Mainstream Misogyny – Page 3

Call for Writers: Independent Spirit and Academy Award Nominees

For the past several years leading up to the Academy Awards ceremony, we’ve published reviews of all the nominees for best picture. (Go here for roundups of each series: 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011.) However, we’ve decided this year to also include nominees for the Independent Spirit Awards. Why? Because the Oscars are basically a fucking joke. The main reason we give any credence at all to an awards show that recognizes the film contributions of heterosexual white men is because, as we’ve said many times in the past, studying and analyzing pop culture means studying and analyzing what our society currently values as “important.” And let’s face it: the Academy Awards are The Biggest Deal in the movie industry.

I highly recommend checking out Megan Kearns’ post, “The 2012 Oscar Nominations … a Sea of White Dudes,” in which she discusses this year’s disappointments, and some disappointing facts about the Oscars in general:

The Oscars are a white male bonanza. In 84 years, only 4 women (!!!) have ever been nominated for a Best Director Oscar. Only one, Kathryn Bigelow, ever won. In producing, only 7 women have won the Best Picture award, all as co-producers with men. Only 15 women have won Best Screenplay (7 women for Adapted Screenplay with 1 woman winning twice, 8 women for Original Screenplay). Only 4 women of color have been nominated as screenwriters. No women of color have ever been nominated as a producer or director. These stats are shameful.

Exactly. So this year, we’re highlighting the Independent Spirit Award nominees too. The Oscar ceremony airs Sunday, Feb. 26th, and the Spirit Award ceremony airs the day before. So we’ll publish all reviews two weeks prior, beginning Monday, February 13th.

BONUS! We’re also accepting character analysis pieces for the women nominated in the acting categories! For an idea of what we mean by “character analysis” definitely read the fabulous (and very popular) piece on Parks & Rec‘s Leslie Knope by Diane Shipley.

All submissions must be received no later than Friday, February 10th. Email us at btchflcks(at)gmail(dot)com if you’d like to contribute a review. We accept original pieces or cross-posts.

The following list contains a mix of all the nominees in both categories. We’ll be crossing them off as people claim them, so email us right away if you know which film review/character analysis you’d like to contribute.

NOTE: An UPDATED list appears at this link.

Guest Writer Wednesday: Shia LeBeouf Mocks Megan Fox for Feminist Thinking

Megan Fox in Transformers

This guest post by Melanie Taylor previously appeared at her site The Feminist Guide to Hollywood in June 2011.

For a while on my blog, I had the pleasure of highlighting various men who were espousing impressive feminist rhetoric in the Hollywood landscape. Today, I do not have that pleasure. Actor Shia LeBeouf, who worked on the Michael Bay franchise, Transformers, with Megan Fox, spoke to L. A. Times about how the vibe on the set of the newest Transformers is different and why. The reason is because Megan’s replacement, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, doesn’t have a problem with Michael Bay being a total douchebag.

This is the quote:

Huntington-Whiteley is equipped for Bay’s brusque shooting style in a way that Fox (who in the media likened her director’s on-set behavior to Napoleon and Hitler) was not, according to LaBeouf.

“Megan developed this Spice Girl strength, this woman-empowerment [stuff] that made her feel awkward about her involvement with Michael, who some people think is a very lascivious filmmaker, the way he films women,” LaBeouf said. “Mike films women in a way that appeals to a 16-year-old sexuality. It’s summer. It’s Michael’s style. And I think [Fox] never got comfortable with it. This is a girl who was taken from complete obscurity and placed in a sex-driven role in front of the whole world and told she was the sexiest woman in America. And she had a hard time accepting it. When Mike would ask her to do specific things, there was no time for fluffy talk. We’re on the run. And the one thing Mike lacks is tact. There’s no time for [LaBeouf assumes a gentle voice] ‘I would like you to just arch your back 70 degrees.’”

Huntington-Whiteley, on the other hand, must have arched her back just right when Bay shot her in a Victoria’s Secret ad in 2009, because months after Fox’s trash-talking peaked, the director cut the actress’ character, Mikaela Banes, from the third Transformers movie and replaced her with the newcomer.

“Rosie comes with this Victoria’s Secret background, and she’s comfortable with it, so she can get down with Mike’s way of working and it makes the whole set vibe very different,” LaBeouf said.

First of all, it’s hilariously stupid that Shia equates feminist thinking with the Spice Girls. It’s a braindead and belittling comparison. Second of all, where it says “woman-empowerment [stuff],” I’m guessing the magazine redacted a more offending word — shit or bullshit. I wish they hadn’t, because it would have been a more honest reflection of Shia’s true feelings.

