Call for Writers: Feminist Travel Films

Call for Writers: Feminist Travel Films
It’s almost summer in the states, and we’re thinking one thing: Road Trip! 
To gear up, how about some good feminist travel films? Whether by land, air, or sea, let’s look at how travel and gender are represented when movie characters take a trip. 
Want to take on a classic road trip movie and its (lack) of gender diversity? 
Is there a bromance road trip movie you’re dying to critique? 
Do you have a favorite travel flick and want to tell us why it’s so good?
Here are some suggestions, but feel free to propose your own! 
10 
2 Days in Paris
Amelie 
Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert 

The Beach

Before Sunrise
Before Sunset
Best Exotic Marigold Hotel
Bonnie and Clyde 
Boys on the Side
Brokedown Palace
Easy Rider 
Eat, Pray, Love 
Enchanted April
Flirting with Disaster 
The Holiday
How Stella Got Her Groove Back 
Little Miss Sunshine 
Lost in Translation
Natural Born Killers 
Roman Holiday
Sex and the City 2
Shirley Valentine
Sideways 
Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants
Thelma and Louise
Under the Tuscan Sun
Vagabond
The Wizard of Oz
Y Tu Mama Tambien
Here are some basic guidelines for guest writers:
–Pieces should be between 700 and 2,000 words.
–Include images (with captions) and links in your piece, along with a title for your article.
–Send your piece in the text of an email, attaching all images, no later than Friday, May 24th.
–Include a 2-3 sentence bio for placement at the end of your piece.
Email us at btchflcks(at)gmail(dot)com if you’d like to contribute a review. We accept original pieces or cross-posts. 
We look forward to reading your submissions!

Nothing Can Save ‘The Walking Dead’s Sexist Woman Problem

Michonne in The Walking Dead

Written by Megan Kearns | Warning: spoilers ahead! 

So the season 3 finale of The Walking Dead. What can I say? Is there less sexism than last season’s appalling anti-abortion storyline with Lori’s pregnancy? Did the addition of badass Michonne change the gender dynamics?

I’m going to warn you right now. This post isn’t going to be pretty. Not with all the misogyny. When it comes to its female characters and depiction of gender, The Walking Deadhas progressively deteriorated. It incessantly pisses me off with its rearticulation of patriarchy and sexist gender tropes. And no, it’s not a commentary on patriarchy. Rather it’s a defense of hyper-masculinity.
I’ve written before about The Walking Dead’s shitty job portraying women and its depiction of sexist retro gender roles. I was finally excited when Michonne (Danai Gurira) arrived as we hadn’t witnessed a fierce woman in any leadership role yet. Finally, we would see a fearless, powerful, clever, complex female character. And a woman of color! Yet I remained skeptical due to the tissue thin female characters and all of the sexism contaminating the show in the previous two seasons. My prediction came true: Michonne couldn’t save the show’s sexism.
In the comics, Michonne is a fan favorite. She’s complex, interesting, with resiliency and strength. Sadly we get little of that same warrior woman in the TV series. Yes, she’s a badass. Yes, she’s adept with a sword. But that’s pretty much it.
Michonne enters the show in an aura of mystery. Cloaked, sword-wielding, holding the chains of two Walkers. But typically we need to see beneath the veneer in order to care about a character. But we haven’t been allowed in to her backstory at all. We need to see their vulnerabilities, weaknesses, struggles, hopes. Even awesome Daryl is given moments to shine, like when he grieves for his brother Merle or holds baby Judith, nicknaming her Little Ass-Kicker. The only time we witness anything of the sort in Michonne is when she holds Andrea (Laurie Holden) in a tender embrace in the finale — before Andrea commits suicide to avert zombiehood – and we get a glimpse in the episode when Michonne protects Carl and reveals to Rick that she hears voices too, letting him know he’s not alone.
When we first meet Michonne, she saves Andrea, serving as a “black caretaker,” perilously playing out the “Magical Negro” trope. Even her friendship with Andrea became a missed opportunity, barely explored, something Laurie Holden, the actor who plays Andrea, laments as well. Michonne is regarded with suspicion by Rick’s Prison Camp Crew, even though other people, like the inmates, were considered to be “one of them.” And yes, I’m aware that they eventually bestow this distinction onto Michonne as well. But only after Carl — a 13-year-old boy — says so. When a teenaged boy gets more respect than the grown-ass women??? Can’t. Even. Deal.
When it comes to the potential for female leaders, the series does have Michonne who not only survived alone but also saved Andrea. But why must Michonne have to prove her worth in relation to saving Andrea, Carl or Rick — all the white characters? Michonne essentially proves her worth not by being a strong survivor, not through intelligence, not through empathy — but by how she rescues and serves white people on the show.
So how were the other women depicted this season?
Andrea in The Walking Dead
I know Andrea pissed off a ton of people with her ridiculous decisions. She continually annoyed me…and I liked her! I mean, c’mon, am I really supposed to believe such a smart woman would make such stupid choices when it came to men? Choosing psychopaths Shane AND the Governor?? Oh wait, women do choose shitty dudes in real life. But the problem here isn’t that Andrea makes the worst romantic choices; I mean who hasn’t made horrendous decisions?

No, the problem is that Andrea’s life didn’t revolve around her friendship with Michonne, the woman who saved her, or her friendships with the people at the prison. Ultimately, the outspoken woman who strived to make the moral choice, a woman who was a lawyer before the zombie apocalypse, her life eventually revolved around dudes. Correction, in season 3, just one dude: The Governor. That’s right, the same dude who sexually assaulted another female character.
In probably the most heinous act of the season, in the episode “When the Dead Come Knocking,” Maggie (Lauren Cohan) and Glenn have been captured by the Governor. The Governor separates the two of them and interrogates Maggie alone. But his interrogation quickly dissolves into full on sexual assault. He terrorizes her. He forces her to undress. He bends her over and slams her against a table. He threatens her with rape. He uses intimidation and humiliation to exert his power and dominance.
Sexual assault should never be used as a plot device. What purpose did this incident serve? To show what an unhinged, misogynistic douchebag The Governor is? Perhaps. But it was completely unnecessary. And don’t tell me that Michonne is raped in the comics so what Maggie endures isn’t that big a deal because it was just the threat of rape. Yeah, it’s a big fucking deal. Women are raped and sexually assaulted and harassed daily. Our rape culture normalizes violence against women and conflates violence with sexuality.

It’s also interesting to note that the writers changed the sexual assault survivor from a black woman to a white woman. Too often, the media erases the narratives of black women rape and assault survivors, choosing to focus on white women survivors.

Maggie in The Walking Dead
Maggie started off last season so ballsy and opinionated. But she’s devolved as the show progresses to being fairly deferential to Glenn. If she became quieter, more withdrawn and introverted after the trauma of her sexual assault, that would make sense. But her passivity started happening long ago. Maggie, who was promoted to series regular this season, was given nothing of a storyline other than hot sex with Glenn and surviving the trauma of sexual assault. And we only get a brief moment where she lashes out at Glenn because of that trauma. The rest of the time, we see how it affects Glenn, not Maggie. As if it matters more how the Governor’s rape tendencies impact Glenn (the dude) more than Maggie, the one assaulted.
And the depiction of masculinity is problematic too. Glenn wasn’t “a real man” until he was tortured. And let’s not forget that Glenn is an Asian American man which plays into the pervasive stereotype that depicts Asian American men as emasculated in U.S. media.
But women aren’t just punished with sexual assault, but also by death. Lori (Sarah Wayne Callies) doesn’t have a huge role this season. She argues with Rick and Carl and laments to Hershel that they hate her. She worries that something will go wrong and she’ll die in childbirth. Which she does. When she’s losing a lot of blood, she asks Maggie to perform a C-section, knowing she will bleed out. Then Lori is killed by her son, aka potential-sociopath-in-training Carl, so she won’t come back as a walker. Lori must be punished for her infidelity (and insipid annoyance) in the previous seasons. And so she dies. Shameful slut!

In addition to Lori’s death, we also have Andrea — who’s an excellent shot and warrior, and never would have gotten bit — bitten by Mitch. She then dies by a self-inflicted gunshot to the head so she won’t become a walker. Will Andrea’s death catalyze vulnerability in Michonne? Or will it be leveraged to show how Rick and the other dudes handle pain??
Now, I’m not saying that female characters can’t or shouldn’t die. It’s a zombie apocalypse. Of course there’s going to be brutal deaths. But when the women’s deaths exist as a vehicle to convey the pain of the men, that’s a problem.

