Tag: Cultural Commentary

‘The Moon Inside You’: A Bloody Good Documentary

Menstrual studies is a discipline very close to my heart. While earning my master’s degree, I temporarily became obsessed with texts like ‘Periods in Pop Culture’ (Lauren Rosewarne, 2012) and ‘Flow’ (Elissa Stein and Susan Kim, 2010) as I composed my thesis. I was blessed with a supportive advisor who made me realize that those who shot me disgusted looks in the past were in fact the weird, misinformed ones. I find it perplexing that so many have capitalized on menstruation, yet many are still terrified of discussing it in any form or on any platform. Menstruation is uniquely female and yet suggestive of violence, sacrifice, and trauma: that’s compelling. The menstrual cycle reminds us all of our own mortality, the devastating truth that our bodies will eventually decompose or burn into ashes, and that’s terrifying for many people. Why has the “fairer sex” been assigned this burden?

Written by Jenny Lapekas.

Menstrual studies is a discipline very close to my heart.  While earning my master’s degree, I temporarily became obsessed with texts like Periods in Pop Culture (Lauren Rosewarne, 2012) and Flow (Elissa Stein and Susan Kim, 2010) as I composed my thesis.  I was blessed with a supportive advisor who made me realize that those who shot me disgusted looks in the past were in fact the weird, misinformed ones.  I find it perplexing that so many have capitalized on menstruation, yet many are still terrified of discussing it in any form or on any platform.  Menstruation is uniquely female and yet suggestive of violence, sacrifice, and trauma:  that’s compelling.  The menstrual cycle reminds us all of our own mortality, the devastating truth that our bodies will eventually decompose or burn into ashes, and that’s terrifying for many people.  Why has the “fairer sex” been assigned this burden?

The Moon Inside You (2009) is a documentary film written and directed by Diana Fabiánová.  I bought this film last summer at a conference organized by the Society for Menstrual Cycle Research, and I’ve waited far too long to watch it and offer my two cents.  The film contains English subtitles and also features interviews in French, Slovak, Portuguese, and Spanish.  When I briefly met Diana, I noted that she was very tall, very beautiful, and very accommodating to my questions about her film.

Diana opens her film by interviewing random men on the street so that we can witness their immediate discomfort at the mere mention of the word “menstruation.”  Some men actually walk away; clearly, for many men, menstruation simply isn’t real.  We are in Bratislava where we watch Diana visit the gynecologist, as she tells us that her menstrual cycle has caused her nothing but pain and annoyance for years.  “Being a woman was like punishment for a crime I didn’t commit,” she tells us.  She also explains that she doesn’t prefer to medicate herself, but rather to discover the source of her painful symptoms and put an end to them.  This introduction helps viewers to sympathize with those who experience painful periods that prevent them from attending school and work, and even cause some women to resent everyday life with a uterus.

 

Diana gives us a nice view at the doctor's office.
Diana gives us a nice view at the doctor’s office.

 

Diana speaks to a group of girls at her old school, who explain that boys “have it easier.”  This is a useful place to begin, given that our attitudes toward menstruation are shaped from girlhood, and are typically negative.  Diana gives one girl a camera to record her “pre-menstrual” experiences.  Dominika tells us that a few girls in her class have already hit menarche, but there may be more who “haven’t confessed,” as if it truly is a crime to be a woman, as our narrator tells us.  Diana explains that she wants Dominika’s transition into menstruation to be more pleasant than her own was, and I find myself wishing the very same for this lovely young girl.  Toward the end of the film, via her video diary, we’re glad to hear that Dominika has in fact made a relatively painless transition into the world of menstruation.

 

Even the most "anti-menstrual" women will find themselves rooting for the adorable Dominika to get her first period.
Even the most “anti-menstrual” women will find themselves rooting for the adorable Dominika to get her first period.

 

After tackling some myths surrounding menstruation (such as the idea that menstruating women are capable of killing infants by merely holding them), Diana heads west to speak to academics and other knowledgeable Americans at prestigious universities such as Harvard.  Well-known menstrual scholar and author of The Curse (2000), Karen Houppert is interviewed.  Houppert touches on the terrifying impact menstruation as a taboo has on young girls and also summarizes how and why menstruation played a role in shaping America’s workforce and women’s placement in both the workplace and at home.  Martha McClintock, Professor of Psychology at the University of Chicago even explains that if we observe and study the moods of men, their moods are just as erratic as women’s; however, women are at an advantage since we can actually predict how we will likely feel at a given time of the month.  While this can and should be read as a sophisticated or evolved trait, women are still stigmatized as hormonal and irrational, especially when experiencing PMS.  The fact is that our bodies are wiser than us, and we must listen to our own.  If we feel that our stress is unbearable, it may be an indication that we must retreat and care for ourselves until we are prepared to tend to the needs of others.

 

Diana interviews a group of boys as well, who tell us that women can’t have sex while menstruating because “it gets in the man’s way.”
Diana interviews a group of boys as well, who tell us that women can’t have sex while menstruating because “it gets in the man’s way.”

 

I found it moving to watch a group of women that Diana gathers to participate in an experimental belly-dancing class.  These strangers sit together to share their personal stories of pain and distress related to their cycles and then dance as a group before a large mirror.  The preconception that only young girls on the verge of menarche or new to its inconveniences gather in such a setting is misguided; fully developed women with children and years of experience menstruating can offer one another comfort and solidarity in a safe environment such as this one.

Chris Knight, another well-known scholar to academics and menstrual enthusiasts, author of Blood Relations (1995), tells us, “The most ancient thing is to keep women from knowing about their own power.”  If menstrual blood is a source of power–and I believe it is–then why has our culture gone to such great lengths to conceal this source of power to make us believe that the menstrual cycle is shameful?  In The Vagina Monologues (2007), Eve Ensler shares that she is worried about vaginas, and I think several more of us are worried not about menstruation but how women define themselves by its aura of culpability and self-condemnation.

 

Interspersed throughout the documentary, between Diana’s commentary and interviews, are fun animations of eggs making their way through the fallopian tubes. These brief clips offer a whimsical retreat from the tension felt within much of the film.
Interspersed throughout the documentary are fun animations of eggs making their way through the fallopian tubes, brief clips that offer a whimsical retreat from the tension felt within much of the film.

 

Reminiscent of Gloria Steinem’s famous essay “If Men Could Menstruate,” Diana asks men on the street if they would try menstruating if they could.  While most men say no (and one even suggests that it’s not “cool” to bleed from your vagina), one man claims that he’d like to menstruate so he can finally understand what women experience.

 

We seem to have a social contract that our menstrual blood remains secret and concealed when in public...or anywhere, really.
We seem to have a social contract that our menstrual blood remain secret and concealed when in public…or anywhere, really.

 

Diana touches on the commodification of our cycles with the help of the birth control pill, acknowledging companies like Tampax that capitalize on the shame that pervades our media messages, and the onslaught of rhetoric that suggests women are somehow biologically flawed by this internal feminine clock that is ever-ticking.

We meet the inventor of the contraceptive implant, who tells Diana that menstruation is not “normal” or “natural,” that the scent of blood is “the scent of death,” and that menstruation is essentially a type of abortion or miscarriage.  He believes that once young girls reach menarche, they should experience menstruation once and then immediately prevent ovulation using an implant, since an ovulation that doesn’t result in conception is “useless.”  The dangerous and dogmatic recommendations we hear from the “good doctor” should remind us that he’s nothing more than a mechanic who has never owned a car.

 

A taboo image, the depiction of shit would likely be deemed more acceptable by most people.
A taboo image, the depiction of shit would likely be deemed more acceptable by most people.

 

Penelope Shuttle, co-author of The Wise Wound (2005), counters this by gracefully explaining, “The thing that’s being given birth to is a new you.  You’re giving birth to yourself.”  Contrary to what our male doctor claims, the uterus is a place of origins, not death; this doesn’t mean we should all feel inclined to belly-dance like Diana or participate in a drum circle, but it is certainly beneficial to recognize our own sacredness in our blood and to recognize this same light in the women around us.

 

Women are pressured to be kind and patient during times of hormonal imbalance, although some women experience debilitating pain that prevents them from being productive.
Women are pressured to be kind and patient during times of hormonal imbalance, although some women experience debilitating pain that prevents them from being productive.