It’s surprising that Fox never trashed him too, given his apparent contempt for the concept of female empowerment. “It’s summer. It’s Michael Bay’s style.” So…during the summer and when around Michael Bay women should just throw out their copies of The Feminine Mystique and do their best pouty lip? You can have a sexy character without being degrading to the actress. I’m guessing the vibe on Jennifer’s Body and Jonah Hex, both films where Fox plays a sexy vixen, was pretty different too, different in that she wasn’t treated like another slice of ham on the directors Lazy Susan.

Where Shia says there is no time for “fluff” and Bay “lacks tact,” what he probably means is, Bay says things like, “Megan, in this scene I want you to stick your tits and ass out,” then she would get pissed off, tension would arise on the set, and everyone would blame Fox. That’s my guess. While I’m sure that type of “direction” wasn’t written into the script, she must have had an inkling of Bay’s “lasciviousness.”

It’s been reported far and wide and openly admitted to that Michael Bay made Megan Fox wash his Ferrari in her bikini while he video taped her as part of her “audition.” That’s not great for Fox, but big money and big career opportunities don’t come around often. This is what makes Hollywood a complicated place for some women. Where do you draw the line? Obviously, Megan Fox had enough. But that’s rarely the way it’s framed in media.

This article is claiming that Megan Fox was “cut” from the film because she “trash-talked” her boss. It sounds more to me like Megan Fox walked away from Transformers because she was sick of her sexist boss. Most media outlets want to frame her situation in a way that makes it look like “see what happens little girls when you back talk”. When in reality, she spoke out against a man known for offending the women he works with and basically for being a sleazy, power-happy misogynist.

Would it be a stretch to call Megan Fox a trailblazer? She really took a beating from the media, who’s response to her unabashed honesty was to call her dumb and difficult.

Megan Fox deserves props if she really walked away from Transformers, and I respect her for speaking out about her boss, although, I think publicly trashing people who you plan to keep relationships with (your boss) is not the best approach. If she had worded it more carefully in interviews, it could have had a very different impact. For instance, she could have talked about the dynamic between playing a sexy character and how her director takes liberties with her because of that. And how it’s complicated to be a pin up girl, but to also want to be treated like a full human…or something along those lines. But there is no play book on “How To Deal With a Sexist Boss While Working in the Public Eye.”

She has, however, expressed ideas similar to this that rarely get reported on. One of my favorites is when she was discussing sexism in Hollywood:

“I’ve worked with people who have been difficult to work with, but have been male, and there is never a complaint made about them. There is never an issue made about them. I have friends who are actresses, who if they go to work one day and they show up on set and they don’t have a smile on their face they’re tagged a bitch and that is really unfortunate. But I can’t single-handedly change that process, but I’m trying.“

With that said, Megan Fox is in a upcoming movie called Friends With Kids starring Jon Hamm and Kristen Wiig! I can’t wait.

—–

Melanie Taylor writes for The Feminist Guide to Hollywood. She is also a singer and a musician, under the name tigersnap.

Bitch Flicks’ Weekly Picks

Margaret Cho Rightfully Loses Her Shit by Margaret Cho from Jezebel

Kicking It on Kickstarter by Kathleen Sweeney from Women’s Media Center

Melissa Harris-Perry Talks MSNBC Show, Stereotypes of Black Women on ‘Colbert Report’ (video) from Huffington Post

Why “Yes, But” Is the Wrong Response to Misogyny by Greta Christina from freethoughtblogs.com

This is why we keep talking about gender in comedy by from Feministing

Leave your links in the comments!

From the Archive: Disembodied Women: Take Five

This post previously appeared at Bitch Flicks on January 12, 2011.

According to the following posters, women have bright red mouths. Wide open mouths with perfect white teeth. That they can put things inside of. See, women often have objects inside their bright red mouths, like golf balls or strawberries, that they’re usually biting. And if they aren’t visibly biting anything, it’s implied that they’ve recently bitten something, what with them all sexy-licking the dripping blood off their–in case you forgot–bright red mouths. Or maybe they’re just biting their own mouths. Or maybe their mouths actually become food (bright red food, even). But if they aren’t biting anything, then the least those bright red mouths can do is stay silent. In fact, looking at the posters in succession, one could even argue that all those bright red mouths (oh yeah, and the completely erased mouths) represent the silencing of women. Who can talk while wearing an implied ball gag? Or while eating? Or when you don’t have a mouth? Or when your mouth is, you know, really just a pair of red chili peppers? Or if you’ve got a bloody knife pressed against it? Or if that shit is zipped shut?

