why. We’re so deprived of anything resembling real images of sex and sexuality, that for so many of us a step in the right direction is really important.

I’m not sure that any movie can take the weight that the director and marketers tried to give this one. If films acknowledge sex as a part of our life then this could be a movie about a sex therapist, a depressed man, and the people they meet. But they don’t, and it’s not. I’m not saying you shouldn’t see it, because movies like it are rare - but we deserve better.

The first episode of Ugly Betty aired in New Zealand a couple of days ago. My short review is that it looks awesome (although the ending was way too pat, and if the point is supposed to be that if you’re smart you can succeed I will stop watching).¹

One aspect bothered me, and that was the part of Betty’s presumed to be gay cousin - Justin. He wanted to watch fashion TV, and was slightly effiminate, and I suspect that from this the audience was supposed to deduce the sexuality of a 10 year old.²

It probably didn’t help that immediately after watching Ugly Betty I watched a few episodes of Arrested Development.³ In this show there is also a character that the audience is supposed to believe is gay, based on a general sexual awkwardness and a feeling of oddness. I’ve been bothered by this particular trope ever since Andrew in Buffy.

I find the idea that we can deduce someone’s sexuality from their gender conformity, or anything else besides their sexual desires, is completely regressive.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that these characters are always men. A woman who acted and dressed butch, and whose sexuality was uncertain wouldn’t be amusing, she’d be pathetic. The joke (such as it is) is dependent on a society that views feminine traits as inferior in general and inexplicable in men.

For all the fancy dressing (and all these shows are in some ways progressive or alternative) these characters are basically more gender policing.

I would actually like to see a male character who gave off all sorts of effeminate vibes was sexually attracted to women, or reveal that a character who behaved in typically masculine ways was in fact in the closet.⁴

1. I also saw America Ferrar’s golden globe acceptance speech, where she said “It’s such an honor to play a role that I hear from young girls on a daily basis how it makes them feel worthy and lovable and they have more to offer the world than they thought.” I believe her, but do want to pont out what a sad inditement on the world that is. (back)
2. I’ve only seen the first episode so I could be wrong and I’m sure people will let me know in the comments if I am. (back)
3. Also awesome, don’t get me wrong. I keep on having a new favourite joke, for a long time it was the fact that none of the family could tell any Latino people apart, then there was the Atkins diet episode, but my new favourite is “they won’t do anything to me, it’s shoplifting and I’m white.” (back)
4. Of course on Buffy this happened with the Larry character, and it was great. Except the actor was a Christian homophobe and they killed him off. (back)

Children of Men is a distopian movie, about a world where no woman has given birth for 18 years. It contains the most powerful scene I’ve ever seen on film. Kee, a young black woman is going into labour on a bus at the entrance way of a refugee camp. We’re watching her fighting the contractions and out the window we see refugees being tortured by the police.

What made this sequence so powerful was not that it showed us a distopian future, but that it showed us our distopian present. The images of refugees who are selected as dangerous at the entrance to the campis deliberately evocative of photos we’ve all seen from Abu Grahib. The camp they then enter is Gaza with British signage. The most potent political comment, in this amazingly political film, was the message refugees heard as they entered the hell-hole of a refugee camp: “Do not support terrorism, we are here to help you.”

The set, and the world-creation, is truly remarkable in its detail, and there’s barely a frame that doesn’t contain information about the world of the film, and criticism of our world.

What makes Children of Men’s critique of our world so radical and thorough- is it takes the world that is usually hidden from those of us who live comfortably, the experiences of Iraqis, palestinians, illegal immigrants and so on, and makes it the centre-piece of Britain’s future. Our government’s are as racist and as brutal as the world, but at the moment they can hide it from a good portion of their population.

I did have a minor problem with the movie, and that was it’s characters - or lack thereof. It is a really sign of the quality of the movie that the fact that the major characters are completely unmemorable is a minor problem rather than a reason to demand my money back. While some of the minor characters were well drawn, the main characters - particularly Theo and Kee very under-developed. This was probably a deliberate choice, which would have worked better if they hadn’t given Theo a back-story from cliche hell (guess what? It involves a girl).