Lori and Carl in The Walking Dead
What we’re witnessing with the women of The Walking Dead is the Women in Refrigerators Syndrome — women killed, raped, stripped of their power — in order to propel the plot and show the progression and struggles of the male characters. Also, as T.S. Christian told me on Twitter, in a Black Girl Nerds podcast, @TheRayVolution astutely asserted that women always die to illustrate the horrendous state of the world.
Again, it’s all about the men. The women, even the awesome ones, are nothing more than props to propel the male characters’ emotional journeys and transformations.
So what about the other women on the show? Thankfully, we’re starting to see Carol in a more assertive role. She speaks up and voices her opinion and seems to be more resourceful. We also meet Sasha, a good shot who teases her brother Tyreese. Oh yeah and then there’s the blond girl, Maggie’s sister, whose name I can’t even remember, that’s how unforgettable she is. Why? Because all she does is sing and hold the baby. Seriously.
None of the women are truly respected on the show. None of their opinions are valued or considered. When Rick has a problem, he confides in Hershel and Darryl. He listens to their advice. None of the women sway him. And of course none of the women lead, nor can we even consider them as leaders, as we saw when Glenn talked about how he was second in command. Um, okay.
So why can’t ladies lead in a post-apocalyptic world? Well according to Robert Kirkman, it’s science. I shit you not. In fact The Walking Dead comics creator and TV producer/writer said in an interview:
“I don’t mean to sound sexist, but as far as women have come over the last 40 years, you don’t really see a lot of women hunters. They’re still in the minority in the military, and there’s not a lot of female construction workers. I hope that’s not taken the wrong way. I think women are as smart, resourceful, and capable in most things as any man could be … but they are generally physically weaker. That’s science.”
Here’s a hint to all you mansplainers out there. It’s never, ever, ever a good idea to start your statement with “I don’t mean to sound sexist.” Why? Because clearly you’re about to drop some shit that is indeed sexist. So women remain a minority in the military and as construction workers because of science. You know, not because of sexist gender prejudices about women’s physical abilities. Right. Silly me. Why didn’t I think of science??? Must be because of my ladyparts.
Now to be fair, that interview was about the comics and it transpired 4 years ago. But as evidenced by the repetition of sexist tomfoolery in the TV series, which is interesting considering the depiction of women is much better in the comics, Kirkman obviously hasn’t changed his stance on gender. Nor have any of the other TV writers apparently. It explains so much.
Hmmm so which season is worse? The season 2 horrendous handling of emergency contraception and its anti-abortion plotline? Or is it Season 3 with sexual assault used as a plot device and women dying to propel men’s emotional journeys? It’s all bullshit.
It’s very apparent The Walking Dead doesn’t care about exploring gender dynamics in any meaningful way or deconstructing gender roles to explore societal limitations. And to an extent that’s fine. Not everything has to be some massive social commentary. Although believe me, I’d be delighted. But as I’ve written before, when you’re dealing in the realm of fantasy or playing with the bounds of reality, why depict sexism? Why not imagine something different?
And don’t even get me started on the idiotic argument, “Well, that’s life. That’s what would happen during an apocalypse of any kind.” I call bullshit. Am I really supposed to believe that if the shit hits the fan, women can’t or won’t be able to pull themselves together and not only survive but take leadership roles? Obviously that’s ludicrous.
With Robert Kirkman reinforcing the notion that sexism builds the foundation of the series, my hope that The Walking Dead will improve regarding its depiction of women, race and gender has shattered. So I’ll stop hoping it will get better and just keep on hate-watching it.

#FemFuture Roundtable with Bitch Flicks Editors

Amber: Hi, all! 
Megan: Hola!! 
Amber: I’m reading the report now, so I’ll let you two take the lead in the convo.

Stephanie: So, FemFuture … not to get narcissistic right off the bat, but where do blogs like ours fit into that discussion?

Megan: I don’t think that’s narcissistic at all. I think it’s a pertinent question.

Stephanie: Because funding IS important, but who decides WHO gets funding — the “connected” people? Because that’s certainly what it seems like.

Megan: Very true. But even the “connected” people are often times not funded either.

Stephanie: No one is funded now.

Megan: Or are not funded enough to make it their primary job. Feministing comes to mind.

Stephanie: The FemFuture discussion was about HOW to get funding for bloggers, right?

Megan: It was about the future of online feminism, part of it was funding as well as meeting annually and networking. But yes, a big thrust of it was the argument that online feminists aren’t getting funded and should be.

Stephanie: Right. So … I mean, they really didn’t even mention Shakesville? LOLOLOL

Megan: I KNOW. Ridiculous. How could you ignore Shakesville???? One of the most influential and prolific feminist blogs???

Stephanie: So, the “connected” people are the ones deciding whose blogs are important and who gets funding.

Megan: Shameful. I saw their argument or conversation more as everyone should be funded. BUT by leaving Shakesville out, which as Melissa McEwan states in her post about FemFuture, is not in NYC or DC, it does make it seem that is what is happening, even if not explicitly stated.

Stephanie: Trans blogs, vegan blogs, etc.

Megan: YES!!!!

Stephanie: That report was a fucking shitshow.

Megan: I mean c’mon, ridiculous.

Amber: From what I’ve read, I agree!

Stephanie: It was SO OUT OF TOUCH and that’s what scares me.

Megan: YES!!!

Stephanie: Like, you’re The Leaders of this and you have no fucking idea what’s going on with blogs right now.

Megan: I really, really, really like that a report like this was done. However, and that’s a ginormous however. If you’re going to do it, and discuss how marginal online feminism and feminist blogs are, shouldn’t you strive to be as inclusive as possible? And not perpetuate exclusion??

Amber: I also think that what we’re doing is at the intersection of film and feminism, which doesn’t really fit their precise definition of what feminist online activists are and what we do.

Megan: YES, Amber!!! People don’t often think of feminism and the arts as part of the “feminist online community.”

Amber: Same as what Steph said, with regard to vegan feminists, et al.

Megan: Well, as a vegan feminist, I can tell you there aren’t a whole hell of a lot of vegan feminist blogs but that’s beside the point.

Stephanie: It’s true, and it’s funny … because (not to be ridic) but I think what we’re doing is  important because it’s challenging media portrayals … and media portrayals are what feed these fucking stereotypes about people/women/etc.

Megan: They should be reaching out to ALL kinds of feminist blogs. Omg you are so NOT being ridiculous AT ALL. I agree. Media starts shaping our lives inculcating us into sexism and patriarchy at an early age.

Stephanie: It’s like, how is this NOT where we start? Especially with kids (which is why I liked the animated films week so much).

Megan: Yes, yes, yes.

Stephanie: Maybe they felt like they already involved Women’s Media Center and Jenn Pozner’s media site.

Megan: And as we age, media shapes how we view the news, and what news we see and hear.

Amber: As someone who does not, and has not ever, lived in a major media center, the clubbishness and exclusiveness of the fem community has always angered me.

Megan: If you’re going to write about how online feminism needs to be more inclusive and funded and not treated as a fringe thing, then maybe you should be, oh I don’t know, INCLUSIVE.

Amber: YES.

Megan: Amber, I live close to NYC and still feel that way too.

Amber: There’s such a contradiction in the very premise of it: we’re diverse and living all over the place, yet only the NYC fems (no offense, NYC) get to determine the future???

Megan: I mean, the NYC feminist community, the people who are a part of it are super nice and friendly and welcoming. But it can still feel cliquish.

Amber: Shouldn’t this have been a big organized teleconference? THAT would have been historic.

Megan: I had a very brief convo about this on Twitter. About how all feminist bloggers live in NYC. When I replied that I don’t, they were like yeah but you’re in the Northeast. True but trust me, Boston and NYC are not the same.

Stephanie: So read this….this is from the new FAQ from FemFuture report/site: “We chose people whose work we knew about and respected who represented a diverse range of perspectives and kinds of work. Our hope was to see if in-person conversation and convening could add something to the conversation that already existed online. One particular regret was, we weren’t able to bring much geographic diversity to the convening—which we wanted to be in person and intimate. While so many of us originally come from different areas of the country (and world), and have built online communities of readers, followers and colleagues worldwide, the majority of the convening attendees currently live on the east coast. This was a gap we acknowledge and hope will be filled in follow up conversations—either online or in person—and welcome ideas.”

Megan: Also, I checked on the geographical location of most of the speakers…They don’t just live on the East Coast…They live in NYC or NJ.

Stephanie: Bwwahahhaahah NYC/NJ equals all of the East Coast now!

Megan: I KNOW!!!! I mean, what the fuck. Just talking about cities, fuck you, Boston, DC, Atlanta, Miami, Baltimore, Charleston. Bleh.

Stephanie: I love how I’m getting even MORE pissed.

Megan: LOL right????

Stephanie: Also, they apparently didn’t even CONSULT with people who don’t live there (like Liss) … and it’s funny because the Flyover Feminism blog they started together is important in addressing that not all feminists live in these metro areas.

Megan: I KNOW!!!!

Stephanie: ALSO, I fucking live in NYC, and I don’t have a big networking personality, so fuck that.

Megan: You were exactly who I was thinking of!!!

Stephanie: Our bloggers live ALL OVER (the country/world LOL) so fuck that too.

Megan: So it’s exclusionary to you too despite your physical proximity.