 

The Moon Inside You is an honest glimpse into how we frame menstruation around the world and how we situate ourselves within its contradictory rhetoric.  The destigmatization of menstruation should address the contradictory assessments we make of its appearance as girls and women work to untangle the prescriptive web woven by one-dimensional media, good old patriarchal conventions, and the people we may know who oppress women by regurgitating these haphazard messages of shame and body horror.  Young girls can be proud and delighted to reach menarche, just like I was, yet we’re told to bite our tongues as we grow into young women.  As Inga Muscio, author of Cunt (2002) explains, “How many bloody mysteries and future generations are hiding up there, somewhere?”

Recommended reading:  seeing red project, Adventures in Menstruating

________________________________

Jenny has a Master of Arts degree in English, and she is a part-time instructor at Alvernia University.  Her areas of scholarship include women’s literature, menstrual literacy, and rape-revenge cinema.  You can find her on WordPress and Pinterest.

What Shakespeare Can Teach Us About Rape Culture

When Shakespeare wrote Titus Andronicus and The Rape of Lucrece in the late 1500s, women were quite literally the property of men (their fathers, then their husbands). The rape culture that plagues us in 2013 was essentially the same, although laws of coverture have dissolved and women are no longer legally property.

And Shakespeare understood the horror of rape. Shakespeare–more than 400 years ago–seemed to understand that patriarchy hurts women. Patriarchy kills women.

Patriarchy is rape culture.

Do not draw back, for we will mourn with thee 

O, could our mourning ease thy misery! (2.4.56-57)

 

Shakespeare's depictions of rape are too familiar today.
Shakespeare’s depictions of rape are too familiar today. However, his messages about patriarchy and rape aren’t familiar enough.

 

Written by Leigh Kolb

When a story about a girl who was raped and subsequently shunned and blamed breaks, I’m no longer surprised. It’s familiar. Townspeople gathering behind the rapists–just like in Steubenville–seems like the natural course of things in our toxic rape culture. She shouldn’t have been so drunk. She couldn’t say no. These boys are promising young athletes. 

The rapists in Julie Taymor's Titus--Demetrius and Chiron--are wild young men obsessed with violence and video games.
The rapists in Julie Taymor’s Titus–Demetrius and Chiron–are wild young men obsessed with violence, depraved sexuality and video games.

 

When Shakespeare wrote Titus Andronicus and The Rape of Lucrece in the late 1500s, women were quite literally the property of men (their fathers, then their husbands). The rape culture that plagues us in 2013 was essentially the same, although laws of coverture have dissolved and women are no longer legally property.

And Shakespeare understood the horror of rape. Shakespeare–more than 400 years ago–seemed to understand that patriarchy hurts women. Patriarchy kills women.

Patriarchy is rape culture.

Last week, I read about the Maryville case with the familiar dread that accompanies these too-frequent stories. When it happens in my state in a town that looks like mine, it’s even closer. But I’m never surprised.

As I was watching Titus with my Shakespeare class, I readied myself for the rape scene (which Julie Taymor handles brilliantly). When Lavinia’s uncle, Marcus, finds her brutalized, he delivers a long monologue, mourning the sexual violence that she has gone through.

 

Lavinia is raped and mutilated.
Lavinia is raped and mutilated.

 

At the end of the monologue, he says as she turns away,

 “Do not draw back, for we will mourn with thee

O, could our mourning ease thy misery!” (2.4.56-57)

It took my breath away like it hadn’t before, and I checked the text to read the exact quote. I paused the film and asked my students if they’d heard of the Maryville case (in which the victim and her family were basically chased out of town after the case against the perpetrators was dropped). They hadn’t. I explained, and re-read the final couplet of Marcus’s monologue.

Is this how we respond to women who are raped in our culture?

No.

What if we did? What if we rallied behind not the rapists, but the one who was raped? What if we never said, “I am not saying she deserved to be raped, but…“

What if all of this happened immediately and swiftly in our own communities, and not after a case gets national attention?

In Shakespeare’s texts, it’s clear that the rapists are sub-human and villainous. Even when rape isn’t part of the plot, he shows the figurative and literal violence of patriarchy.

Hermia’s father is willing to kill her if she doesn’t marry who he wants her to marry in A Midsummer Night’s Dream. (“I would my father look’d but with my eyes,” she says.)

Hamlet‘s Ophelia commits suicide when she descends into madness being pushed and pulled by patriarchal pressures. (She says to her brother after he advises her to be chaste and virtuous, “Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, / Show me the steep and thorny way to heaven; / Whiles, like a puff’d and reckless libertine, / Himself the primrose path of dalliance treads, / And recks not his own rede.”)

Emilia’s views on the patriarchal constraints of marriage and sexuality in Othello seem radical today.

Shakespeare understood.

Why can’t we?

In Titus Andronicus, Lavinia is brutally raped and disfigured (including having her tongue cut out so she couldn’t speak). This nod to Philomela in Ovid’s Metamorphoses echoes the themes of the brutality of rape and the need for revenge. The women needed to name their rapists and share their stories (Lavinia writes in the sand; Philomela weaves a tapestry that tells her story). The women have as much power as they can in the confines of their society, and we the audience are meant to want justice and revenge.

 

Lavinia writes the rapists' names in the sand. The men surrounding her are not unlike Anonymous in the Maryville case.
Lavinia writes the rapists’ names in the sand. The men surrounding her are not unlike Anonymous in the Maryville case.

 

Shakespeare’s epic poem The Rape of Lucrece also follows a young woman who is raped and seeks revenge (although her speech is left intact).

While the death of the women at the end of the plays seems problematic to 21st-century feminists, we must remember that in Shakespeare’s Roman fictions, self-sacrifice or honor killing was honorable and dignified, thus leaving the women with as satisfying an end as they could hope for. There are cultural differences, of course, but the anti-rape and anti-misogyny messages in these centuries-old texts are gripping.

In these texts, the following messages are clear:

• Rapists are depraved misogynists who want some kind of power.

•  Silencing of women is evil.

• Women aren’t always allies (see: Tamora, who mothers and encourages Rape and Murder) .

• Retribution is necessary for justice.

Four-hundred years later, we still can’t seem to grasp these realities.

We look to media for social norms and values. If we see objectification of women on screen, we can clearly see the if this objectification has deeper feminist implications if we are supposed to villainize the objectifiers. (This is, incidentally, why the sexism in The Big Bang Theory makes my skin crawl and Sons of Anarchy–in all of its vengeful Shakespearian glory–is one of my favorite shows.) Shakespeare’s women–who are victims of violent patriarchies–are the ones the audience is supposed to sympathize with. The tragedy of these tragedies is that this patriarchal social order creates hell on earth for many women.

At the beginning of Titus, Lavinia pours a vial of her tears in her father’s honor as he returns home from war. She mourns and rejoices with him and is able to express her emotions surrounding his losses and his victories.

Mourning with him comes naturally. It’s what we expect when men encounter battles.

And just as Marcus says that they must mourn with Lavinia, she must not withdraw, we need to learn to mourn with those who rape culture affects so deeply.

In 2013:

• Rapists are still misogynists who do not want sex, but want power.

• Women are still silenced. (And when they speak out, it is not without consequences.)

• Women still aren’t always allies.

• Retribution is still necessary, although we must fight to see it happen (and rely on online hackers and internet outrage to open up cases). Far too often we must wait for justice, if it ever comes.

When we can look to fiction from centuries ago and see common and familiar–almost radical–representations of the violent outcomes of restrictive patriarchies, we are doing something wrong.

Because the masses still don’t seem to understand that patriarchy hurts women. Patriarchy kills women.

Patriarchy is rape culture.

__________________________________________________________


Leigh Kolb is a composition, literature and journalism instructor at a community college in rural Missouri. 

 

Miley Cyrus Has America’s Sex Drive By The Balls

But what I do want to talk about is the conversation that has swirled around young Cyrus ever since the ill-fated twerking incident at the VMA’s, and her subsequent music video of her naked on a wrecking ball. Everyone has slut-shamed Miley Cyrus. They’ve wagged their fingers at her dance moves, her tongue, her hair-cut, her entire demeanor, her (unsurprising) change from Disney star to adult, her drug-use, and the fact that she’s just “not a role model for young girls.”

Because apparently America thinks, as it has for the past, I dunno, forever, that female sexuality is “icky.”

Written By Rachel Redfern

Miley and the tongue
Miley and the tongue

Over the weekend you might have noticed the Sinead O’Connor and Miley Cyrus kerfuffle that happened on the internet. The whole thing started when Miley Cyrus states that the Irish singer was one of her idols; a little while later, O’Connor posted this public letter to Cyrus, “advising” her; though really, her advice sounded a lot like condescending, passive-aggressive slut-shaming. So Cyrus then acted out an immature and hurtful scene on twitter by referencing O’Connor’s personal struggle with mental and emotional health. Sinead then descended to the 20-year-old pop star’s level and posted an irate tirade on facebook, cussing out the young singer and just plain-old aggressively calling her a “prostitute.”