As discussed in the other parts of this series, separating women from their body parts in media images subtly reinforces women’s status as commodities, or pleasure-objects, or victims, who aren’t valued as whole, and who are, as a result, denied their humanity. And we all know, because we live in This Society and it’s 100% inescapable, that the representation of women’s mouths is all kinds of tied up in the mouth-as-vagina metaphor–with the accompanying requisite phallic cigarette and lipstick images apparently never getting old. (And I’d be thrilled to never have to hear the phrase “dick-sucking lips” ever. again.) But if the mouth isn’t a vagina, then it’s a nonstop, life-ruining motormouth (ever hear someone call a man a motormouth?) that even Mr. Potato Head wants to slap the shit out of. (If you don’t know what I’m talking about, have a look at the Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head commercial that ran during the Superbowl.)

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Molly Ringwald putting her lipstick on with her cleavage in The Breakfast Club is one of the most famous scenes in all of 80s film. We’ve come a long way, baby!

Top 10 in 2011: An Open Letter to Pixar

Here it is, finally: the top viewed post of 2011. This open letter, by T. Bookstein, appeared as part of our popular Animated Children’s Film Series. Although Pixar has now created its first female-fronted animated film (Brave), there are still demands that resonate with a lot of us.

_________

November 2011

Berkeley, CA

An Open Letter to Pixar

Dear Pixar Creative Team:

I adore your films. Want proof? My car is named Dory. I have Boundin’ posters hanging in my house. My partner and I mentioned both a jackalope and a delay fish in our wedding vows. We are fans.

I know that you are aware that last year, Toy Story 3 received criticism for a few lines and moments that seem sexist and homophobic. What you may not know is how to fix this situation, or why you should bother.

Let me briefly offer you answers to both of those questions:

1) How to fix this: I want you to hire a consultant to read your scripts and look at your storyboards. More on that later.

2) Why you should bother:

Here’s the thing. Your movies are funny, warm, moving, lively, and brilliant. And yet every so often, they contain a throwaway joke – something that doesn’t forward the plot, something that you don’t need! – that hurts kids.

Let me repeat. You are putting in jokes that aren’t necessary for the scripts, that no one will miss, and that hurt kids.

Click here to read the full post.

Top 10 of 2011: Seriously? These Are the 100 Greatest Female Characters?

Total Film raised our ire twice in 2011, and both posts proved very popular. One of the facts we fight against is that there is a lack of great female characters in film. However, Total Film‘s list of the 100 greatest female characters illustrates so clearly the kinds of roles available to women and rewarded by male audiences. Here is our #3 post of 2011.

__________

This past Monday, Total Film published its list of the 100 Greatest Female Characters. As everyone knows, these Best Ever lists tend to have the pretty obvious problem of not being able to include everyone and, therefore, not being able to please everyone. But we here at Bitch Flicks found this particular list more problematic than usual. For a variety of reasons. Before we discuss the WTF-FAIL of this, check out the list below and/or scroll through the photo-list at Total Film (especially if you’re interested in their use of sexist language and images).

[…]

Basically, compiling a slew of antifeminist characters from antifeminist films and putting them on a list called The 100 Greatest Female Characters–while ironic–is kind of unacceptable. I’ve only barely grazed the surface of this nonsense. If you want to see some really messed up statistics surrounding this list, check out The Double R Diner for a much more in-depth analysis, including a look at the many characters who are victims of violence and sexual assault.

So, readers, what female characters would you include on a list of the 100 Greatest?

Click here to read the full post.

Top 10 of 2011: Movie Preview of ‘Horrible Bosses’

Everyone loves/hates a Top 10 list, right? We thought we’d kick off 2012 with our top posts of 2011, with the only criteria being page views. (Tough to argue with that!) Stay tuned all week as we count to #1, with a few honorable mentions thrown in for good measure.

2011 was our best year yet, and we have you readers and guest contributors to thank for that!

____

At number 10, we have a guest post from the incomparable Melissa McEwan, founder and manager of the award-winning political and cultural group blog Shakesville, who had a few things to say about the trailer for Horrible Bosses.

[Trigger warning for rape “humor,” fat hatred, sexual assault, violence.]

“Tool Boss” Colin Farrell tells “Disrespected Employee” Jason Sudeikis, “We’ve got to trim some of the fat around here.” Sudeikis says, “What?!” to which Farrell replies, “I want you to fire the fat people.”