Stephanie: Exactly.

Megan: EXACTLY.

Amber: YES. And doesn’t that create a more diverse perspective? Our bloggers being everywhere, I mean.

Stephanie: I mean, like 5 people came to our party, and we’ve been around for 5 years in NYC.

Megan: Yes to both of you! Did either of you read Flavia Dzodan’s reply US Centrism and Inhabiting a Non-Space in FemFuture? So, so good.

Amber: I have Flavia’s piece open now.

Megan: Basically she talks about living in Europe and how she doesn’t fit the U.S. feminism mold.

Stephanie: “I sincerely have no thoughts because I don’t belong in this.”

Megan: Yep. And THIS! “To call what is going on in an Anglo centric environment ‘online feminism’ is to cast me (and millions like me) away from the umbrella. We live elsewhere.”

Stephanie: Love.

Amber: “My resistance ends up being a double bind: I need to resist the policies, racism, discrimination, etc of a State that considers those like me disposable and I need to resist the absorption of the ‘Mother Ship’ that owns the discourses around which feminist issues matter the most.”

Megan: Mmhmm

Stephanie: I wish I knew how to express my emotions about this but I don’t wanna be all “they didn’t incluuuuude uuuuuus” LOL

Megan: LOL I know. And part of me feels like we should band together. But a larger part of me is like fuck that noise. There’s nothing wrong with being critical of our own community, even a community that we’re kinda sorta not even really a part of because it doesn’t speak to us, include us or address us.

Amber: They’re not speaking to us or for us, and maybe that’s okay?

Stephanie: YES. No, YES to Megan, not Amber. LOL

Amber: I mean, it pisses me off.

Megan: Zerlina Maxwell tweeted that FemFuture is not a zero sum end game. It’s a starting point. Amber, I hear you but I don’t think it is okay.

Stephanie: It is absolutely not okay … but maybe people’s anger/disappointment about the whole thing could change it.

Megan: I think if you’re talking about “feminism” or “online feminism,” then you need to be as inclusive and diverse as possible.

Stephanie: A real inclusive way to handle it would’ve been to tweet or blog or something to get the word out and have bloggers send in their responses about what the blogosphere is like for them.

Megan: YES!!!

Stephanie: I mean fucking DUH.

Megan: LOL

Stephanie: You get together in a closed room like a bunch of fucking Republicans and try to discuss some shit you know nothing about?

Megan: Did either of you see MAKERS, that documentary?

Stephanie: Nope.

Megan: Okay so the documentary is really good, chronicling the history of the women’s movement and feminism in the U.S. BUT…

Stephanie: It’s like, bloggers are already discouraged. What isn’t helping is you getting up there with your very successful blogs and being all “how do we get funding for ourselves”? LOL. Sorry, go ahead …

Megan: …it leaves only 5 or 10 mins for feminism in the past 10 years and doesn’t even fucking talk about online feminism!!! This pissed off a shitload of people on Twitter because duh. We were written out of this documentary’s history of feminism. But now it feels like that’s exactly what’s happening here. Bitch Magazine has a compilation of people’s responses to FemFuture. And Feministe does too.

Amber: I’ve been much less engaged in the overall FemFuture convo, and I’m honestly on the fence about my anger. On one hand, RAGE, you know? But on the other, this is just more of the same. It’s anti-feminist to create this online feminist hierarchy. But that’s what’s been happening for years, and that’s what FemFuture is continuing. I’ve never wanted to be part of the Professional Feminist Club, because that entire fucking notion is anti-feminist. What Steph said about them acting like a bunch of fucking Republicans is true.

Megan: Yes, yes to all of this. I’m not even sure they realize what they’re doing. Which is shitty. You need to recognize and check your privilege at the door. And living in NYC and having a huge feminist blog or backing organization gives you privilege. It kinda reminds me of the arguments I’ve heard when people critique anti-choice laws in the South or Midwest…”Why don’t they just leave?” Um, fuck you. Who are you to tell someone to leave their home??? But I digress.

Amber: No, it’s all the same. Not a digression.

Megan: Thank you. And true, it stems from the same argument.

Amber: I grew up in the Midwest and live in the South. Shouldn’t FemFuture be reaching out, not to ME, Amber, but to people/orgs/blogs who are slogging through in hostile areas? Rhetorical Q, duh.

Megan: YES. I mean to not reach out to Shakesville or Flyover Feminism, bare minimum, is just shameful.

Amber: Totally.

Megan: I keep saying or rather writing shameful because it is. I mean I know they (Courtney Martin and Vanessa Valenti — both of whom I respect) know about them because Feministing did a piece on Flyover Feminism. And um hello, google??? But I know what you mean about feeling torn. I do too. I feel like we’re not supposed to complain or critique because women and feminists get torn down all the time. But this is seriously wrong. Just thinking about urban areas for a moment, I also don’t like the argument that all urban areas are the same. Because living in Boston, which is only 4 hours away from NYC, has different challenges. For example, for our Bowl-a-thon to raise money for abortion funds, Boston has to do a Triathlon instead of karaoke and Wii Bowling because no bowling alley will host us.

Amber: I remember us chatting about that a while back.

Megan: Yeah, it just bugs me.

Amber: It bugs me, too.

Megan: It’s like I adore NYC. Love, love, love. But the sun doesn’t rise and set only on NYC. What else should we discuss about FemFuture? How do we move forward??

Amber: Well, that’s the real question. We could chat all day about the exclusionary aspects of it. But I still can’t get over the fundamental flaw of the “report.” And the marginalization of pop culture blogs as an “entry point.” We’re doing important, challenging work. Not just Bitch Flicks. Taking culture to task is a central issue.

Megan: YES!!!! It infuriates me how people see pop culture, media and art criticism as fluffy entertainment. It’s not. That’s why it’s such crucial work, because people don’t recognize and appreciate its insidious power. But are there other aspects of the conversation or report that bother you that we haven’t discussed?

Stephanie: Just jumping in on that last comment — um, yeah! If people saw abortion depicted in a humanizing way on their fucking TV shows (which people increasingly watch more and more), then our entire political discourse around the subject would CHANGE.

Megan: EXACTLY.

Stephanie: Talking about political discourse without talking about media representations is completely BACKWARDS in 2013.

Megan: Yes, I don’t know how you can divorce the two.

Stephanie: Our society is run by media devices.

Megan: Yes, advertising, media outlets, film studios….everything. What else do we want to say? What are the solutions?

Amber: Treat it like any other media we critique. Take the authors to task for their exclusiveness.

Stephanie: It might be a better use of our time to discuss writing a new “ABOUT” manifesto for Bitch Flicks and tie the FemFuture thing into it. Like, why is BF important…

Amber: LOVE!

Megan: That’s a great idea!

Stephanie: …and make people fucking understand WHY it’s important, because even some feminists seem unclear on that.

Megan: Some…seems like almost all!

Stephanie: I was working on something like it for a while, behind the scenes. Here’s an excerpt: “That’s both the biggest challenge and the greatest opportunity of blogging about film and television from a feminist perspective—learning to understand how the images we’re fed by the media pretend to reflect back the current cultural climate in an effort to maintain it. And what the predominantly white, patriarchal, heteronormative industry insiders want to maintain is a white, patriarchal, heteronormative status quo.”

Megan: That quote is AWESOME. That quote meaning your quote :)

Stephanie: Haha! Thx. Well, let’s start a document and add some stuff to it. We need a new manifesto!

Megan: Sounds great! Anything else we want to say about it?

Stephanie: “Because, more than anything, we believe the blind and uncritical consumption of media portrayals of women contributes to furthering women’s equality in all areas of life. And the absolute most challenging aspect of blogging about the portrayal of women in film and television is finding a way to make those connections, to reinforce the fact that watching a TV show, for instance, in which a woman is violently beaten onscreen—for voyeuristic, entertainment purposes only and without critical commentary—helps to desensitize us and normalize violence against women.” That’s another section [of the BF manifesto].

Megan: YES, love!

Stephanie: I don’t want a group of elite privileged feminists speaking for me. It’s the same set-up that feminism tries to work AGAINST. So why are we recreating it? We’re supposed to be looking for new ways of doing things. It reminds me of all the Occupy Wall Street in-fighting … the people with the loudest voices (usually dudes), with the most confidence, automatically took over and spoke for everyone. I’m glad FemFuture is having the conversation, but they should’ve asked under-the-radar bloggers to contribute and, you know, Shakesville. LMAO. 