The whole thing is horrible and ridiculous and both have acted badly and today, I’m not here to defend or support either of them.

But what I do want to talk about is the conversation that has swirled around young Cyrus ever since the ill-fated twerking incident at the VMA’s, and her subsequent music video of her naked on a wrecking ball. Everyone has slut-shamed Miley Cyrus. They’ve wagged their fingers at her dance moves, her tongue, her hair-cut, her entire demeanor, her (unsurprising) change from Disney star to adult, her drug-use, and the fact that she’s just “not a role model for young girls.”

Because apparently America thinks, as it has for the past, I dunno, forever, that female sexuality is “icky.”

News flash: she’s a POP SINGER. Like Madonna, Cyndi Lauper, Britney Spears, Christina Aquilera, Nicki Minaj, Rihanna, Lady Gaga, and virtually EVER OTHER FEMALE POP STAR OF THE PAST 40 YEARS.

And of course the real issue here isn’t that each of these women has had a bout with a dirty dance move and a lot of flesh showing on camera, but rather, that they dared to do it and not feel ashamed. That they dared to do it and own it as a part of who they were, a part of their own sexuality. Because this is what people are really scared of, they’re scared of women’s sexuality just like they always have been. If Miley takes her clothes off and grinds on a wrecking ball in front of their little girl, then someday, their little girl, or little girlfriend, or little wife, might do they same.

You know what world. They are. And some are going to like it.

But I know what you’re thinking, “How dare they like it?!” “There will be no liking of sex!” “Good girls don’t like sex.”

Scary thing about all this? Sometimes, BOYS DO IT TOO! Only nobody really cares if boys do it because they’re uncontrollable sex maniacs anyways, amiright?

And the big thing is, pop singers have been doing this for a long time, to generate controversy, get attention, and sell albums.

Welcome to showbiz, baby.

And you know what, someday, maybe Miley Cyrus will look back on all this and regret it. But maybe she won’t. Maybe she’ll be a sex-icon like Madonna for the rest of her life and make millions of dollars and be perfectly happy.

Now, I applaud O’Connor for pointing out the insidious nature of much of the music business executives and the way that they are using the female stars in their contracts. However, it’s possible that Cyrus, who literally grew up in the music industry, is also a market-savvy pop princess entirely aware of the best way to keep herself current and in demand: controversy.

And since she’s embraced her rebel idol status with a rockin’ hair cut and intense tongue use, part of that is expressing an overt, in-your-face sexuality with stunning confidence.

For some reason, America (and much of the world), fears that deep V between a women’s legs and the fact that we like having access to it. For some reason, it’s incomprehensible that some women might enjoy taking off her clothes and feeling the thrill of voyeurism.  Some women, just like some men, love excess and attention and the body is a powerful way to get those things

As media reviewers who pay a lot of attention to female interaction with the media, we often complain the inappropriate sexual exploitation of women, specifically when that happens with the goal of a directed male gaze.  For example, these stupid superhero posters with ridiculously designed uber-feminine poses.

The way women really stand
The way women really stand.

But female sexuality that aggressively maintains control over what it wants and how it chooses to be presented? Well, I can get behind that because it’s her choice.

We also complain when that sexuality is lacking in substance and obviously operating off of a limiting standard of female beauty. As an image think of Megax Fox straddling a motorcycle in booty shorts for no other reason than Michael Bay wanted her to.

How Megan Fox looks when her car breaks down
How Megan Fox looks when her car breaks down.

But super spiky bleach blond hair whilst wearing tennis shoes and a bear-studded leotard? Sure, whatever.

Amanda Palmer, that brilliant musician and feminist extraordinaire, once got fully nude at a concert FILLED with people in a fierce reclaiming of her own body after a snarky post by the Daily Mail. Nudity and sexiness won that day. She’s also written her own letter to Cyrus and its awesome.

Lady Gaga, (Funny feminist Caitlin Moran once wrote in stellar praise of the pop singer), who I’ve seen more times without clothes than I have with, is considered an eccentric purveyor of the avant-garde and hyper-camp. And while she’s occasionally controversial, no one is writing her open letters demanding that she put some clothes back and stop gyrating.

It’s because of age. As always, Miley’s coming out into the realm of the adult, from a coveted child star’s position, means that she must always be sweet and funny and America’s girl-next-door.

But here’s the thing, she is America’s girl next door. At least some of them. She’s experimenting and projecting herself, just do it in a far more public one than your average 21-year-old. And making a lot more money.

Miley Cyrus and the infamous bears
Miley Cyrus and the infamous bears.

So America, get over yourself and your Victorian, false-nostalgia ideas about what a women’s libido is really like. Cause you’re babbling and my vagina and I have better things to with our time.

 

Anna Gunn Breaks the Fourth Wall in a ‘New York Times’ Op/Ed

Skyler White (Anna Gunn) sheds a light on our society’s misogyny.
It isn’t rare to see an actor or actress to take to the op/ed pages to pen support or disdain for political issues and candidates or to come forward with personal stories to enlighten and advocate. The actor or actress, however, typically speaks as an individual, removed from his or her fictional life. 
However, Anna Gunn (Skyler White on Breaking Bad) took to The New York Times opinion page to tackle an issue that brings the fictional world that Skyler inhabits into Gunn’s personal world. She weaves in the cultural causes and implications of the vitriol directed at Skyler’s character, at Gunn herself, and at certain kinds of women in our society.
In the beautifully written and poignant “I Have a Character Issue,” she describes how she expected, and even understood, that her character was not going to be well-loved at first. After all, she is Walt’s antagonist, and Walt is the protagonist–the greedy, depraved, meticulously drawn anti-hero.
In her analysis of the horrible response Skyler received from Breaking Bad fans (including Facebook pages that we’ve written about at length), Gunn briefly touches upon her fulfillment in playing the role, and her fear for her own safety when online threats and death wishes devolved from using Skyler’s name to actually singling out Anna Gunn–the real person, not the character she played. Her focus, however, is that this response to Skyler is part of a much larger problem in our culture.
Gunn writes,

“My character, to judge from the popularity of Web sites and Facebook pages devoted to hating her, has become a flash point for many people’s feelings about strong, nonsubmissive, ill-treated women.”

And with that, she nails it. Feminists have spent a great deal of time suggesting that the hatred of Skyler White (and other notable anti-heros’ wives) is rooted in misogyny. Vince Gilligan, the show’s creator and writer, acknowledged this in a Vulture interview last May. He said,

“…I think the people who have these issues with the wives being too bitchy on Breaking Bad are misogynists, plain and simple.”

For those of us who already knew that, this was a refreshing sound byte. However, there is much more to audiences’ reactions to Skyler, and Gunn’s piece takes that simple reflection on misogyny and unpacks it, giving meaning to our reactions to the fictional world as being indicative of our society as a whole. And she’s right.
Gunn says,  

“…I finally realized that most people’s hatred of Skyler had little to do with me and a lot to do with their own perception of women and wives. Because Skyler didn’t conform to a comfortable ideal of the archetypical female, she had become a kind of Rorschach test for society, a measure of our attitudes toward gender.”

The Skyler White Rorschach test has certainly revealed a great deal of hideous, blatant misogyny and hatred toward women who don’t conform.

Gunn’s New York Times op/ed breaks through a glass fourth wall. Not only is Skyler White one of the most complex female characters on television, but Gunn also uses her real voice in a national publication to lend force to the idea that the hatred and violence directed toward her character, and toward her, reveals much more about our society than most would be willing to admit.

Art imitates life. Life imitates art. And how we feel about that art tells us a great deal about ourselves. In the case of how much hate is directed at characters like Skyler White, it’s no wonder that the work of women’s equality activists–whether they are fighting for proper representation in the media or working for pro-women legislation–is not nearly done.

________________________________________________________

Leigh Kolb is a composition, literature and journalism instructor at a community college in rural Missouri.

Here’s a Fun and Depressing Graphic About Television, Ratings, and Dudes Who Create Shows

Canceled: Single Season TV Shows – An infographic by the team at CableTV.com

 
Do you have any graphics you’d like to share with Bitch Flicks readers? Share them in the comments or email them to btchflcks(at)gmail(dot)com!
 