“Maneater Boss” Jennifer Aniston, who is a dentist, suggests to “Harassed Employee” Charlie Day that they have sex on top of an unconscious female patient. “Let’s use her like a bed,” she says, to which Day exclaims in response, “That’s crossing the line!”

“Psycho Boss” Kevin Spacey tells “Abused Employee” Jason Bateman, “I own you, you little runt,” to which Bateman sheepishly replies, “Thank you.”

Click here to read the full post.

Editors note: We later ran a review of Horrible Bosses by guest writers Kirk Boyle and Byron Bailey. You can read that here.

Guest Writer Wednesday: Fairy Tales and Female Sexuality

This guest post by Sarah Seltzer originally appeared at RH Reality Check.

Don’t go out into the woods. Beware ugly older women bearing strange gifts. Only a princely kiss can resurrect you.

The anti-feminist messages in fairy tales, both in their classic forms from the tales of Grimm, Anderson and Perrault, and their sanitized Disneyfied versions, abound. Heroines are frequently passive, resisting even Disney’s “spunkification” and lose their voices or fall into slumbers. They are rescued by princes or kindly huntsmen. Evil befalls them during puberty. Many fairy tales that have permeated the collective unconsciousness are known for these misogynist tropes and particularly for their warnings about female sexuality and its existence as both a threat and as threatened.

Red Riding Hood, which has just been remade into a (by all accounts mediocre) Twilight-esque tale of a dangerous teen love triangle by Catherine Hardwicke, draws on one of the more symbolically rich of these stories. As Hardwicke herself said, “When you have problems when you’re five years old, it’s just like ‘Red Riding Hood.’ ‘I’m scared to go in the woods’…Later on, when you’re 12 or 13, you really notice the sexual implications. The wolf is in bed, inviting her into bed. You start reading it on a different level, once you hit that sexual awakening.”

Charles Perrault, who popularized the “Little Red Riding Hood” story, made it pretty clear from the outset that the “wolf” is a seducer, and the story a metaphor for women staying away from sex.

From this story one learns that children, especially young lasses, pretty, courteous and well-bred, do very wrong to listen to strangers, And it is not an unheard thing if the Wolf is thereby provided with his dinner. I say Wolf, for all wolves are not of the same sort; there is one kind with an amenable disposition—neither noisy, nor hateful, nor angry, but tame, obliging and gentle, following the young maids in the streets, even into their homes. Alas! Who does not know that these gentle wolves are of all such creatures the most dangerous!

It’s quite explicit, isn’t it?

Susan Brownmiller goes even further in her seminal book Against Our Will, writing that “little Red Riding Hood is a parable of rape,” with the main character an utterly passive victim. The story serves as a warning to girls about the menace in the woods and is an early indicator of “rape culture.”

Indeed, as Paul Harris of the Guardian wrote in an article about Hollywood’s resurgent interest in fairy-stories, “Beneath the magical surface of a fairytale, with its castles and princesses, often lurk ideas around sexuality, the dangers of growing up and leaving home, relationships between children and parents, and the threat that adult strangers can pose.” And in particular, he notes, there’s a “conservative” streak about female sexuality in these stories which is one of the reasons they continue to get resurrected, retold and deconstructed.

Along with Red Riding Hood, archetypical tales like Beauty and the Beast, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty and Bluebeard’s Castle all share concerns about female sexuality. In Beauty and the Beast, the chaste beauty can tame the male beast—even when she’s imprisoned against her will. In Sleeping Beauty a bitter old fairy punishes the heroine with slumber when she pricks her finger, a symbol for menstruation (as is Red Riding Hood’s cloak). In Snow White the lovely young queen also pricks her finger, becomes sexual and has a child. Then suddenly she “dies” and is replaced by a wicked queen, a witch. Every day this queen gets a talk from her mirror who feeds on her jealousy and her obsession with her youth and beauty until she feels compelled to kill the younger, more beautiful and more sexually alluring young woman. Both Snow White and Sleeping Beauty require resurrection by a man. Similar symbolism is at work in The Little Mermaid, in which a young woman, besotted by a handsome prince, goes to an older witch and exchanges her soul for a pair of legs that hurt her to use and even make her bleed.

Still, ever since there have been fairy tales, there has been feminist re-appropriation of fairy tales. As with the myths around creatures like vampires and werewolves which sometimes intersect with fairy tales, the moral of the story often shifts with the mores of the time. From Anne Sexton’s twisted fairy tale poems to Angela Carter’s brilliant stories to the new tumblr meme which turns Disney heroines into glasses-wearing, irony-spouting hipsters, fairy tales have been fertile ground for re-imaginings and inversions.