Megan: And yes to what you said about Occupy Wall Street and in-fighting and how we’re supposed to be doing it differently so why are we perpetuating same hierarchical bullshit?? 
Stephanie: yes — HIERARCHICAL is the word. Sit back and fucking LISTEN. 
Megan: YES.
Stephanie: They should’ve had Women & Hollywood at least. I mean c’mon. 
Megan: You can’t be truly diverse or truly inclusive if you don’t reach out to as many groups, blogs, individuals as possible. And having women of color participants doesn’t automatically equate diverse representation. 
Stephanie: YES!! 
Megan: So what else can we do? Are there any other solutions to FemFuture? Besides to keep doing what we’re doing writing about female filmmakers and critiquing media. 
Stephanie: I think we need to 1) write a new ABOUT page that we publish on our site and that emphasizes why what we’re doing is so important 2) mention the FemFuture discussion and how media bloggers need to be (and absolutely are) at the forefront of online feminism’s future, and 3) talk about how talking about media is an important way to reach people who aren’t necessarily thinking intellectually/theoretically about Feminist Issues all the time. 
Megan: Love it all. You know what else we can do?? 
Stephanie: The future of online feminism absolutely cannot be White Feminists in an intellectual Ivory Tower talking to other feminists. No, WHAT?! 
Megan: We could put out a call to have people send us who should have been on that report
Stephanie: YES!!!!!! 
Megan: All the under the radar bloggers and even not so under the radar (hello Shakesville and Flyover) 
Stephanie: We could just make a fucking list … with a link and a description of their blog.
Megan: YES, exactly. We could start a list and ask people to contribute. I’m just so tired of complaining (although I do love to complain LOL) and not having solutions. 
Stephanie: LET’S DO IT

"Would You Have Treated Her Differently If She Was a Man?": A Review of ‘Side Effects’

Movie poster for Side Effects
Written by Stephanie Rogers. Includes massive spoilers. Massive.
When I saw Side Effects about a month ago, I found myself eye-rolling my way through the entire second half of the film. I liked the first half, mostly because I like looking at Channing Tatum, but when he left the film, so did my desire to stay. As is almost always the case with me, if I spend too much time thinking about a movie, I usually decide that I 50% loved it and 50% hated it and could really go either way in my review of it. Since (I think) I mostly hated this one, allow me to illustrate those reasons first. 
Hi
First, am I really supposed to take seriously an indictment of Big Pharma when Rolling Rock product placement shows up every five seconds? Honestly, if Jude Law had turned out to be a scheming Big Alcohol Lobbyist instead of a super likeable psychiatrist, I would’ve thought, “What a not-that-surprising twist!” I was just waiting for Jude Law to smile his Jude Law smile into the camera and say, “Why take Ablixa when you can numb your psychological pain with Rolling Rock!”
In addition to undercutting its attempt to take down the American Corporation Shitshow, the film manages to also undercut its initial critique of Rich White Dudes Ruining the Universe. How? The old-fashioned way: by throwing a couple of manipulative bitches in there to make Rich White Dudes sympathetic. 
Oh no, Martin, what have you done?!
If you hate spoilers, for real stop reading now; I’m about to ruin EVERYTHING.
So, Rooney Mara plays Emily Taylor and fakes her suicidal depression so convincingly that I felt horrified when I realized the scam. I spent a significant part of that first half of the film identifying with Emily—her search for the right medications and dealing with their inevitable shitty side effects; her public crying jags, her complete lack of self-care, the desire to set up shop under the fucking covers forever—I mean, major depressive episodes are serious business. And her depression makes sense. Side Effects shows in flashbacks how her once Rich White Dude husband, Martin (Channing Tatum), ended up in prison for five years because of an insider trading scandal. The juxtaposition of their old life together—a giant mansion-esque home, expensive cars, 2000-dollar bottles of wine poured into diamond-coated glasses while Emily and Martin play doubles tennis in slow motion (not really)—makes their new tiny apartment and that whole scraping-by-for-cash thing that happens in the rest of Amurica look absolutely mortifying by comparison. I felt pretty bad for her. 
SINGLE TEAR
But then Jude Law (Dr. Banks) rolls in to save the day! I seriously couldn’t get over the niceness of this dude. He first meets Emily when he’s the on-call doctor in the ER after she deliberately drives her car into a fucking parking garage wall. They talk for a minute, and he eventually agrees to see her again on an outpatient basis instead of sending her to a mental hospital for her suicide attempt. He then prescribes a few medications that unsuccessfully treat her “depression” before settling on a newly developed drug, Ablixa, which comes with an unmentioned sleepwalking side effect. (Hi, Ambien lawsuits!) Of course murder ensues because SIDE EFFECTS, and shit gets real.
I hated pretty much everything after this. 
Rich White Dude being all sympathetic and nice
In general, I enjoy watching the (albeit rare) punishment of Rich White Dudes onscreen, especially given that this film takes place during one of the worst economic downturns in Amurican History, and I hope we can all agree that Rich White Dudes caused it and never suffered any actual real-life consequences. Unfortunately, Side Effects wants us to feel bad for these Rich White Dudes and successfully accomplishes that. Because these are the NICEST RICH WHITE DUDES EVAR. Like, Channing Tatum paid his dues. He went to prison and got out and spent the rest of his five minutes in the film apologizing incessantly for ruining his wife’s life. He took her to the doctor and tried to understand her depression and how best to care for her. By the time Emily pretended to sleepwalk a knife through his kidneys, I FUCKING LIKED HIM.
And poor Jude Law! Seriously, this bro made about zero questionable decisions in the first half of the film—other than being reasonably shitfaced on Rolling Rock during all his interactions—so he deserves about zero of the bad things that happen to him at the hands of Emily and her partner in crime (and previous psychiatrist) Dr. Victoria Siebert (Catherine Zeta-Jones). I mean, look at him:
Why are they doing this to Jude Law?!
SERIOUSLY WHY ARE THEY DOING THIS TO JUDE LAW?! Turns out, Dr. Siebert and Emily wanted to get White-Dude Rich themselves! And in order to make that happen, they bought a shitload of stock in the Ablixa competitor, then tanked the Ablixa stock by blaming it for causing murder and mayhem. SIDE EFFECTS. Or something along those lines—my stock situation consists of a 401K from a job I lost in 1999, and I just keep letting it sit there because I’m not an adult yet. They did somethin’ real bad with stocks & stuff, is what I’m sayin’.
So, to recap my recap, in the process of Getting Rich or Dying Trying, these two ladies—in addition to, you know, committing murder, doing some questionable stock market shit, perjuring themselves in court, making a mockery of actual mental illness, and mind-fucking every person they come in contact with—ruin poor Jude Law’s life for no reason. He prescribed the Ablixa, after all. Does it matter that when Emily first “complained” of sleepwalking side effects he immediately said STOP TAKING IT? Nope. Does it matter that he dropped everything to console Emily every time she needed his help, even when she showed up looking like a stalker during his lunch date with his girlfriend-wife? Nope. Does it matter that he remained a staunch ally on her behalf throughout her entire murder trial? Nope. His medical practice crumbles; he loses patients; and his girlfriend-wife leaves him. Now all we’ve got is Jude in his apartment with the Rolling Rock, you know? I’ve never seen a more sympathetic character onscreen. 
Dr. Banks in the process of unraveling the tricky scheme
Luckily he’s a Nice Guy™ so he eventually unravels the tricky scheme and of course manages to outsmart the ladies, who, in addition to being total assholes also happen to be—wait for it—LOVERS. So much duh right now, right? Like, could this film have worked at all if Catherine Zeta-Jones and Rooney Mara didn’t have a hot make out scene for no reason? FUCK NO IT COULDN’T HAVE. 
Emily seducing Dr. Seibert because … ?
Now, let me take a step back and talk about the one part I managed to not hate.
Once the Dr. Banks/Jude Law medical practice begins its downward spiral, one of his colleagues asks to speak with him. It’s a Rich White Dude, too! He and Dr. Banks and the audience have yet to figure out that this entire situation is a hilarious-suicidal-depression-not-really scheme. His colleague, concerned for how this Ablixa sleepwalking murder incident will impact him, looks at Dr. Banks and says, “Would you have treated her differently if she was a man?” Dr. Banks, appalled, refutes this and maintains his stance that he prescribed Ablixa only when other medications failed to effectively treat Emily’s depression. It’s convincing enough, but it got me wondering. 
Catherine Zeta-Jones as The Evil Dr. Siebert
Is there any way in hell a man could’ve pulled this off the way Emily did? The success of this scheme relies mainly on one thing: believability. Dr. Banks needs to believe her. He needs to believe she’s suicidal. He needs to believe the medications he initially prescribed for her didn’t work. He needs to believe her depression is severe enough to warrant prescribing an experimental drug. Most importantly, he needs to believe Emily doesn’t require hospitalization while somehow also believing she isn’t a danger to others. Essentially, the success of this scheme relies on what is commonly referred to in feminism and in other intelligent –ism groups as Medical Sexism. 
Dr. Banks knows what’s up. Finally.
BOOM—I guess I don’t entirely hate you, Side Effects.
Medical Sexism exists because doctors and other members of the medical community often dismiss women’s very real physical symptoms as psychological. For instance, a woman experiencing shortness of breath is more likely to receive an anxiety diagnosis than a man with similar symptoms, who might be referred for more tests to rule out stuff like, oh I don’t know, SERIOUS HEART PROBLEMS. This is some documented shit—with statistics to back it up and everything—and it has a lot to do with that whole HYSTERIA and Bitches Be Crazy thing still hanging around from the 19th century.
So, when Rich White Dude colleague asks Dr. Banks, “Would you have treated her differently if she was a man?” the correct answer, Dr. Banks, is “FUCK YUS I WOULD HAVE.” The reality is that Emily looked like a drugged, mopey, fragile, broken little girl, and Dr. Banks wanted to swoop in and touch her tiny hand and look into her watery eyes and say, “I can help you.” I dare a dude to throw his Honda Civic in drive and smash into a fucking cement wall. How long do you think it would take for Dr. Banks to personally roll Ol’ Dude’s ass up to the Bellevue Psychiatric Ward strapped to a fucking gurney?
Dr. Banks didn’t do that with Emily because, in his eyes, she looked like a sopping, hysterical lady-mess that The Lord Our God placed on this earth for him to fix all by hisself! And as a result, he accidentally glossed over Emily’s I’mma Murder My Husband situation. And you just know if it had been Ol’ Dude in the Honda Civic instead of Emily, he’d be failing the fuck out of The Dr. Banks “Is This Bro a Homicidal Maniac?” Test. 
Okay, maybe THIS was a questionable decision, Dr. Banks
So should I call this a cautionary tale? Like, maybe Soderbergh’s all, “Listen. You should never let a woman’s supposed suicidal depression mask that bitch’s killing instinct.” Or maybe he’s all, “Listen. Stop Medical Sexism Now! Or Else!” I don’t know. But the simple fact that the Rich White Dude colleague spoke up about Emily’s gender, and how it might’ve impacted Dr. Banks’ treatment decisions, gives Side Effects a touch of complexity that it most certainly lacks otherwise.
Of course, thinking so much about the correct answer to “Would you have treated her differently if she was a man?” got me thinking about the correct answer to “Would you have hated this movie if it were about two men?” And then I laughed for ten minutes and choked from not breathing because this ludicrous shit became the plot of my new movie:
A man named Tommy Bronson reunites with his wife after her five-year stint in prison for insider trading. He becomes depressed and attempts suicide; after all, his wife lost their life savings and forced him to move into a small apartment where he struggled to make ends meet. He begins seeing a psychiatrist—Dr. Sheila Nori—after his first suicide attempt, and Dr. Nori agrees to see him as an outpatient, even though he’s clearly a danger to himself and possibly others. She puts him on an experimental new drug that causes Tommy to sleepwalk. He mentions it to Dr. Nori who immediately says, “You should stop taking the drug.” When he refuses—because his sex life is so much better now!—Dr. Nori drops the subject. Little does Dr. Nori know that Tommy is planning to revenge-murder his wife in a Sleepwalking While Stabbing Event.