One of the reasons that the movie can sustain characters who don’t hold your interest, is because it is incredibly well-paced. Like Theo we are taken, a little bit reluctantly, along a series of events we have no control over, and we don’t know what’s coming next. I get very jumpy in action movies (actually I got jumpy in Happy Feet), and my friend Betsy grabbed my hand to reassure me that it was OK. Then, once they reached the refugee camp I grabbed her hand, and it turns out that we really needed that.

Children of Men is full of horrors, but it does offer us hope. I may write more about it’s politics of change. But for me, the hope didn’t come from the Human Project, a For me, the hope wasn’t about the group that Kee was trying to reach - an organisation we knew nothing about. The hope came from watching people who kept fighting for a better world, even though they had no reason to believe that anyone would be alive to live in it.

I do recommend this movie, it is an astonishing piece of film-making. It wouldn’t have stayed with me so much, if it wasn’t real. We must fight for a world where women don’t have to give birth in these situations.

Does anyone else remember that in the 1970s and 1980s, there were multiple movies which featured the “comic” situation of a man somehow getting stuck in a gorilla suit, and then being stuck in a cage with a randy male gorilla? The not-very-subtle implication was that the man was raped by the gorilla, which in the 70s and 80s was apparently considered hilarious.

IIRC, 70s comedies did this gag frequently enough to be a bit of a cliche — but this was decades ago, when I was a kid, and I can’t remember which specific movies featured this gag. Sometimes I’ve wondered if I didn’t just imagine the whole thing. But a few days ago I was watching a 1983 Eddie Murphy / Dan Aykroyd comedy, Trading Places, and there it was — the wacky man-in-costume-raped-by-a-gorilla gag. (In Trading Places, it’s the wacky fate suffered by a corrupt government official who the good guys need to dispose of).

There’s also an episode of the Simpsons which included this gag — Homer gets stuck in a panda bear costume, then is raped by a panda bear — but the scene in the Simpsons is so over-the-top brutal, the writer must have intended it as a parody of the gorrilla-suit-rape gag trend I recall.

And in the movie Top Secret, the male villain dresses in a cow suit and then is raped by a bull.

The wacky violent rape raped-by-an-animal scene — which, as I recall, almost always happened to male villains — has pretty much disappeared from TV and movies.¹ I suspect that gag wasn’t done to female characters as often because having a female character suffer involuntary violent rape would have seemed too disturbingly real to be funny (not unlike the way fat jokes are considered funnier and more acceptable when they’re directed at thin actors wearing fat suits).

(I can think of examples of women being raped in 80s movie comedies, but the rapes are by deception rather than violence. In Revenge Of The Nerds, the protagonist disguises himself as a stuck-up sorority girl’s boyfriend in order to trick her into having sex with him. There’s some similar rape comedy in Sixteen Candles — except in that case, it’s that the stuck-up girl is too drunk to know the difference between her boyfriend and Anthony Michael Hall. In both these movies, the rape is justified post-hoc because the victim enjoyed the sex.)

Anyone else recall any movies in which a character in an animal costume is raped by an animal? And what the hell were moviemakers smoking back then?

1. It’s still pretty common for characters to joke about prison rape, however; like the animal rape gags, prison rape gags are usually about male characters. (back)

My friend Besty and I were possibly the only people to refer to The Break Up as the new Peyton Reed movie. Ever since we watched Bring It On in a mostly empty cinema in the middle of the day, we have been big fans (don’t ask about the opening cheer unless you really want to know).

The great thing about Peyton Reed is that his movies have quite a mainstream sensibility, but with a different (and most importantly feminist) content. Betsy and I cracked up listening to his DVD commentary on Bring it On when he talked about the movie’s punk rock sensibility (punk cheerleaders!), but we knew what he meant. The ads made The Break Up look like an extended episode of friends (boys are like this, and girls are like this - isn’t that hilarious), but (and I should have had faith in Peyton Reed) instead it looked at the reality behind some of those ideas, and what they mean for the people involved.