 
 

Let’s Re-Brand "Disney Princesses" as "Disney Heroines"

Written by Robin Hitchcock
A piece of fan art and the particularities of French to English translation may have solved our Disney Princess problem: 
Disney Heroines Simple Lines, by David Gilson
Feminist parents (and grandparents and aunts and uncles and siblings) often worry about their young girls getting sucked into Disney Princess culture, and not just because of the intimidating price tags at the Disney store. We don’t want our kids growing up with female role models solely labelled with the coveted status of “princess,” and therefore defined by their relationships with men (be they fathers or husbands), and admired largely for their status over others. It’s pretty much the last thing a feminist would want for their kids. 
A more typical (but still very clever) piece of fan art depicting
Disney Princesses as cover models on women’s magazines. Artist unknown.
However, criticism of Disney Princess culture often overlooks that Disney has created a battalion of strong female characters who are in fact fantastic role models for children, particularly since the dawn of the Disney Renaissance. 
There’s a recurring theme of headstrong rebellion against societal expectations (Ariel, Jasmine, Mulan, Merida), which might sound a little scary from a parenting point of view but is certainly a vital part of a developing feminist consciousness. Disney Heroines are accepting of people their peers reject and other because of their differences (Belle, Pocahontas, Esmerelda, Jane). And Disney Heroines are self-assured even though they themselves can be awkward and not really fit in (Ariel, Belle, Mulan, Lilo, Rapunzel), even when they are actively scorned by society (Esmerelda, Vanellope Von Schweets). 
Particularly in the most recent films, Disney Heroines expressly have their own interests, skills, and goals completely unrelated to romance and social status (Tiana, Sgt. Calhoun). And they’re smart and sassy and lovable (pretty much all of them, but I just want to give a special shout-out to my homegirl Megara). 
These are characters we should want our kids to be obsessed with. Shifting from “Disney Princesses” to “Disney Heroines” widens the field on a semantic level to include a lot more fantastic characters, but more importantly highlights what really makes these women special. It’s not their status as princesses; it is who they are.
———–
Robin Hitchcock is an American writer living in Cape Town, South Africa. Disney movies are her favorite cold medicine, hangover cure, and anti-depressant.

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

Written by Leigh Kolb for our theme week on Infertility, Miscarriage, and Infant Loss.



The students in my African American Literature class read Audre Lorde’s “Now That I Am Forever With Child” this week. I pointed out that although none of us had given birth, we could feel and understand the poem, and as a result even understand the experience on a deeper level.
I asked the one young man in the class his reaction to reading a poem about pregnancy and childbirth. He said that when he first read it, it seemed like something very foreign that he couldn’t imagine, but after reading it again and discussing it, “it felt familiar.” Familiar.
I write and talk often about how women’s stories are marginalized if they’re even told at all, and how that continuously degrades our experiences. I kept thinking about the word familiar, and how powerful it is when others’ lives and experiences are familiar to us. The role of media, in large part, is to familiarize us with life. Feature films and television series serve to entertain, but they play a larger role in normalizing and informing audiences of life–confirming our own lives and introducing us to the lives of others, even if those lives are fictional.
Representations of infertility and pregnancy loss in film and on television are greatly lacking. Neither of these life experiences is familiar to us, unless we go through it ourselves.
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.
Hollywood has had some success recently with clips portraying the pain of infertility and pregnancy loss (Up and Julie and Julia, most notably). Why can’t an entire film take up the subject? (And by that I mean a film that doesn’t “solve” infertility through highly problematic magic.)
As a feminist, I’m glad that there isn’t an influx of films that focus solely on a woman’s desire to have a baby, reducing her role in life to just centered on motherhood. But as a feminist struggling with infertility and pregnancy loss, I desperately want to see this struggle faithfully mirrored back to me, both for myself and for everyone, so it becomes familiar. 
 
According to the CDC, almost 11 percent of women have impaired fertility, and 6 percent are infertile.  RESOLVE reports that 1 in 8 couples struggles with infertility. The miscarriage rate of known pregnancies is between 15 and 20 percent.
These experiences aren’t rare. So we shouldn’t be made to feel like they are and that we are so alone.
Journalist Mona Eltahawy wrote,

“Women’s stories are too often dismissed. A male editor I once worked with tried to dissuade me from the personal: ‘Who cares about what happened to you?’ The most subversive thing a woman can do is talk about her life as if it really mattered.
It does.”

Our lives do matter. Seeing women’s stories reflected faithfully on-screen cannot only serve us emotionally, but it can practically affect men’s and women’s lives by making the lives of over half of our population familiar. The galvanizing effect of this familiarity is more conversation. For infertility and pregnancy loss, the conversation could lead to more medical studies, legislation regarding insurance coverage and defeating so-called “personhood” measures.
Infertility and pregnancy loss are still far too taboo in our culture, and that has very real consequences. Couples are faced with mental health challenges (certainly feeling as if one’s problems aren’t even on the radar of “real” problems due to lack of representation, and conversation affects people emotionally and mentally), and the majority of states’ insurance plans offer no coverage for anything to do with fertility.
It is human nature to look for ourselves and our own stories reflected back to us in media and in others’ stories. In the case of infertility and pregnancy loss, those representations are almost nonexistent. An already lonely struggle is made to feel even more so without those representations.
Women’s lives have drama. They have journeys and conflicts and tragic struggles. Hollywood should take note.
A moving still from Up.



———-
 
Leigh Kolb is a composition, literature and journalism instructor at a community college in rural Missouri. She wrote “How Not to Be a Dick to Your Infertile Friend” and “It Happened to Me: I Had an Ectopic Pregnancy” at xoJane.

How To Recognize The Signs Of Feminist Burnout

Written by Myrna Waldron.

Sufferers of Feminist Burnout are advised that laptops don’t taste very good. (Source: SoftwareSourcery.Com)
Feminist Burnout, or ohmyfuckinggodwhyisthissohardforpeopletounderstanditis, is a common ailment afflicting individuals also suffering from the insane notion that women are people. Approach with caution. Feminist Burnout is extremely contagious.

Signs and symptoms of Feminist Burnout include:

  • Explosive exasperation at Hugo Schwyzer
  • Twitter arguments that end after 3 tweet exchanges and a blocking because you just cannot put up with this shit anymore
  • Mass unfriending of Facebook friends sharing pictures trying to make you feel bad that people are apparently regularly aborting full-term fetuses
  • Severe frown lines caused by awareness of advertising tactics
  • Blog entries created by repeatedly slamming your head on your keyboard in frustration
  • Complete lack of surprise that Katy Perry and Taylor Swift do not consider themselves feminists because of course they fucking don’t
  • Nightmares over the possibility of confronting certain gamers on their sexism and their likely responses
  • Paranoia that “misandry” might actually be added to the dictionary someday
  • Eyestrain from trying to comprehend female anatomy depicted in video games and comic books
  • Nausea over racist topless protesters being allowed to define the movement in the media
  • Compulsive side-eye at pretty much everyone in Hollywood
  • Excessive fantasies of punching the crap out of anyone who spouts “BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ?!”
  • Unrestrained masochism that includes, but is not limited to: Challenging powerful individuals in the media on their bullshit, reading the comments, clicking on links that contain “FOX” in the URL, going on reddit, opening a Tumblr account
If left untreated, Feminist Burnout can result in exhaustion, emotional overload, lack of inspiration, and even utter defeat. There is no cure for Feminist Burnout. But there are several therapeutic treatments recently discovered:   
  • Turn off the fucking computer and mobile phone.
  • Eat some ice cream.
  • Have a nap.
  • Hug someone who “gets it.”
  • Look at pictures of puppies and/or kittens. (if unable to pry self from internet)
  • Write a satirical blog entry.
Feminist Burnout is a serious issue affecting approximately 99% of feminists, who are amazed at the 1% who are able to press on without experiencing any symptoms. If someone you love is affected by Feminist Burnout, do not exacerbate the symptoms by asking them to explain concepts that should be obvious to anyone who has actually questioned the world around them. Privilege Blindness is considered a mental condition that has been known to worsen the symptoms of Feminist Burnout. Individuals who argue that feminism does not truly seek equality because it is primarily focused on women are advised to shut the fuck up. Women who deliberately choose not to define themselves as feminists as it might scare men away are pieces of shit. MRAs who pick fights with sufferers of Feminist Burnout to prove some sort of warped point are advised to stab themselves in the genitals repeatedly.