Hi

Dr. Nori stands by Tommy after the murder, but soon, Dr. Nori’s life starts to crumble. Her medical practice loses business; her colleagues question her ethics; her boyfriend-husband leaves her and takes the kid, too. She sits in her apartment alone, drinking Rolling Rock in the dark. Eventually, she puts some clues together and discovers that Tommy and his past psychiatrist, Dr. John Lerner, had planned the whole thing! And also, they’re lovers! She finds a way to ruin both their lives by having Tommy seduce John in the hopes that John will spill the beans because—get this—Tommy is wearing a wire! They get jail time and/or life in an asylum. Tommy and John fucked with the wrong shrink. (That’s the tagline.)

The end.

No "Gentleman" Is Psy

Written by Rachel Redfern

K-pop is the standard term for the most substantial part of South Korea’s massively prolific popular culture. Within K-pop there are an elite group of top ten bands that release a new single every few months, a song which then proceeds to dominate every single radio station, YouTube advertisement, and TV show for a week. Even elderly Koreans have the songs as their ringtone just as much as any young person does. For years Korea has been trying to bring that K-pop into the west, but its bubble-gum nature and pre-packaged commercialism has not fared well; Psy suddenly, explosively, changed all of that.

Psy’s surprising viral rise to the top of every musical chart in the world marks a huge moment for Korean culture; in a country often overshadowed by the magnitude of China and the familiarity of Japan (and even its crazy northern neighbor, North Korea), Psy has become the first truly international Korean symbol, an ironic fact considering that his music is not a standard representation of K-pop (click here and here if you would like to see what K-pop normally looks like).

Still from Psy’s latest music video, “Gentleman”
As an American expat currently living in South Korea I see Psy every day. He’s on the side of buses, and buildings, he dances across commercials, and is on every talk show. The next person (either in South Korea or anywhere else in the world) to ask me if I know who Psy is might just lose a limb. For a while he was hailed as a clever entertainer and songwriter, one who’s last song, “Gangnam Style,” satirizes the materialistic culture of one of Seoul’s wealthiest neighborhoods.

However, perhaps Psy’s overwhelming success might need to be tempered a bit, especially in our enthusiasm for his newest video, “Gentleman.”

Korea is, for the most part, a very conservative culture, one where, despite some very short shorts, most female pop stars remain much more covered in comparison with their American contemporaries. Therefore, I was a bit shocked when halfway through the video, K-pop star and lead female in the video, Ga In from “Brown-Eyed Girls,” sucks on a hot dog with cream bubbling out over the edges in one of the most blatant visual representations of oral sex I’ve seen in a while. Oddly enough, KBS, the national broadcasting network in Korea, even banned the video, though not for this scene; rather, the video was banned because he destroys public property. 

Psy’s music video “Gentleman” and K-pop star, Ga In
There has been some controversy about how the video treats women, some calling it simple “irony,” others saying, “irony gone too far.” Perhaps the first situation is the case; perhaps it’s only meant to be a funny, silly video about how people treat each other. On the most basic level the video seems problematic and sets a bad example; Psy acts like a jerk and intentionally treats women badly. Of course, the lead female thinks it’s funny and returns the favor, and the two end up together, finally having found their soulmate. Going one layer of analysis under this surface level suggests that he is actually mocking that behavior; perhaps the video was meant as a satire for the way “gentlemen” still treat women? Or perhaps he was trying to comment on the problematic nature of gender politics in the modern world?

And then I read an English translation of the lyrics: Nope, he’s not making that commentary. 

 
I don’t know if you know why it needs to be hot
I don’t know if you know why it needs to be clean
I don’t know if you know, it’ll be a problem if you’re confused
I don’t know if you know but we like, we we we like to party

Hey there
If I’m going to introduce myself
I’m a cool guy with courage, spirit and craziness
What you wanna hear, what you wanna do is me
Damn! Girl! You so freakin sexy!

[lengthy chorus where the following line repeats]

I’m a, ah I’m a
I’m a mother father gentleman

I don’t know if you know why it needs to be smooth
I don’t know if you know why it needs to be sexy
I don’t know if you know darling, hurry and come be crazy
I don’t know if you know, it’s crazy, crazy, hurry up

Hey there
Your head, waist, legs, calves
Good! Feeling feeling? Good! It’s soft
I’ll make you gasp and I’ll make you scream
Damn! Girl! I’m a party mafia!
 

[Chorus again]

Gonna make you sweat.
Gonna make you wet
You know who I am Wet PSY
Gonna make you sweat.

Gonna make you wet.
You know who I am
Wet PSY! Wet PSY! Wet PSY! Wet PSY! PSY! PSY! PSY!
Ah I’m a mother father gentleman

I’m a, ah I’m a
I’m a mother father gentleman
I’m a, ah I’m a, I’m a mother father gentleman
Mother father gentleman
Mother father gentleman

*translation from Huffington Post

Consider one of the main lines, “It’ll be a problem if you’re confused,” followed by, “What you wanna do is me” and “I’m going to make you sweat/I’m going to make you wet.”

These lyrics and the rampant arrogance that comes with the video does present a problem for me. While the actions of pulling out a chair and just being an asshole to women are annoying, to me they are less problematic than the hyper-sexualization and the obvious objectification shown to all the women in the video, most notably in the close-up on Ga In and the hot dog.

Still from Psy’s latest video, “Gentleman”
This scene and the lyrics put Psy in place as the sexual instigator and idolizes his own arrogance and behavior; according to the lyrics, he’s a dirty asshole who will “make you wet,” with the women only being playthings–sex objects and static recipients of his desires. For me, the mocking and disrespect compounds until “women as funny toys” just gets tied into “women as funny sex toys.”

There are problematic performers and songs running around on the Internet every single day, and I usually try not to support those entertainers. After this video, I don’t think I want to support Psy anymore either, cause Psy, you’re just not all that.

What do you think? Is “Gentleman” funny and forward-thinking satire? Or irony taken too far?

Also, I’m not linking to the music video in this article because I just can’t stand to hear the song one more time.

———-

Rachel Redfern has an MA in English literature, where she conducted research on modern American literature and film and its intersection, however she spends most of her time watching HBO shows, traveling, and blogging and reading about feminism.