As Catherine Orenstein wrote in Ms. magazine about the re-appropriation of Red Riding Hood:

Storytellers from the women’s movement and beyond also reclaimed the heroine from male-dominated literary tradition, recasting her as the physical or sexual aggressor and questioning the machismo of the wolf. In the 1984 movie The Company of Wolves, inspired by playwright Angela Carter, the heroine claims a libido equal to that of her lascivious stalker and becomes a wolf herself. In the Internet tale “Red Riding Hood Redux,” the heroine unloads a 9mm Beretta into the wolf and, as tufts of wolf fur waft down, sends the hunter off to a self-help group, White Male Oppressors Anonymous.

Orenstein went to the origins of the “Riding Hood” myth and discovered that in its original incarnations, the heroine is much less passive and more of a trickster who ends up outwitting the wolf without the aid of any huntsman. She is just one of many writers who devote an entire book to analyzing Red Riding Hood from a gendered lens, while Carter is one of many artists to re-write the story with an entirely new agenda.

Fairy tales will always be with us, whether being sugarcoated and Disneyfied or fed to us as subversive fare. Feminists should continue to embrace the retelling and transformation of these tales as part of our ritual for contending with the myths and tropes of patriarchy. Even if Catherine Hardwicke sexualizes the story in a muddled way, she’s taking part in a proud tradition.

—–

Sarah Seltzer is an RH Reality Check staff writer and resident pop culture expert based in New York City. She’s an Associate Editor at AlterNet and her work has been published in The Washington Post, Publishers Weekly, and the LA Times and on the websites of The Nation, The Christian Science Monitor, The Wall Street Journal and Jezebel. She formerly taught English in a Bronx public school.

Animated Children’s Films: An Open Letter to Pixar

This open letter previously appeared at Pixar Can Do Better.

November 2011

Berkeley, CA

An Open Letter to Pixar

Dear Pixar Creative Team:

I adore your films. Want proof? My car is named Dory. I have Boundin’ posters hanging in my house. My partner and I mentioned both a jackalope and a delay fish in our wedding vows. We are fans.

Let me briefly offer you answers to both of those questions:

1) How to fix this: I want you to hire a consultant to read your scripts and look at your storyboards. More on that later.

2) Why you should bother:

Let me repeat. You are putting in jokes that aren’t necessary for the scripts, that no one will miss, and that hurt kids.

Here are some examples just from Toy Story 3 and Ratatouille:

A) Making fun of boys who transgress gender lines hurts kids.

In Toy Story 3, Ken laments, “Why do people always call me a girls’ toy?”, and he’s laughed at for having “girl’s handwriting.” What you are teaching here is that 1) girl’s toys and handwriting aren’t as good as boy’s toys & handwriting, and thus 2) girls, and feminine boys, just aren’t as good as masculine boys. This is called gender policing, homophobia, and misogyny. It hurts kids. And you know what? This joke wasn’t necessary. No one would have enjoyed Toy Story 3 one whit less if the homophobia was left out. You make people laugh in plenty of other wonderful ways in every movie – why do it at someone’s expense?

B) Telling stories where women need to be rescued hurts kids.

In the end of TS3, Jessie is “saved” by Buzz in a very obviously cliched and evocative pose, like in an old western. You seem to have put this in as the final reason that Jessie falls for Buzz. Why bother? Jessie was a perfectly strong female character in her own right, and she already clearly liked Buzz. There was no reason to set her up as a damsel in distress – especially because this image hurts kids. Damsels in distress create the expectation that women are powerless and need to be saved by men, which damages both girls and boys by 1) teaching them that the roles of Savior and Damsel are the most important roles they can have and 2) teaching girls that they can’t take care of themselves.

C) Showing men kissing women against their will hurts kids and leads to date rape.

Folks, in Ratatouille, there are THREE females – two characters and one bridal caketopper – that are kissed against their will. Each of these is presented as humorous or romantic. Are you kidding me? When kids see these images, 1) they learn that when girls say no, it is romantic or funny to kiss them anyway, which can lead directly to date rape. 2) Girls learn that what they want or say is not important, and that what a guy really wants is for them to put up a half-hearted fight and then submit. Is this really what you want to be teaching? I fervently hope that Ratatouille is the last time we will ever see that kind of thing in a Pixar movie.

D) Showing bikini-clad, voiceless women as supreme objects of desire hurts kids.