If you suffer from Feminist Burnout, You Are Not Alone! Sufferers are advised to remember that although there is no cure for Feminist Burnout, there will eventually be a cure for societal inequality.
 
Now go have a cup of tea.

———-

Myrna Waldron is a feminist writer/blogger with a particular emphasis on all things nerdy. She lives in Toronto and has studied English and Film at York University. Myrna has a particular interest in the animation medium, having written extensively on American, Canadian and Japanese animation. She also has a passion for Sci-Fi & Fantasy literature, pop culture literature such as cartoons/comics, and the gaming subculture. She maintains a personal collection of blog posts, rants, essays and musings at The Soapboxing Geek, and tweets with reckless pottymouthed abandon at @SoapboxingGeek.

Women of Color in Film and TV: Thoughts on ‘The Mindy Project’ and Other Screen Depictions of Indian Women

The Mindy Project
Guest post written by Martyna Przybysz.
I was born and bred in Poland, a country that has for years struggled to embrace foreign cultures, and despite its growing tolerance and diversity across all aspects of society, including mainstream media, you wouldn’t quite describe it as multicultural. Having gotten the film bug at a young age, and having a film buff for a father, I have been exposed to the World and European cinemas early. Yet the topic of cultural diversity never as much as brushed upon the surface of mine and my peers’ discussions on film. Yes, there was Almodovar, and… there was Almodovar. It wasn’t until I have moved to the UK, back in 2005 that the term “ethnic minority” was first made known to me. Few years on, and I started flirting with the idea of joining the media industry. And this is when I realised that – despite an ever-present and rather obvious diversity of women in the world as such, as well as the labor market – the lack of women of varied ethnic backgrounds in the media, be it on screen or behind it, was striking. The Asian women being one of the under-represented groups.
Gurinder Chadha’s It’s a Wonderful Afterlife
The first year of my film studies was also the time of assimilation into a multiracial society, and the time when I was introduced to the insightful work of Gurinder Chadha, a British director of Indian-Kenyan origin. Chadha is known for her work depicting the lives of Indians, and more specifically, Indian women residing in the UK. Her films – such as my absolute favourite Bhaji on the Beach, and widely recognized Bend it Like Beckham – have not only focused on young South Asian women and the dilemmas they faced, confronted with what is expected of them by their community, but most importantly, they explored the topic of female bonding and intergenerational ties.
The women of Monsoon Wedding, directed by Mira Nair
The above topics were also being discussed in parallel by Indian director Mira Nair. There was the exploration of the implications that being in an interracial relationship in the ’90s America comes with, in Mississippi Masala, as well as that of secrets and conflict in a multigenerational Indian family in Monsoon Wedding. Nair and Chadha offered me a unique opportunity to explore their amazing and colorful culture, that I have otherwise wouldn’t be able to get to know so closely. But what I most liked about the work of these two women of South Asian origin, was the very first thing I appreciate in female-directed films in general: the fact that they focus on female characters and do not shy away from exposing and exploring their flaws.
Fast forward to 2012 and along came Mindy Lahiri. Or rather Vera Chokalingam, known to all by her stage name, Mindy Kaling. I know that Mindy was widely recognized way before The Mindy Project from The Office and I know that its devotees will want to assail me for this, but… I haven’t seen a single episode! But judging by her excellent writing and acting in her auteur project – I am sure that she was flawless.
Truth be told, I only discovered Kaling last year, upon my first trip to the U.S. in Autumn 2012. Hoping for an easy plane read, I bought her book Is Everyone Hanging Out Without Me? (and other concerns) and I was not disappointed. Mindy’s writing is light, funny, and with just the right amount of self-deprecation. And so is her show.
#themindyproject
Having gotten to know Mindy ‘the creator’, Mindy ‘the product of thus creation’ didn’t come as a surprise to me. She’s quirky, a bit ditzy, could easily pass as innocent, and definitely as naïve, and she is not particularly self-critical (take the latest episode’s taxi cab commercial featuring Dr Lahiri dressed in a dog’s costume and conversing with a puppet named Erica, the same commercial that gets her the highest ‘P’ rating, meaning ‘pity rating’). 
“I just need to ride out this minor humiliation until I find my Kanye.”
Most of all of – Mindy is an extremely likable character. Despite her naivety, she is a smart and ambitious woman, finding fulfillment in her career, and yes, despite occasional bumps here and there in relation to men, she does value herself, which is a very powerful message on its own.
“It’s so weird being my own role model.”
Mindy’s career is not a topic yet discussed in depth – much of the in-work plot evolves around her competing with the two male doctors at her practice, or more recently, two male midwives from a rival practice – but her love life can be summarised in one phrase, that goes something like “the endless pursuit of romance.” As the show progresses, we discover that this is not all that Mindy is about. She values friendships, and yes, to our awe, she does value her patients in a completely selfless way (take episode 15 “Mindy’s Minute” as an example of her good-doctor attitude).
A majority of feminist statements made in the show have nothing to do with race. Similarly to Hannah from Girls, she is a full-figured lady, unobnoxiously proud of it (she wears dresses that accentuate her figure but rarely reveals her cleavage), and very much aware of it. She refers to herself in a belittling manner on a number of occasions, such as in episode one when she answers her phone on a date saying, “Do you know how difficult it is for a chubby 31-year-old woman to go on a legit date with a guy who majored in economics at Duke?.” So, there is a healthy dose of self-awareness. Or is there? I forever struggle with the concept of weight and bodily image of women on screen – the general consensus, according to the media, is that thin equals beautiful. Therefore it is always so ‘refreshing’ and ‘bold’ to see a ‘bigger’ female character on screen. I simply find those statements annoying. I dream of a day when any woman on screen will be considered beautiful for her individual qualities and features, rather than being seen and described as ‘something’ in comparison to ‘something else’.
Going back to the Indian culture – as already established, Mindy approaches everything with self-deprecating humour, like in the latest episode, when offered an opportunity to present medical news in her new pitiful persona (see: paragraph six), she fatastises of this being the beginning of her celebrity doctor dream coming true, and says to her co-workers “can you guys believe it… me, the child of immigrants…”. I mean, you gotta laugh. There is, however, a thin line between mocking one’s own culture and playing on the well-known stereotypes like Kaling, and overdoing it, like in New Girl, where Schmidt’s obsession for Cece’s ethnicity goes beyond tasteful at times. Mindy’s ethnicity does not really matter to her or the viewer, unless it is convenient for her to play with it in a stereotypical way (like when she makes authoritative statements about how Black guys love Indian women), which in my opinion, she does with a comedic grace.
Nonetheless, the former show touches upon such issues as arranged marriage and the compromises that Asian women must make in order to remain in good graces of their family. With Mindy, on the other hand, we never really learn much about her family, or what was expected of her, but the sole fact that she is a doctor, and expects her brother to become an educated professional himself, brings us back to the “child of immigrants” syndrome. Maybe because she is already so Westernised there is nothing to really rebel against, and the cultural aspect falls to the background. Nothing that Mindy does bends the rules quite as much as what Jesminder did in Bend it Like Beckham, but then, the times have changed.
Mindy Kaling as Mindy Lahiri
Mindy Kaling is the creator of The Mindy Project, as well as the main writer on the show. There is no question that she’s witty, talented, utterly adorable, and challenges, however subtly, some most common cultural stereotypes ingrained  in the audiences’ minds by the media. It is not a show for everyone, for sure. But it is an entertaining show, that can find its audience amongst both, men and women.
Let’s face it, we love quirky and goofy characters. Deep down we all hope we are more adorable than pitiful when we find ourselves in embarrassing situations. Does it matter then what colour/ethinicty/gender the characters are? And if we say that it doesn’t, why aren’t there more female Indian protagonists like Mindy Lahiri on the big and small screen? And how is this astounding imbalance a reflection of the melting pot that our society is today? That is beyond me. And so the debate continues.

———-

Martyna is a Pole living in London, UK. She works in media and the arts. A sucker for portrait photography and a salted caramel cheesecake. This is her blog: http://martynaprzybysz.tumblr.com.

Race and the Academy: Black Characters, Stories, and the Danger of Django

“It is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity.” – W.E.B. Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folk
 
Written by Leigh Kolb
When I first wrote about Django Unchained, I focused on the power of Django’s story, and how Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) and Quentin Tarantino give Django the “white access” he needs to get into Candyland and into movie theaters.
I was excited and hopeful about what the film could symbolize on a grand scale, that a revenge-fantasy that shows the horrors of slavery and has a Black protagonist who overtakes his oppressors was a box office hit and was set to receive numerous award nominations.
My excitement was short-lived. Jamie Foxx (Django) and Samuel L. Jackson (Stephen) were shut out of acting categories for both the Golden Globes and Academy Awards.
While their co-stars are completely deserving of recognition for incredible acting (Waltz and Leonardo DiCaprio were nominated for Golden Globes and Waltz for an Academy Award–Waltz won both), Foxx’s lack of nominations is symptomatic of a larger Hollywood problem–not only whose stories audiences see, but also whose stories get awards.