Bart Simpson’s Feminine Side

Written by Lady T.  

Bart Simpson appreciating some gay culture

In my umpteenth viewing of episodes from season four of The Simpsons, I noticed something that never occurred to me in my first viewings of the show: Bart Simpson has a feminine side.
This shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. An episode in the eighth season, “Homer’s Phobia,” shows Bart becoming appreciative of gay culture (much to Homer’s dismay) after the family befriends a delightful gay man named John. The episode has an important lesson where Homer learns a lesson about acceptance, but Bart’s development isn’t explored in detail, as his appreciation of gay culture is just a catalyst for Homer’s (temporary) growth as a person.
Earlier (and later) episodes, though, show that Bart’s feminine side is more than just a passing trend. It’s a trait that appears sporadically during the series, and is amusing every time.
In “Lisa the Beauty Queen,” Bart shows his little sister how to walk in heels for the competition. When Lisa asks Bart if he really thinks she could win, he strikes a pose and says, “Hey, I’m starting to think I could win!”

Heel, toe, heel, toe…
In “Marge in Chains,” Bart shares his plan to break his mother out of prison: “Don’t worry, Mom. I’ll bust you out of there as soon as I get a cocktail dress and a crowbar.” Then we see Bart’s dream sequence of dancing with the warden, who says, “Oh, Bartina — before I met you, I was a lonely man.”
[True story: I watched that episode with my roommate when she was resting on the couch with a sprained ankle, and she laughed so hard that she almost fell off the couch and sprained it again.]

“Fresh!”
Two seasons later, Bart reluctantly signs up for ballet class when there are no other P.E. electives available. He’s not happy about wearing tights or being in a sport “for girls,” but he soon realizes that he has a talent for ballet — and loves it!

“Put on this fuschiatard! You are a fairy.”

Several seasons afterwards, Bart and Milhouse raid his parents’ closet when they have nothing else to do, and when Milhouse suggests they “dress like ladies,” Bart quickly notices that his mother’s dress hides his thighs, and soon they’re jumping on his parents’ bed.

“Sisters doin’ it for themselves!”
Clearly, Bart’s feminine side is more than just a one-episode gag or a prompt for Homer to get over his phobia. It’s a recurring character trait. But what does it mean?
Probably not much when considering the writers’ intents. The writers of The Simpsons are fond of having characters act in unexpected ways, where the punchline is simply the character acting out of character (Nelson loving Andy Williams, Jimbo being a fan of The Joy Luck Club, Ned Flanders having lax beatnik parents). Bart knowing the “ancient art of padding” is funny because we wouldn’t expect him to know about it.
Still, writer intent aside, I love the moments where Bart slips on a pair of heels, dons a dress, or fantasizes about seducing a warden to get Marge out of jail. Even a character who prides himself on being America’s bad boy has a girly side.
———-

Lady T is a writer with two novels, a play, and a collection of comedy sketches in progress. She hopes to one day be published and finish one of her projects (not in that order). You can find more of her writing at www.theresabasile.com.

Bart Simpson’s Feminine Side

Written by Lady T.  

Bart Simpson appreciating some gay culture

In my umpteenth viewing of episodes from season four of The Simpsons, I noticed something that never occurred to me in my first viewings of the show: Bart Simpson has a feminine side.
This shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. An episode in the eighth season, “Homer’s Phobia,” shows Bart becoming appreciative of gay culture (much to Homer’s dismay) after the family befriends a delightful gay man named John. The episode has an important lesson where Homer learns a lesson about acceptance, but Bart’s development isn’t explored in detail, as his appreciation of gay culture is just a catalyst for Homer’s (temporary) growth as a person.
Earlier (and later) episodes, though, show that Bart’s feminine side is more than just a passing trend. It’s a trait that appears sporadically during the series, and is amusing every time.
In “Lisa the Beauty Queen,” Bart shows his little sister how to walk in heels for the competition. When Lisa asks Bart if he really thinks she could win, he strikes a pose and says, “Hey, I’m starting to think I could win!”

Heel, toe, heel, toe…
In “Marge in Chains,” Bart shares his plan to break his mother out of prison: “Don’t worry, Mom. I’ll bust you out of there as soon as I get a cocktail dress and a crowbar.” Then we see Bart’s dream sequence of dancing with the warden, who says, “Oh, Bartina — before I met you, I was a lonely man.”
[True story: I watched that episode with my roommate when she was resting on the couch with a sprained ankle, and she laughed so hard that she almost fell off the couch and sprained it again.]

“Fresh!”
Two seasons later, Bart reluctantly signs up for ballet class when there are no other P.E. electives available. He’s not happy about wearing tights or being in a sport “for girls,” but he soon realizes that he has a talent for ballet — and loves it!

“Put on this fuschiatard! You are a fairy.”

Several seasons afterwards, Bart and Milhouse raid his parents’ closet when they have nothing else to do, and when Milhouse suggests they “dress like ladies,” Bart quickly notices that his mother’s dress hides his thighs, and soon they’re jumping on his parents’ bed.

“Sisters doin’ it for themselves!”
Clearly, Bart’s feminine side is more than just a one-episode gag or a prompt for Homer to get over his phobia. It’s a recurring character trait. But what does it mean?
Probably not much when considering the writers’ intents. The writers of The Simpsons are fond of having characters act in unexpected ways, where the punchline is simply the character acting out of character (Nelson loving Andy Williams, Jimbo being a fan of The Joy Luck Club, Ned Flanders having lax beatnik parents). Bart knowing the “ancient art of padding” is funny because we wouldn’t expect him to know about it.
Still, writer intent aside, I love the moments where Bart slips on a pair of heels, dons a dress, or fantasizes about seducing a warden to get Marge out of jail. Even a character who prides himself on being America’s bad boy has a girly side.
———-

Lady T is an a writer and aspiring comedian with two novels, a play, and a collection of comedy sketches in progress. She hopes to one day be published and finish one of her projects (not in that order). You can find more of her writing at The Funny Feminist, where she picks apart entertainment and reviews movies she hasn’t seen.

Summer Movie Preview

Written by Max Thornton.
Time’s relentless onward march has brought us to the end of April. In just a few days it will be the first weekend in May, which is – in the strange, terrifying minds of Hollywood executives – the first weekend of summer.
Summer movies are an odd and frustrating bunch. I have taken a cursory glance at some of 2013’s biggest, emptiest spectacles and pre-judged them with extreme censure, so you don’t have to.
Iron Man 3 (May 3)
The deal: The first Iron Man was a pleasing diversion for a world with low expectations of a second-tier-superhero film. The second Iron Man was much like the first, but bigger, louder, and overlong. If other superhero trilogies are anything to go by, the third Iron Man will be even bigger, even louder, and – 130 minutes, are you freakin’ kidding me? Why does no one heed Hitchcockian wisdom re: film lengths and bladders?
Likelihood of passing the Bechdel test: 25%. Rebecca Hall has third billing after Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow, but I’ve seen a superhero movie before, and I don’t really expect anyone to talk about anything other than Iron Man.
Likelihood of general intersection!fail: The inestimable Andrew Ti of Yo, Is This Racist? says 100%. Who am I to dissent?
Will I see it?: Eventually, probably on DVD. I don’t care very much about Iron Man, but I am a little stoked to learn it’s directed by Shane Black, writer-director of my beloved Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.
The Great Gatsby (May 10)
The deal: You went to high school. You don’t need me to tell you what The Great Gatsby is about. (But, if you need a refresher, it’s boring and the plot is basically the same as R. Kelly’s Trapped in the Closet.)
Likelihood of passing the Bechdel test: Like no percent, unless they change stuff from the book I guess.
Likelihood of general intersection!fail: 100%. It’s about straight white rich people, like fully all of big Hollywood movies.
Will I see it?: No. I don’t like Gatsby and I don’t like Baz Luhrmann. If you have a different opinion on either or both of these things, you will feel differently.
Star Trek Into Darkness (May 17)
The deal: Much like the first Iron Man, the 2009 Star Trek reboot was a slight popcorn delight for those of us with low expectations; much like Iron Man 2, this latest Trek will probably sink under the weight of current heightened expectations. If nothing else, it’ll be jolly to once again witness Karl Urban channel DeForest Kelley (and cringe at Simon Pegg’s Scottish accent, oy).
Likelihood of passing the Bechdel test: 25% if I’m generous. There are fully two lady-type humans in this movie, and as much as I’d like the writers to overcome the failures of the original series, that’s a lot of failure to overcome.
Likelihood of general intersection!fail: High. See above re: failures of TOS.
Will I see it?: I don’t see how I can possibly avoid it.
Spaceship! *starts salivating*
The Hangover Part III (May 24)
The deal: No.
Likelihood of passing the Bechdel test: 0%.
Likelihood of general intersection!fail: 1000%.
Will I see it?: Oh fuck no.
Man of Steel (June 14)
The deal: Superman is boring and zzzzzzzzz.
Likelihood of passing the Bechdel test: Low.
Likelihood of general intersection!fail: High.
Will I see it?: Yawn.
World War Z (June 21)
The deal: World War Z is probably the greatest zombie novel ever written and you should go out and read it, like, yesterday. I am so over how enormously boring this film adaptation looks, and I mourn for the TV miniseries that was once talked about and would have been a much better way of adapting the sprawling complexities of the book.
Likelihood of passing the Bechdel test: 10%. If Brad Pitt is the core linking the story together, I can’t see much happening without him. Also, I’m very afraid that this movie will do the horrible Walking Dead/ Stephen King / every apocalypse story ever thing of taking the apocalypse as an excuse to revert all of humanity to gross reductive caveman gender roles.
Likelihood of general intersection!fail: 90%. A summer Hollywood blockbuster in which a white dude travels all around the world trying to save it? Racism, xenophobia, and neocolonialist paternalism pretty much guaranteed.
Will I see it?: I expect so, and I expect I’ll hate it.
Seriously, read the book.
Monsters University (June 21)
The deal: While I hear the argument that Pixar needs to take a step back from the sequel-ing and prequel-ing, they had me as soon as this website rocked up months and months ago. And tell me that any TV enthusiast could look at the list of voice talent involved without squeeing: Nathan Fillion! Aubrey Plaza! John Krasinski! Charlie Day! Dave Foley! And that’s just the people who are on TV shows I like!
Likelihood of passing the Bechdel test: 5%. Pixar is awesome at so many things, but representing the non-male demographic is not one of them. I will continue to dream of a scene in which Aubrey Plaza’s character and Helen Mirren’s character hang out and shoot the shit, but I don’t hold out hope.
Likelihood of general intersection!fail: I mean, it’s a movie about monsters? I don’t know to what extent I can really hold it accountable for, say, race!fail.
Will I see it?: HELL YES.
Pacific Rim (July 12)
The deal: I may have mentioned this before, but I am losing my mind over how impossibly amazeballs this movie looks. ROBOTS VS. ALIENS. GUILLERMO DEL TORO. IDRIS ELBA. My fingertips are tingling just typing about it.
Likelihood of passing the Bechdel test: 5%. Women are not so much with the being in this movie.
Likelihood of general intersection!fail: 70%. Rinko Kikuchi is in this movie, and if God loves me she will share scenes with Idris Elba and my eyeballs will burst into flames from so much hotness onscreen at once; but I know better than to expect, say, queers or PwD to be represented meaningfully in mainstream SF.
Will I see it?: HELL EVEN YES-ER.
 