It’s weird that we finally got around to watching the break-up tonight, just after I’d written about housework. Because the Break-up is a movie about the dishes. Brooke (Jennifer Aniston) and Gary (Vince Vaughn) have been together for two years and they’re holding a dinner party. When Brooke gets home from work she tidies up the whole place, does all the cooking (for the meal she’s shopped and planned for), sets the table, and so on. When Gary gets home he turns on the TV and watches the game, despite the fact that she’s still cooking dinner, and he’s not changed. Then after the dinner party he sits down and plays Playstation, and when she asks him to help her do the dishes he talks about how he needs to unwind (this is the fight where they break up).

More than anything else I found the movie terribly, terribly sad. Right throughout the movie Brooke, keeps trying to get him back, she’s doing more, and working harder in the hope that’ll make him notice the work she already does (which appears to be about 90% of the work in the relationship). There’s a scene near the end where she lists all the things she does for him, and doesn’t ask him to reciprocate, doesn’t ask for equality, just asks that he recognise what she’s doing.¹ When he finally began to understand what was upsetting her so much, it was too late, she felt entirely used up, and couldn’t keep trying any more.

It all felt so familiar. They’re not even particularly my issues, but I’ve listened, and I’ve given advice, and in the end there’s nothing I can do.

There were other bits I really like; the female relationships were very real and reminded me of the limits of solidarity without analysis. It was obvious, throughout the movie, that other women backed up Brooke because she was a woman. But the advice they gave was all slightly ridiculous and useless, and showed that her friends were also mired in this pit where it was impossible to relate to men on anything approaching equal footing, so all they could offer Brooke were suggestions on how to get around.

What I really do wonder is how much of this was intentional. I’m fairly certain that Peyton Reed brought out the feminist aspects of the movie on purpose. But on the DVD commentary Vince Vaughn and Jennifer Aniston were implying that they thought this was a movie about two equally flawed people. I imagine if you’re used to being blind to power dynamics it might look like two equally flawed people. But there was a power imbalance in that relationship, whether it was intended by the creators or not.

It passes the Mo Movie Measure - but in quite a neat way - it’s only after that she’s decided that she has no more energy to give him that she is shown speaking to another woman about anything but Gary.

As a movie it definately worked for me, anything that felt that real definately would. There were also some absolutely hilarious moments (and some others that didn’t really work for me, but I don’t find Vince Vaughn particularly funny). I really do recomend you watch it, I’d like to know what other people thought.

1. I imagine that it’d actually be impossible to recognise that you were in a relationship where the other person was doing the vast majority of the work. It’s much easier to be blind, than to realise that you’re a parasite (or to do your share). (back)

Bean and I went to see “The Pursuit of Happyness,” a new movie starring Will Smith as real-life stock broker Chris Gardner. Set in the 80s, the movie tells the story of how Gardner — black, poor, a single father with only a high-school education — became a stock broker using only intelligence, hard work, and a seemingly inexhaustible will to succeed.

The movie was entertaining but not fantastic. What struck me most about it is how differently liberals and conservatives will interpret the movie’s message. To conservatives, like Michael at InternetMonk, the message is that hard work wins the day:

Will Smith’s “The Pursuit of Happyness” [is] a stunningly positive, pro-individual, pro-America film that may go to the top of every economic conservative’s “must see” list. “Pursuit” is a stereotype breaker in every scene, and it’s not an accident. This is a film with the unashamed message that America is a place where individuals aren’t rewarded via pity, but through initiative, sacrifice and hard work. Chris Gardner’s success came by taking the gifts God gave him, motivating himself with love for his son, and persevering in a superhuman effort to outdo people with racial, social and educational advantage. […]

And when he achieves his goal- a genuinely emotional breakthrough that will be hard for any man who loves his family to resist- it is not because of affirmative action, but because Chris Gardner was the best man for the job. You can look in the eyes of all those corporate types and know that they have only been dimly aware that this is a man who has been sleeping in restrooms and at homeless shelters, but they are treating him completely in line with the content of his character and not in pity. At a moment when he is nearly starving, his boss- a millionaire many times over- asks him for five dollars for cab fare. Gardner gives it to him because that is who he is and will always be.¹

I saw the same movie, but I got a different message. Because the effort Gardner puts forth in the movie really does seem (as Michael says) superhuman. In the movie², Gardner had no real friends, no support network, no savings, no home, and a child to take care of. He was pretty much in the situation Hilzoy discusses here — no margin for error, no margin for bad luck.