Night and Day was a gorgeous little gem of a film. But why did your two transparent beings have to fight over hot skinny bikini girls? Why not chocolate cake, or a bouquet of balloons? Are we in Tex Avery’s 1950s? From this story (and Knick Knack before it) kids learn that hot skinny bikini girls are the most important prize in the world. Girls learn that in order to be interesting they need to be skinny, half-naked, and sexualized. This leads to anorexia, depression, and so much more, as documented in this study: Sexualization of Girls is Linked to Common Mental Health Problems in Girls and Women.

E) Making fun of people who are physically different hurts kids, and

F) Making the bad guy brown hurts kids.

Folks, you did both of these at once with your short, dark-skinned villain in Ratatouille. Again, is it the fifties? This was especially surprising considering that none of your other villains are dark-skinned, and your truly inspiring and groundbreaking portrayals of disability in Finding Nemo.

On the good side, we had some very positive possibly-not-Caucasian characters in Up and TS3. So I think you’re on the right track. Now how to keep going in that direction?

SO, that consultant.

Pixar Creative Team, you are experts and brilliant leaders in your field. You tell wonderful stories and create beautiful works of art. You don’t need to also be experts in fighting homophobia, misogyny, racism, ableism, or sexism.

What you DO need to do is to hire someone who is that expert.

Please, I beg of you: hire a consultant – someone experienced in noticing sexism, racism, heterosexism, and ableism – to look at your scripts and make sure that you are aware of the impact of your throwaway jokes. You need SOMEBODY on your payroll who can look at each story in the earliest phases, scripts and storyboards, and who can say, “that’s sorta sexist. Do we really need it?”

Because you don’t.

Your films are masterpieces. Please, do the right thing, and take out the unnecessary jokes that hurt kids.

Sincerely,

T. Bookstein

T. Bookstein has been noticing misogyny, racism, heterosexism, ableism and other “little” problems in the media for about ten years. She works in higher education at her dream job. She and her partner are raising two awesome sons, and one orange cat.

Guest Writer Wednesday: Post-Feminist Entertainment

This guest post by Melissa McEwan previously appeared at her blog Shakesville.

—–

[Trigger warning for misogyny.]

I’ve been really excited to see the previews for this awesome new show, coming next week to Fox:

Male Voiceover: Just because you have a teenage daughter doesn’t mean you’re not all that.

Blond White Woman working behind counter at cafe, to Conventionally Attractive White Man: I am definitely a cool parent. I’m always online, networking socially. [canned laughter]

Auburn-Haired White Female Friend, leaning against counter: I’m a cool mom, too. LOL. Whatevs. Justin Bieber. [canned laughter]

Male Voiceover: I Hate My Teenage Daughter. Wednesday, November 30th, on Fox!

HA HA! Perfect. Definitely what this post-feminist world needs is some post-feminist programming with edgy narratives about how women are jealous bitches who resent their own daughters as they age disgracefully and mourn their lost youth. WELL DONE, FOX.

And what a title! Goooooooooooood one. In this post-feminist world, where there is definitely no concern about the emotional health of teenage girls and bullying is not a problem and misogyny is FOR SURE a thing of the past, where no one uses “girl” or “schoolgirl” as an insult, where no one accuses anyone of throwing like a girl or crying like a schoolgirl, and companies would never do something like conflate a teenage girl with mayhem, where teenage girls are all totally secure in their worth as full and equal beings and their humanity is never diminished by objectification or exploitation or marginalization or myriad narratives that daily communicate you are less than, in this amazing new world where feminism has been rendered moot, this is obviously a perfect show that is super funny.

Thank Maude we live in this remarkable new frontier of undiluted equality, because can you even imagine the horror of being a teenage girl in a misogynist world and having to hear I Hate My Teenage Daughter played for laughs week after week after week…? Shiver. I don’t even want to contemplate it.

Fuck you, Fox.

—–

Melissa McEwan is the founder and manager of the award-winning political and cultural group blog Shakesville, which she launched as Shakespeare’s Sister in October 2004 because George Bush was pissing her off. In addition to running Shakesville, she also contributes to The Guardian‘s Comment is Free America and AlterNet. Melissa graduated from Loyola University Chicago with degrees in Sociology and Cultural Anthropology, with an emphasis on the political marginalization of gender-based groups. An active feminist and LGBTQI advocate, she has worked as a concept development and brand consultant and now writes full-time.