When Tarantino understandably felt uncomfortable with the thought of filming scenes of a slave auction and brutality against slaves, he struggled with not wanting to film those scenes in the American south. He sought advice from Sidney Poitier (the first African American to win a Best Actor Oscar). His response:

“‘Sidney basically told me to man up,’ Tarantino says. ‘He said, ‘Quentin, for whatever reason, you’ve been inspired to make this film. You can’t be afraid of your own movie. You must treat them like actors, not property. If you do that, you’ll be fine.'”

Overall, Tarantino was fine. His Black actors, however, were not recognized for their performances (this was reminiscent of his 1997 film Jackie Brown, which received Golden Globe nods for Samuel L. Jackson and the title character, Pam Grier, but only received an acting Academy Award nomination for white co-star Robert Forster).

In an Oscar year that feature films that deal with race (The New York Times recently published an excellent article examining race and the roles of Black men in this year’s Oscar contenders), the acting awards nominations are startlingly white (Denzel Washington and Quvenzhané Wallis being the exceptions).

I want to focus mostly on the Black actors and actresses who have won Academy Awards, the plots of the films they were in (synopses from imdb.com) and their character descriptions. I know that this topic is complex and demands analysis far beyond this, but a brief reflection shows a pattern.

[Warning: spoilers ahead!]

Lilies of the Field (1963, Sidney Poitier, Best Actor): An unemployed construction worker (Homer Smith) heading out west stops at a remote farm in the desert to get water when his car overheats. The farm is being worked by a group of East European Catholic nuns, headed by the strict mother superior (Mother Maria), who believes that Homer has been sent by God to build a much needed church in the desert.
– Homer Smith: handyman who provides unpaid labor to a group of nuns
Training Day (2001, Denzel Washington, Best Actor): On his first day on the job as a narcotics officer, a rookie cop works with a rogue detective who isn’t what he appears.
– Alonzo Harris: crooked narcotics officer, killed at the end
Monster’s Ball (2001, Halle Berry, Best Actress): After a family tragedy, a racist prison guard reexamines his attitudes while falling in love with the African-American wife of the last prisoner he executed.
– Leticia Musgrove: struggling single mother, incarcerated husband, object of lust for racist cop
Ray (2004, Jamie Foxx, Best Actor): The life and career of the legendary popular music pianist, Ray Charles.
– Ray Charles: blind man overcomes odds, becomes music legend
The Last King of Scotland (2006, Forest Whitaker, Best Actor): Based on the events of the brutal Ugandan dictator Idi Amin’s regime as seen by his personal physician during the 1970s.
– Idi Amin: Ugandan president, evil, hundreds of thousands died under his regime

Flight (2012, Denzel Washington, Best Actor – pending): An airline pilot saves a flight from crashing, but an investigation into the malfunctions reveals something troubling.
– William “Whip” Whitaker: alcoholic, drug-addict pilot, ends up incarcerated
Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012, Quvenzhané Wallis, Best Actress – pending): Faced with both her hot-tempered father’s fading health and melting ice-caps that flood her ramshackle bayou community and unleash ancient aurochs, six-year-old Hushpuppy must learn the ways of courage and love.
– Hushpuppy: precocious five-year-old girl living in poverty with a dying, abusive father
An Officer and a Gentleman (1982, Louis Gossett, Jr., Best Supporting Actor): A young man must complete his work at a Navy Flight school to become an aviator, with the help of a tough gunnery sergeant and his new girlfriend.
– Gunnery Sergeant Emil Foley: rigid drill instructor, trains protagonist
Gone With the Wind (1939, Hattie McDaniel, Best Supporting Actress): American classic in which a manipulative woman and a roguish man carry on a turbulent love affair in the American south during the Civil War and Reconstruction.
– Mammy: “outspoken handmaid”
Glory (1989, Denzel Washington, Best Supporting Actor): Robert Gould Shaw leads the US Civil War’s first all-Black volunteer company, fighting prejudices of both his own Union army and the Confederates.
– Pvt. Trip: escaped slave, dies fighting
Ghost (1990, Whoopi Goldberg, Best Supporting Actress): After being killed during a botched mugging, a man’s love for his partner enables him to remain on earth as a ghost.
– Oda Mae Brown: con artist/psychic, “confidence trickster”
Jerry Maguire (1996, Cuba Gooding, Jr., Best Supporting Actor): When a sports agent has a moral epiphany and is fired for expressing it, he decides to put his new philosophy to the test as an independent with the only athlete who stays with him.
– Rod Tidwell: football player
Million Dollar Baby (2004, Morgan Freeman, Best Supporting Actor): A determined woman works with a hardened boxing trainer to become a professional.
– Eddie “Scrap-Iron” Dupris: narrator, retired boxer, employee at gym
Dreamgirls (2006, Jennifer Hudson, Best Supporting Actress): Based on the Broadway musical, a trio of Black female soul singers cross over to the pop charts in the early 1960s.
– Effie White: lead singer of the Dreamettes until she gets forced out of the group, becomes an “impoverished welfare mother”
Precious (2009, Mo’Nique, Best Supporting Actress): In New York City’s Harlem circa 1987, an overweight, abused, illiterate teen who is pregnant with her second child is invited to enroll in an alternative school in hopes that her life can head in a new direction.
– Mary Lee Johnston: unemployed, abusive (sexually, physically and emotionally), scams government for more welfare
The Help (2011, Octavia Spencer, Best Supporting Actress): An aspiring author during the civil rights movement of the 1960s decides to write a book detailing the African-American maids’ point of view on the white families for which they work, and the hardships they go through on a daily basis.
– Minny Jackson: outspoken, difficult maid; good cook
Of the four Black men who have won Best Actor Oscars, two are in powerful positions of authority and are evil (they serve as foils to their noble white co-stars), one provides free labor (let that sink in), and the other is a musician. The Black Best Supporting Actor winners quite literally support white protagonists.
The Black female actresses’ winning roles are even more troubling. None of them really has independent agency, except for maybe Hushpuppy–who is a child (she’s also not expected to win). Otherwise the list is full of maids, single mothers on welfare, and one trickster con artist. It felt horrible to even type that.
These characters are comfortable and safe to white audiences. If the character seems unsafe to white audiences, he or she is punished. Last year, the LA Times released a study that Oscar voters were 94 percent white and 77 percent male. Certainly this affects the Academy’s choices.
Now let’s look at the plot synopsis for Django Unchained.
Django Unchained: With the help of a German bounty hunter, a freed slave sets out to rescue his wife from a brutal Mississippi plantation owner.
– Django Freeman: trained, violent bounty hunter, whips and kills white people, burns down a plantation
One of these things is not like the others.
Django Unchained ends with a triumphant Black couple who have gained their revenge, freedom, and love. Think about how vastly different that ending is than those that are provided to Black characters in  the films above. Many white couples and individuals end those films successfully, with complex story arcs that show their agency and growth.
When W.E.B. Du Bois discusses the “double consciousness” of seeing oneself “through the eyes of others,” he could very well be talking about modern-day Hollywood. He saw the world looking at African Americans with “amused contempt and pity,” and it’s hard to look at that list of Academy Award winners and not come to that same conclusion.
Meanwhile, Lincoln has been nominated in three out of the four major acting categories (all white actors). This is a film about abolishing slavery from a totally white and white-washed perspective (the omission of Frederick Douglass is unbelievable).
Whose stories get told? Whose stories get accolades?
It’s pretty clear. The Academy (94 percent white and 77 percent male) values stories that reflect their  privileged consciousness and reinforce the Black double-consciousness that Du Bois was attempting to push through over 100 years ago.
Those chains, it seems, remain unbroken.
—–
Leigh Kolb is a composition, literature, and journalism instructor at a community college in rural Missouri.

Let’s All Take a Deep Breath and Calm the Fuck Down About Lena Dunham

Lena Dunham and the cast of Girls

Written by Stephanie Rogers. 