There are thousands of Americans in that situation. What makes Gardner’s story so unusual — and a good subject for a major Hollywood movie — is that Gardner ended up a millionairre. The far more common story of people who don’t make it, isn’t the story of which major movies are made. Artist and blogger Marc Vallen (who created a 1980s protest poster used as set dressing in the movie) writes:

The Pursuit of Happyness has as its actual star the mythic American dream story, where anyone can become financially successful through dedication and hard work. While it’s said “everyone loves a winner” and “a happy ending”, I’d still like to see Hollywood tackle the stories of those real-life people who’ve struggled and worked hard all of their lives but never even came close to achieving their dreams. Odds are that describes a huge number of people, and as yet, their stories haven’t appeared on the silver screen. I also find it ironic that a poster once considered controversial, and used by activists who were willing to be beaten, arrested, and jailed for a cause - has became set dressing for a popular “feel good” movie.

For me, the lesson to take away from “The Pursuit of Happyness” isn’t that anyone can make it in America. Gardner wasn’t “anyone.” He was broke, but he had a natural endowment of intelligence, charm and drive that made him one in ten thousand, or maybe one in a million.
I’s ludicrous to think that “Pursuit of Happyness” shows that anyone can make it; on the contrary, “Pursuit of Happyness” shows that for someone starting with nothing in America, it take a ludicrous amount of talent and drive to pull oneself up.

I think it’s possible to become a better society — one in which no one is every that utterly lacking help and resources, and in which it doesn’t require Chris-Gardner levels of talent and drive for someone on the bottom to make the system work.

The San Francisco Gate has a story with more information about The Real-Life Chris Gardner; there are interesting contrasts between his life and the movie version. (For example, in the movie he was homeless while doing an unpaid apprenticeship; in real life I doubt he was homeless while he was an apprentence, since the apprenticeship program paid $1000 a month.) And CNN has an article about Gardner’s current activities – he’s hoping to become the next Oprah.

Also, Czerna has a related post.

1. Contrary to Michael’s interpretation, I think it was clear that Gardner gave him the five bucks because he was an intern who had no choice but to suck up to his bosses, and who couldn’t let them know how close to the edge he was living. (back)
2. and in real life, for all I know (back)

This post is a total geek-out; non-geeky readers will want to scroll on past this one. Later today, I’ll also post this week’s baby blogging (sorry for being late on it!).

Read the rest of this entry »

Recently Foolish Owl posted the lyrics to Love Me I’m a Liberal. It’s a great song. If you haven’t read the lyrics you should go do that now.

Reading the lyrics to ‘Love Me I’m a Liberal’ made me sad. There was a time in my life I loved Phil Ochs. When I’m Gone was on the short-list of songs I wanted played at my funeral. I still have his live album and it’s wonderful.

But I don’t listen to his music any more, not since I read a biography of his life. Phil Ochs was a great lyricist, but he was also violent and abusive.

Like most music genres political folk is male dominated, and there’s a lot of sexism in it. When the lock-out ended it took me a while to clean out the sexism of Talking Union Blues so I felt comfortable posting it on my blog. The original third verse of Union Maid, is so offensive that it makes me giggle. That doesn’t bother me that much. I either listen to the music in its original form, or (more likely) a recent re-recording that has lyrics I like better. The nice things about folk music is that everyone changes the lyrics up sometimes.

It is regrettable, but understandable, that such sexism was acceptable in political movements in the past. But I can overlook that in a way I can’t overlook men like Phil Ochs sang for freedom and abused the women around them.

It’s particularly political folk music that I have this reaction to. Other forms of art I’m generally less fussy about. I’m not going to stop loving In My Life, because 50% is a conservative estimate of the number of men in the Beatles who were violent and abusive.

But political folk music, at least the stuff I listen to, is music about liberation. Abusing the power society gives you is fundamental incompatible with anyone’s liberation. Just like I wouldn’t be interested in a brilliant interpretation of When I’m Gone, from someone who didn’t mean it. I lost interest in Phil Och’s interpretation of ‘When I’m Gone’ to the extent that he didn’t mean it.

I want to emphasise that my reaction is not one of political purity, but my emotional reaction to the disconnect between the song and what I know of the person who wrote it. I’d be interested in how other people feel.