YouTube Break: The Twilight Saga: An Interview with Dr. Natalie Wilson

Breaking Dawn, Part 1 opened in theaters last Friday, November 18th. I mainly know this because my sister, a self-professed “Twi-Hard” talked about it nonstop for about two weeks. She also went to the midnight showing. I’ve seen all the previous films in the series and wrote about New Moon awhile ago, and I’m well aware of the feminist criticism of both the novels and the films. I personally find the films fairly nuanced (don’t judge), and I think they invite many different, more complex readings than they’re often given. However, I’d say the series is pretty antifeminist overall. I suppose I’m most bothered by the disgusting, misogynist reaction to the fans of the Twilight Saga (who are mostly young women), and the disgusting, misogynist (and homophobic) reaction to Edward as a sparkly (read: totally, like, gay dude) vampire–as opposed to a super awesome killer vampire who, you know, doesn’t sparkle. And it isn’t surprising that it’s mostly young dudes who lambast girls and women all over the net for loving Twilight, yet it’s perfectly acceptable for them to male bond over the horrible franchise that is Transformers (and to simultaneously ogle Megan Fox’s ass, of course). This is all for another post about The Rise of the Fangirl, though, which I will write one day. At the very least, it’s important to discuss Twilight because it’s the First Franchise Film Series Ever to directly target teen girls, and we should probably look at what that means for the future of films made for young women, especially since the Twilight Saga has been overwhelmingly successful at the box office. Luckily, I found an amazing interview with Dr. Natalie Wilson, who points out some major problems with the Twilight Saga, and who blogs for one of my favorite sites, Professor, What If …?

This post is dedicated to my sister, Heather, who needs to understand that the Twilight Saga is kind of bullshit. I included a transcript in case the video doesn’t play. Enjoy!

Dr. Jenn: This year for Halloween, we’re going to discuss a pop culture phenomenon about vampires: the Twilight Saga. And I actually personally don’t know a lot about Twilight, but we have a local San Diego professor who knows a ton about this–and specifically a lot about bringing a feminist perspective to analyzing this book and movie series. Today we have Natalie Wilson, who’s a professor of Women’s Studies and Literature at Cal State, San Marcos, specializing in pop culture, feminism … and has a particular interest in sexuality, monstrosity, and the body. She blogs for Ms., Girl With Pen, and Womanist Musings, as well as her own blog, and had two books that came out this year: Seduced by Twilight and Theorizing Twilight. Good to have you on the show. So I know that you do a lot of teaching, writing, and research around women’s equality, and that you tie it to a study of popular culture. How do you do that?

Dr. Wilson: Right. Well, I think oftentimes popular culture is written of as just entertainment, as if it doesn’t matter. But actually popular culture is sort of a huge barometer of what’s going on in our society. So I like to think of studying popular culture as sort of taking the pulse of society. And when you look at popular culture, you can tell how healthy or unhealthy some of our views are. And as a women’s studies professor I’m particularly interested in gender and sexuality, and that is what sort of spurred my interest in writing about the Twilight Saga, because it’s a huge cultural phenomenon, and I feel like it sends some rather problematic messages about gender and sexuality.

Dr. Jenn: And I know you’ve even taught a class about this, a college semester long class about it. Okay, so what would you say the Twilight Saga says about gender, women’s sexuality, and sexual health?

Dr. Wilson: Right. Well, in terms of gender, I would say it’s rather regressive, very traditional roles of gender. For females, you’re supposed to first fall in love, then you’re supposed to get married—no sex before marriage—and as soon as you get married, you should have a child. And you should also give up college because you know, you can’t go to college and be a mother; that would be impossible. So, very sort of regressive ideas in terms of femininity and the female role, really marriage and motherhood. And then in terms of masculinity, the males that are held up in the series as the desirable males are very controlling, almost hypermasculine, very strong, very muscular, very domineering, and very possessive and controlling and even violent toward the females in the series.

Dr. Jenn: And that’s what I was going to ask. I know there seems to be a connection between violence and sexuality, so what have you found around that?

Dr. Wilson: In terms of sexuality, the series is often called “abstinence porn.” It kind of drips with sex, but no sex ever really happens, so there’s desire around sex, but you’re not supposed to have sex before marriage, so there’s a definite abstinence message. And in particular, the female of the series, Bella, is held up as the one that’s responsible for not getting the males too excited, and she’s sort of the policer of chastity.

Dr. Jenn: So the responsibility is put on her.

Dr. Wilson: Yes, the responsibility is put on her. The other thing is that there’s this equation with sex and death—because she’s attracted to a vampire and a werewolf, both of who are supernaturally strong, and could kill her very easily. So the idea is if you turn them on, or you get too involved, your life is at risk. So there’s this equation with sex equaling death for females.