Hee hee

This summer in sum: Not every forthcoming blockbuster looks to be entirely egregious in every respect – some of them I might even enjoy quite a bit – but women are conspicuously, depressingly, appallingly underrepresented in the big popcorn flicks. As usual, Hollywood utterly fails to notice or care that women comprise half the human race, and we’ll have to look to smaller and independent cinema for acknowledgment of that basic, yet still somehow controversial, fact.
———-

Max Thornton blogs at GayChristian Geek, tumbles as transsubstantial, and is slowly learning to twitter at @RainicornMax.

 

Mara Adina on Producing Indie Flick ‘Chuck Norris vs. Communism’

Chuck Norris vs Communism
This is a guest post written by Mara Adina, producer of Chuck Norris vs Communism.
I started my career in film in the Middle East as after university I moved to Kuwait where I worked at the national television (KTV).
I spent the majority of the first month working there trying to find ways for the all-men crew that worked with me to acknowledge my existence, and not just turn their backs when I spoke and then to get them to listen to what I had to say.
I struggled with finding ways to keep hold of my feminine identity and not succumb to the pressure of becoming “one of the guys” in order to be listened to.
On my return to the UK, I look back to what I thought were very extreme circumstances and realise that they are actually a reality here as well. We all know it’s difficult to be taken seriously as a woman in film and broadcasting – but if you add to that a pair of heels and red lipstick, things become even more tricky.
Today, I run my own company and I am one of the few who is trying to break through the bleak statistics of female producers in the industry.

Mara Adina, producer of Chuck Norris vs. Communism
I am currently producing my sister’s feature documentary, Chuck Norris vs Communism, and we are both so proud to tell the world the story of a very strong and brave woman.
Irina Nistor was one of the only female film translators to work in the Eastern Bloc during the 1980s. She dubbed over 5,000 Western blockbusters that entered Romania illegally during communism. Their rapid spread of the VHS tapes across the country turned Irina’s voice into a symbol of freedom and allowed a whole country to subvert a brutal regime. Here is our trailer:
We fell in love with the story and every bit of the journey of making this film has been incredible. We don’t just want to make this film through conventional avenues, we want to fund it by gathering the support of those to whom the story speaks, inspires and empowers.
We want to build a community around it and bring this film and Irina’s story to you, who are also striving to break through the statistics.
So we have launched a crowdfunding campaign for the film where like minded people can join the crew and help tell this story through contributions as small as $10. Please have a look at our campaign and help however you can.
Screen shot from Chuck Norris vs. Communism
The fundraising campaign for Chuck Norris vs Communism is live until this Thursday (May 2).
Produced by Vernon Films in co production with Kloos & Co in Germany, 4Proof Film in Romania and WMM in North America.
Chuck Norris vs Communism tells the story of the transformation of a nation through a seemingly small act of resistance. In the 1980s, Ceausescu’s Romania became the most Stalinist regime of the Soviet bloc.
At the same time, hidden from the scrutinising eyes of the Secret Police, Irina Nistor dubbed over 5,000 foreign blockbusters that entered Romania illegally.
They turned Irina’s voice into a symbol of freedom, Chuck Norris, Van Damme and Bruce Lee into national heroes and allowed a whole country to subvert a brutal regime.
The filmmakers have been working on the project for the past year and a half, shoot for three months and are now in a critical phase of post production. 
The film is nearly complete but they need you to get over the finishing line! So, they have set up a campaign page where you can make pledges and become a part of this film. 
Follow this LINK for the crowdfunding page where you will find an array of exciting rewards including the chance to become an animated character in the film!
For more information go to: 

Bitch Flicks’ Weekly Picks

TIME Unveils 2013 Most Influential People in the World by Kerensa Cadenas via Women and Hollywood
Will ‘Mad Men’ Ever Be as Good On Race as It Is On Gender? by Eleanor Barkhorn, Ashley Fetters and Amy Sullivan via The Atlantic
Stop Saying that Men Don’t Read Women by Ester Bloom via Slate’s Double X
A Night with Barbra Streisand by Melissa Silverstein via Women and Hollywood
Infographic: Where are the Women Directors? by Kerensa Cadenas via Women and Hollywood
What have you been reading and/or writing this week?? Tell us in the comments!

The Ten Most-Read Posts from March 2013

Did you miss these popular posts on Bitch Flicks? If so, here’s your chance to catch up. 


“Stoker: The Creepiest Coming-of-Age Tale I’ve Ever Seen” by Stephanie Rogers

“Shut Up and Sing: The Dixie Chicks Controversy Ten Years Later” by Kerri French

“Clueless: Way Existential” by Robin Hitchcock

“Female Empowerment, a Critique of Patriarchy … Is Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon the Most Feminist Action Film Ever?” by Megan Kearns

“Gigli and the Male Fantasy of the Lesbian Turned Straight” by Amanda Rodriguez

“So, Is There Racial Bias on The Good Wife?” by Melanie Wanga

“Oz the Great and Powerful Rekindles the Notion That Women Are Wicked” by Natalie Wilson

“Red, Blue, and Giallo: Dario Argento’s Suspiria“ by Max Thornton

“Feminist Blogger Twisty Faster and Advanced Patriarchy Blaming” by Amanda Rodriguez

“Sexism in Three of Bollywood’s Most Popular Films” by Katherine Filaseta

Roundup: Infertility, Miscarriage, and Infant Loss in Film and TV Week

Children of Men (2006)

The “Plague” of Infertility in Alfonso Cuarón’s Children of Men by Carleen Tibbetts

Women can’t get pregnant anymore and nobody knows why. This the central lamentation in Alfonso Cuaron’s 2006 dystopian film Children of Men, based on P.D. James’s novel. Set in England in the year 2027, this is the story of the human race entering its final phase. Cuaron brings us into Orwellian territory in which nations worldwide have fallen as a result of war, disease, and famine. Britain remains a sort of lucrative last bastion in these end times and people across the globe are scrambling to get in.

 Sarah from Inside (2007)

Inside: French Pregnant Body Horror at Its Finest by Deirdre Crimmins

Horror films have a unique way of showcasing exactly what we fear, but they often do so in a subtle way. While is it goes without saying that ax-wielding maniacs are to be feared, these films often slyly expose the issues that our society is too shy to deal with head on. In the 2007 French horror film Inside (directed by Alexandre Bustillo and Julien Maury), fertility, reproduction, and infant loss are dealt with in a refreshingly direct and uncompromisingly bloody outcome, with no room for subtlety.