Dear Lena Dunham Haters,
I’m sick of the Lena Dunham hate.
I’m not referring to the criticisms of Dunham, which are—in most cases—valid and necessary critiques of her privilege, especially how that privilege translates into her work. The first season of Girls in particular either ignored people of color entirely, which is problematic enough since the show takes place in Brooklyn (a predominantly Black neighborhood), but when it did include people of color, they tended to appear as stereotypes (nannies, homeless, etc), and Dunham absolutely deserves to be called out for that.
But I’m sick of the Lena Dunham hate. 
Just take a moment and Google the phrase “I hate Lena Dunham.” Feel free to spend some time browsing through the more than a million results. Searches related to “I hate Lena Dunham” include such gems as “Lena Dunham annoying,” “how much does Lena Dunham weigh,” and “what size is Lena Dunham.”
We live in a society that constantly undervalues and devalues the work of women while simultaneously expecting that the work we do—from mothering to directing movies—is performed fucking flawlessly. That said, we can’t sit back and pretend the vitriol directed at Dunham isn’t largely about a young woman breaking barriers in an industry that doesn’t like women (especially women who aren’t conventionally attractive and who aren’t gasp! spending all their waking hours apologizing for it). We shouldn’t pretend either that we, as a culture—and that includes women and feminists—haven’t internalized a little bit of this uneasiness surrounding successful women. It makes sense, then, that the undercurrent bubbling beneath all this Dunham hate is the very sexist notion that somehow Dunham doesn’t deserve her success.

Lena Dunham, looking all ungrateful for her unearned success

Elissa Schappel wrote an interesting piece for Salon two weeks ago, right after the Golden Globes ceremony, called “Stop Dumping on Lena Dunham!,” in which she puts forth some excellent counterarguments that a hater might want to consider.
On how Dunham doesn’t deserve the gigantic advance she got for her book deal:
I have yet to hear anyone react to the news of an advance with, “Yep, that seems about right.” It would be great if the writers and books that deserved the most money got it—ditto the same amount of attention and praise. And all the gripe-storming about how slight her book proposal was, and how she’ll never make back her advance—when did we start reviewing book proposals? When did writers start caring so passionately about publishers recouping their losses?

On how Dunham doesn’t deserve her success because she has inside Hollywood connections:
The entertainment industry is not a meritocracy. From before the days of Barrymore to our present age of Bacons and Bridges, Sheen-Estevezes and Zappas family has, for better and worse, equaled opportunity. The Coppola family’s connections and influence are so vast they’d make the mob envious.

On how Dunham doesn’t deserve her success because her show lacks diversity:
I hear the diversity criticism. However, to suggest that “Girls”—a show whose charm lies in part in its documentary-like feel—presents the universe these young women inhabit, working in publishing and the arts, as rich in racial diversity, would be, sadly, to lie. Besides, did anyone ever kvetch about Jerry Seinfeld’s lack of Asian friends?

To take the conversation surrounding non-progressiveness of television in general a bit further, Carly Lewis wrote last April about the sexism behind the Dunham/Girls backlash, and I agree with her:
It’s cute (read: pretty hypocritical, actually) to see this sudden spike in concern over television’s portrayal of women, but this fixation is propelled by the same sense of threatened dudeness that makes a show written by and about women so “controversial” in the first place. If television were an even playing field, Dunham would not be on the cover of New York magazine atop the subheading “Girls is the ballsiest show on TV,” nor would the debut of this series be such a massive deal. (Where are the cultural dissections of CSI: Miami?) The critics calling Girls disingenuous because it stars four white women should redirect their frustration toward misogyny itself, not at the one show trying to fight it.

Lena Dunham, probably getting ready to annoy people with her incessant whining

Admittedly, I have a soft spot for Dunham, having written about her wonderful film Tiny Furniture way back in 2011, before she’d manage to offend the entire nation with her giant thighs and sloppy backside. I think she comes across as genuinely funny and interesting, and I hope that her success—and the hard hits she’s taking because of it—will make the next woman who dares to step out of line (where “line” means “the patriarchal framework”) do so with just as much fearlessness.  

Girls continues to evolve in season two, although I haven’t seen the new episodes yet, and it seems that Dunham has taken the criticisms of racism and lack of diversity seriously. In response to the question from the New York Times Magazine, “Should we expect to see an episode in which the girls get a black friend in Season 2?” she said:
I mean, it’s not going to be like, “Hey guys, we’ve been out looking for a black friend or a friend in a wheelchair or a friend with a hat.” The tough thing is you kind of can’t win on that one. I have to write people who feel honest but also push our cultural ball forward.

And people already have lots of opinions about Dunham’s attempt to accurately represent Brooklyn’s diversity in the second season with the casting of Donald Glover as Sandy, Hannah’s love interest, so I’ll treat you to a few.
Here’s what I think, after watching the first half hour of the season: I admire that Dunham took the criticism she got last year to heart. There are so many examples of how Hollywood ignores this type of thing. In fact, there are whole websites devoted to it. It really seems like she listened; I can’t tell from thirty minutes that everything has been solved, but it seems to be off to a good start? Lena Dunham isn’t so bad? Maybe? I say that with reservation but enthusiasm. Before I go, a couple thoughts on the good and the bad:

Good: I’ll start with positive reinforcement: Girls is definitely more diverse this season!

Bad: That definitely wasn’t the hardest thing to do.

Good: Donald Glover as Sandy! Hannah’s new, fleshed-out, not at all T-Doggy boyfriend.

Bad: I’m just hoping Donald Glover won’t simply be this show’s Charlie Wheeler.

Good: About the extras: A marked improvement in the representation of Brooklyn’s racial mix. So, Lena Dunham created a popular show, a critically acclaimed show, and instead of being, like, “Whatever. They’re all going to watch me anyway!” she actually made an effort to improve her show. That’s good. Very good. And to be honest, she probably realizes that a more realistic mix equals a more realistic world for her characters to live in.

Bad: Again, this is about the extras: There are definitely more black people on the show, but … I mean … I’ll put it this way. Realistic diversity is definitely not in your first season, girl. But it also not this. It’s definitely realistic here. But—it’s not this either, so don’t go overboard.

White Women

Laura Bennett at The New Republic said this:

Dunham uses the Sandy plot line as an opportunity to skewer both the complaints of her critics—Hannah herself echoes them with the misguided assumption that her essays are “for everyone”—and her characters’ blinkered worldview. Glover’s arc on the show is brief, but he is key to illustrating the limited scope of Hannah’s experience. “This always happens,” Sandy tells Hannah during their fight. “I’m a white girl and I moved to New York and I’m having a great time and oh I’ve got a fixed gear bike and I’m gonna date a black guy and we’re gonna go to a dangerous part of town. All that bullshit. I’ve seen it happen. And then they can’t deal with who I am.” Hannah responds with an explosion of goofy knee-jerk progressivism: “You know what, honestly maybe you should think about the fact that you could be fetishizing me. Because how many white women have you dated? Maybe you think of us as one big white blobby mass with stupid ideas. So why don’t you lay this thing down, flip it, and reverse it.” “You just said a Missy Elliot lyric,” Sandy says wearily.

It is wholly unsubtle, but it is still “Girls” at its best, at once affectionate and credible and lightly parodic. There is Hannah: impulsive, oblivious, tangled up in her own sloppy self-justifications. And then there is Lena Dunham, the wary third eye hovering above the action. “The joke’s on you because you know what? I never thought about the fact that you were black once,” Hannah tells Sandy. “I don’t live in a world where there are divisions like this,” she says. His simple reply: “You do.”

Feministing, of course, has been talking about the show since its inception, and Sesali Bowen had this to say about “Dunham’s attempt to introduce racial discourse into her show”:
And I find myself back at the same place I was when Maya and I talked about Beyonce. No, Dunham’s attempt to introduce racial discourse into her show doesn’t suddenly make it diverse, but I think she still deserves some credit. If it sounds like I’m saying: the white girl gets a pass for not painting an accurate portrait of Blackness because she doesn’t have lived context/experience, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Why do we expect “all or nothing” from anyone who dares to align themselves with a few feminist values, even if they don’t call themselves feminists? When will we begin the process of meeting people where they are?

And, as Samhita wrote on this topic, maybe we should spend less time “scrutinizing [Dunham’s] personal behavior instead of looking at the real problem—the lack of diverse representations of women in popular culture.” Do we need to see realistic representations of Black girlhood on television? Yes, that’s why we need more Black girls writing shows. *raises hand* Do we need examples of diversity in film? Yes, that’s why we need more people from diverse backgrounds writing them. Truthfully, I’d rather not leave that task up to a white girl with “no Black friends.”

I love these important conversations! Please, let’s keep having them!
But how about we leave the I HATE LENA DUNHAM BECAUSE SHE SEEMS ENTITLED AND KINDA HORRIBLE AND WHINY AND ISN’T DOING THINGS THE WAY I WOULD DO THEM IF I WERE LENA DUNHAM grossness off the table for five seconds.

Lena Dunham, being all entitled and shit
When I was 26, I was spending my fifth year failing undergrad, drowning in student loan debt (that’s still happening), smoking pot incessantly, binge-eating pepperoni rolls, sleeping through most of my classes on a broken futon, and shoving dryer sheets in my heating vents because my shitty always-drunk neighbors wouldn’t stop chain smoking. Occasionally, out of nowhere, a giant fly would swoop down from some unseen cesspool where flies live and attack me. Those are my memories of being 26. Maybe your memories of being 26 suck way less, and if so, congratulations! But you’re allowed to make mistakes at 26. You’re allowed to learn from those mistakes and evolve into a person who looks back and thinks, “Wow, 26 was rough, and I sucked at it.” That’s a general goddamn life rule, and we aren’t taking it away from Lena Dunham just because she’s a young woman who dares to make her mistakes in public. (Read Jodie Foster’s thought-provoking essay on society’s disgusting unsurprisingly misogynist reactions toward young women acting like young women in public.)
I mean, just to double check, we’re all still cool with Louis C.K., right? I haven’t yet seen season three of Louie, that award-winning show that C.K. writes, directs, produces, edits, and stars in (sound familiar?), but I remember the first few episodes or so of this New York City-set critics’ darling being fairly fucking White, except for a few peripheral characters outside of Louie’s inner circle. And the Black people who do exist (at least in the first season) pretty much serve as vehicles to illustrate Louie’s uncoolness by comparison. (Has anyone given a name to that trope yet?) So, did I miss the accompanying INTERNET FREAKOUT, or does this bro maybe represent—I dunno—society’s favorite quintessential middle-aged, balding white dude who can’t get laid, that we all find so endearing and impossible not to love?
Did I also miss the 100% JUSTIFIED NOT REALLY BECAUSE IT NEVER HAPPENED OUTRAGE over C.K. exposing his huge gut and sloppy backside to the masses—whether he’s climbing on top of hot women (duh) or getting a totally unnecessary (because assault is funny!) rectal exam from doctor-character Ricky Gervais? And we’re all still cool with his awkward and embarrassing sex scenes, right? Because they’re just … so … what’s that word people keep railing against when it’s used to describe the sex scenes in Girls … oh yeah … “REAL” … ?

“Eh, what are you gonna do?” –privileged White dudes everywhere, in response to rarely getting called out for their bullshit

My bad. I’m probably missing something, since Chuck Bowen called Louie “possibly the most racially integrated television show ever made,” (I’ll admit “Dentist/Tarese” is an interesting episode toward the end of season one) and there isn’t at all an inkling of a double standard at play here regarding what we consider “acceptable” bodies to display onscreen. (Sidenote: I love, not really, how groundbreaking it is that C.K. cast a Black woman to play his ex-wife in season three of Louie, yet we’re still treated to that “schlubby dude landing a hot lady” trope. I can’t keep suspending my disbelief forever, boys.)
Sorry, tangent. But seriously.
If I sound like a Lena Dunham apologist aka “a fucking pig who can go to hell,” let me clarify (again): Lena Dunham should be—and certainly has been, I mean fuck—criticized for her show’s failings. Most television shows and films for that matter would benefit even from a miniscule amount of the kind of intense anger flung at Girls over its racism and lack of diversity. But I’m angry that people—including women and feminists—can’t seem to criticize Lena Dunham’s show without launching into sexist attacks against Lena Dunham, in the same way I was angry when people couldn’t (and still can’t) separate their criticisms of Sarah Palin’s conservative policies from their sexist attacks against Sarah Palin.
So, if nothing else, I give you these few words and phrases to move away from when talking about Lena Dunham: “whiny” … “annoying” … “ugly” … “gross” … “frumpy” … “hot mess” … “neurotic” … “slutty” … you get the idea.

NEPOTISM NARCISSISM LENA’S BODY UGH

The truth is, ultimately, it doesn’t matter to me who likes Girls and who doesn’t. For what it’s worth, I liked the first season, mainly because I’ve been writing about representations of women in film and television for five years, and it was nice for once to know I wouldn’t have to analyze every scene to figure out whether this show passed The Bechdel Test. It sort of blew my mind to hear women talk to one another about abortion, HPV, colposcopies, virginity, and menopause, like, repeatedly—and with no unnecessary mansplainy perspective involved. I think the show actually makes a pretty serious case against living like an entitled, culturally insulated hipster, while still managing to love its characters. But I understand, even excluding the criticisms regarding lack of diversity, that people still legitimately dislike the show for other reasons. That’s allowed. I hate Two and a Half Men and Family Guy and The Big Bang Theory and How I Met Your Mother and every other White-dominated show on television that keeps pretending women exist merely as fucktoys and mommies to their manchildren, and that’s allowed too.
But if you’re having an epic conniption over HOW HORRIBLE GIRLS IS OMG WHY DOES ANYONE LIKE IT LENA DUNHAM IS THE WORST, maybe it’s time to evaluate the hate—not dislike of, or boredom with, or ambivalence toward—but the actual hatred of Girls Lena Dunham, and why it’s really there.

ABC Family’s Consumerist Christian Ethic

Creepy Christmas critters compel you to watch non-stop holiday-themed specials

ABC Family airs its corporate hamfast, 25 Days of Christmas, every December. To ease the fretful nerves of holiday-addicts, they even have a pre-countdown countdown, Countdown to 25 Days of Christmas (my redundancy nowhere near matches theirs.) If you need a fix that can’t be soothed by old classics – if you need something new, artificial with Christian platitudes intact – ABC Family has your back.

Disney understands its market. It knows how to manipulate traditional values into palatable family fun with high profit returns. And, as ABC Family is owned by Disney, they follow the family-fun exploitation model ardently.

Most of the specials they air have just been derivative rom-coms, but they have also are comfortable exposing embarrassing sequels to Rankin-Bass movies to the public. No, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer did not need to be revisited in lazy 3-D animation. It already had two sequels, anyway. We don’t need Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer and the Island of Misfit Toys. We don’t need to check back in with Rudolph unless he and Hermey are entering a domestic partnership and challenging Santa’s Judeo-Christian approach to distributing goods to minors of the world.

On top of a continuous mind-melting block packed with classics reruns, jingle bells, stop-motion ice monsters and family weeping around indoor trees – ABC family also produces its own new specials yearly with C-actors (or used-to-be-almost-an-A-actor).

For whatever reason, they try mainly to appeal to an older age bracket with contrived romantic narratives. So we get the same poke-your-eyes-out story about a woman whose main concept of success is wrapped up in pursuing romantic love with a dude. And it’s called a Christmas special because mistletoe and other thematic flourishes are thrown in.

In the 12 Dates of Christmas we follow Kate Stanton (Amy Smart) as she relives the same day over and over. A holiday movie about a person inexplicably repeating their day over and ultimately learning a profound lesson about life – surely not a rip-off of anything. So, why Kate’s counterpart in Groundhog’s Day goes through stages of acceptance that mirrors philosophical growth and an acceptance of the complexities of life and what we owe the world – Kate in The 12 Dates of Christmas just really really wants to not be alone. While annoyed that she is stuck on Christmas Eve over and over again Kate doesn’t spend a lot of time considering her situation. She does sigh a lot – and even more than sigh, she looks longingly at a strong-jawed fellow while blinking glassy eyes.  

Desperately Seeking Santatried on the workaholic-woman-chooses-man-over-job trope. Jennifer Walker (Laura Vandervoort) is ambitious, but always with a sad faraway look in her eye. She’s not sure what she’s missing, but we know. To be complete, she needs a tender, but still macho, dude to romance her and restore her Christmas faith. Her job almost destroys the family business of her love interest. Don’t worry folks. She gives a speech about goodness to her money-hungry boss, shuns a promotion and rushes to the arms of hunky sensitive sexy-Santa. Of course, she’s decrying capitalist morality while being in a movie that was packaged efficiently and cheaply to make some quick bucks for ABC Family.

ABC Family is just a part of the consumerist holiday problem. They’re just playing into an existing formula that has already been embedded into our culture. But, they do it really well. And really bad.