Robin in How I Met Your Mother

How I Met Your Mother: One of the Few TV Shows to Explore a Childfree Life for Women by Megan Kearns

HIMYM suffers many gender problems. Yes, it infuriated me Lily received so much backlash when she went to LA to pursue her dream of an art career. Almost everything Barney says or does – his sexist stereotypes, objectification of women, and fat-shaming – pisses me off. And yes, it bugs me that Robin’s unconventional female personality of Scotch drinking, hockey loving, cigar smoking and gun ownership has been pinned on her father raising her as a boy…even going so far as to name her Robin Charles Scherbatsky, Jr. But the show hasn’t fallen into the sexist trap that a woman isn’t a “real” woman without a baby.

Buffy comics, Season 9

Buffy Season 9: Sci-Fi Pregnancies and the Story that Almost Was by Pauline Holdsworth

Nikki Wood—New York punk slayer and the mother of ex-Sunnydale High principal Robin Wood—had been absent from the Buffyverse for a long time. So it’s a bit of a surprise when she shows up in the opening scenes of “On Your Own,” the second volume of the Season 9 Buffy the Vampire Slayer comic books. She’s being held off the edge of a tall building by the throat, pumped full of sedatives that have taken away her powers for a Council-mandated rite of passage. She’s pregnant.

Peekaboo: Still born. Still loved

Stillbirth. Still Ignored by Debbie Howard [Trigger Warning]

I completed my short drama Peekaboo nearly two years ago, but I started writing it about three years before that. I had two friends who had experienced baby loss, one to miscarriage and one who had given her baby up for adoption. I had a dream one night that merged these two stories together; this was the beginning of Peekaboo, which is about a couple who has lost three babies to stillbirth. I wrote a first draft of the script then started researching in great detail as I developed the script. I was shocked to discover that hardly anything had been made about this subject before.
Tell Me You Love Me (2007)

Infertility and Miscarriage in HBO’s Tell Me You Love Me by Stephanie Rogers

Perhaps what I found interesting, and even important, especially as a woman starting to understand how feminism fit into my life in a practical way, were the gender dynamics at play in Palek and Carolyn’s pregnancy struggles. Throughout the ten-episode arc, Carolyn basically treats Palek as a sperm donor, and his complaints about the lack of intimacy in their relationship stem from that—he wants feeling and emotion attached to making love with his wife; yet Carolyn sees that as unimportant, often demanding that he provide her with sex whenever she asks for it.

Kee, played by Clare-Hope Ashitey

The Exploitation of Women in Alfonso Cuarón’s Children of Men by Amanda Rodriguez

Children of Men‘s depiction of women as props, tools, symbols, or cardboard underscores the notion that women’s true purpose is reproduction, and when women can’t reproduce, they’re not only useless, but society itself collapses under the burden of their neglect of duty. Despite many of the intriguing themes this film explores (including a scathing denouncement of the treatment of immigrants), Children of Men ends up falling in line with its mainstream contemporaries to assert that women are merely bodies, that a woman’s value lies in her ability to reproduce, and that she has and should have no control over that body or that ability to reproduce.

Jennifer Garner as Vanessa Loring in Juno

Vanessa Loring: Pathetic or Plausible? A Matter of Perception by Talia Liben Yarmush

What really hit me was Jennifer Garner’s character, Vanessa. In past viewings of the movie, the hopeful adoptive mother seemed somewhat desperate. Her overly enthusiastic smile. The fact that Juno’s snarky remarks would fly past her with barely any recognition. Her obsessive questioning and controlling perfectionism. When saying goodbye after meeting for the first time, Vanessa asks Juno how likely she is to go through with the adoption, and Juno says, nonchalantly, that she is going to do it. “How sure would you say you are? Like, would you say you’re 80% sure, or 90% sure?” Vanessa pushes. She was more than desperate, really. She was pathetic. She seemed to be written for the purpose of added comic relief. But as my friends laughed at her on screen, I felt sad, and angry.

We Want a Child (1949)

The Power of Portrayal: Infertility, Reproductive Choice and Reproduction in We Want a Child by Leigh Kolb

The frank discussion about infertility, abortion, prenatal care and adoption make this film noteworthy. It feels quite remarkable to watch characters discuss the range of emotions surrounding these subjects. The film isn’t a masterpiece, and it moves quickly and relies on some common tropes surrounding the topic of infertility and adoption, but some of the dialogue is striking in its honesty and timelessness.

Ronnie from Eastenders

The Characterization of Bereaved Mothers: Are We Getting It Right? by Angela Smith

Ironically, script submissions are often invited by TV and film producers with the emphasis on creating strong female characters. However, soap writers seem all too eager to completely and utterly smash these women down to the point of no return. It’s one thing to cleverly show different sides to their personality, but to completely destroy a useful and inspirational character is unnecessary and sadistic.

Yerma (1999)

Yerma: The Pain, Heartbreak and Destruction of Infertility and Patriarchy by Leigh Kolb

Yerma’s words about the deep, miserable feelings surrounding infertility are poignant and heartbreakingly accurate. While much is going on in this film worth discussing–the patriarchal culture that arranges marriages and ties a woman’s worth solely to her ability to have children, obviously, and the immediate blame of the woman when a couple can’t conceive–Yerma’s struggle with infertility is one of the most accurate portrayals of that grief that I’ve ever seen.

A mother makes a difference.

How a Flatliners Ad During a Movie Showing Made This Woman Walk Out by Pandora Diane MacMillan

I think this was one of the very first film showings that included a special, movie-only commercial meant to promote a new line of Levi’s jeans. The new line was apparently to be called “Flatliners,” yes, a promotional tie-in with that film, with the association that Flatliner Jeans would make the wearer look slim and “flat.” They also apparently thought it would be cute, hip, and hilarious to display the young male wearer of said jeans as DEAD and FLATLINED and to have someone jumpstart the person’s heart with defibrillators(!).

Days of Our Lives

Days of Our Lives: Punishing Nicole’s Fetus by Janyce Denise Glasper

Days of Our Lives writers appeared to be Nicole’s biggest adversaries, judgmentally weaving a “how can we top that last terrible heartbreak for this evil woman who committed paltry crimes at best?” Horrific enough that she went through the tragedy of losing a baby once, but to push her into repeating that trauma in an astonishingly grotesque manner seemed much uncalled for and heinous. They made an example of out this Mary Magdalene pariah, promising miraculous motherhood twice and ripping it from her grasp, a condemnation for her tumultuously stormy past.

Away We Go (2009)

Away We Go: Infertility and the Indie Film by LD Anderson

I found Tom and Munch to be hurtful caricatures of infertile couples. I understand that the desire to have children of one’s own loins is very natural, and that the inability to do so can be extremely painful. However, I would dare say that society’s insistence on considering adoption second-rate, and its complete failure to recognize childless couples as families, makes it far more painful than it has to be.

I can tell you that the first theme, miscarriage, is shown in only seconds, and it is a scene that will remain with you throughout the entire film. In thirty seconds, this animated family film is able to portray the loss in such a visceral way that even if you have never had an experience like it, you will be brought to tears. And I can tell you that the second theme, living childfree, is complicated and filled with mixed emotions.

“You are not alone in this.”

Empty Wombs and Blank Screens: The Absence of Infertility and Pregnancy Loss in Media by Leigh Kolb

I try to rationalize why portrayals of infertility and pregnancy loss are so rare. Where is the action, a scriptwriting professor scribbled in my margins when I had too much internal dialogue or a conversation between female friends. There’s not much action in infertility. The struggle is literally and figuratively inside. 
But then I realize I’m just making excuses for Hollywood. Infertility and pregnancy loss are rich with story-line possibilities. The very nature of these tragedies is in lock-step with literary conflicts and archetypes. (Wo)man vs. self? Check. (Wo)man vs. nature? Check. Journey/quest? Check. Unhealable wound? Check.
But now that she has lost her son, Daenerys decides she will take the Iron Throne herself and rule the Seven Kingdoms. Now that all the men in her life – her husband, son and brother – have died, she now claims the throne for her own. Dany becomes the metaphorical phoenix rising from the ashes, purging the last vestiges of her former timid self to transition into her life as a powerful leader…The Mother of Dragons cares for the dragons as if they were her own babies…Yet it is the loss of her son that enables Daenerys to envision herself in the role of leader. No longer is she supporting a man to be a great leader. She has become that leader.

Previously appeared at Bitch Flicks:
Feminist Flashback: Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? by Megan Kearns (first published on June 14, 2011)
Movie Review: Baby Mama by Amber Leab (first published on October 23, 2008)

Reproduction & Abortion Week: Mother and Child by Candice Frederick (first published on April 25, 2012)

What to Expect When You’re Expecting: Unexpected Gem by Robin Hitchcock (first published on October 12, 2012)