Dr. Jenn: Yikes. What about in terms of, like, the importance of how these messages are showing up … because I know if you look at our rates of STDs and pregnancy compared to other countries, there’s a big difference. Can you speak to that?

Dr. Wilson: Yeah. I think one of the things that happens with sexuality in the novel is there’s lots of desire, but there’s no serious conversations around sex. And there’s, you know, “you will be damned if you have sex” or “you will die,” but there’s nothing about contraception or sexual health or what a healthy relationship is; in fact, Edward is quite abusive. On their first night, their first honeymoon night, Bella ends up black and blue the morning after because he’s so strong, and he’s holding onto her so tightly. And this is framed as very hot and exciting rather than as some sort of sexual violence.

Dr. Jenn: And didn’t one of them black out … is that right? … Or didn’t have memories of that?

Dr. Wilson: Right. She wakes up, and she’s in this post-coital euphoria; meanwhile, she’s completely black and blue and supposedly doesn’t realize that she’s black and blue until she looks in the mirror. And then when she looks in the mirror, she calls the bruises decorations, and that they are, you know, him decorating her with his love. So this sort of blurring of sexuality and violence and sex being dangerous … and then what you were saying about STIs and teen pregnancies: it is a series that’s hugely popular with teens and young people, and there’s no emphasis on, you know, that these types of violent relationships are unhealthy. In fact, they’re held up as desirable. There’s never a discussion of contraception. And she does end up pregnant, of course, the night of the honeymoon.

Dr. Jenn: Her first time?

Dr. Wilson: Yeah, her first time. And then that is framed as, you know, the happy ending. Like, the marriage and her becoming a mother are framed as the happy ending.

Dr. Jenn: You’ve said a lot already that’s very impactful. Anything else that you can speak to … what you think … how this impacts the teenagers that are fans of this?

Dr. Wilson: I think an important thing to point out is that it’s had a huge cross-generational impact, so even though teens are a huge part of the fandom, it’s also very popular among twenty and thirty year olds. And there’s the Twilight moms, so it’s really had a pretty big cultural impact. One of the things you might’ve heard of is the tendency to have a team, like, you’re Team Edward or you’re Team Jacob. And that has sort of spilled out into other … I mean, vampire shows, but also other shows as well–like True Blood, there’s Team Eric or Team Bill. And if you notice, all the teams are male. So it’s this very old idea of male as the sexual aggressor; they’re the one who’s in competition for women—very hypermasculine—and then women are held up as, you know, they can be the fans, or they’re literally sort of the objects that the men are fighting over. So it seems to me in terms of it spreading out into popular culture, it’s going backwards and sort of regressing to older ideas about sexuality where the male was supposed to be the aggressor and the female was supposed to be the passive, you know … And of course, very heteronormative, and very … married, monogamous sex is the only type that’s allowed. And there’s this sort of hypermasculine … the bodies of the males in the films as well as in the books–super muscular, super strong. So those are bodies that are often associated with being violent, and in the saga, they are violent; but it’s held up as, “he just couldn’t help himself,” either he was so turned on that he couldn’t help hurting me, or he loves me so much that he became violent and became jealous. And with the rates of, you mentioned, STIs and teen pregnancy, the United States also has the highest rates of teen sexual violence. So it’s kind of saying that teen sexual violence, “it’s just because he loves me so much” or that it’s actually romantic rather than problematic.

Dr. Jenn: Oh my gosh. Thank you. That was a ton of information. Give a hand here for Natalie Wilson. Wow. And if you want to find Natalie online, you can visit Seduced by Twilight.

Swiffer Reminds Us that Women Are Dirt

We’ve all been here before: watching a television show, cut to commercial break, and on comes that particular ad that you absolutely loathe. You switch the channel, mute the TV, or just rant through the entire thing…again (I’m not the only one, right?).

Not too long ago, I wrote about the spate of “man up and drink a manly beverage” ads (Dr. Pepper Ten specifically), which certainly qualify as loathe-worthy. But there’s another ad campaign that just annoys me to no end: the Swiffer Wet Jet ads that feature women as dirt and show these different varieties of “dirt” falling in love with the cleaning product that gets rid of them so well.

Here’s the one I’ve seen most often — “The Film Star:”

Here, we have a dramatic actress portraying the “film” left behind after mopping, and when the Swiffer mop comes after her, she throws herself at it, clearly lusting after the mop pad that will sweep her away. The ad pulls back and shows a woman satisfied with her freshly-cleaned floor.

Taken alone, the ad is silly and obnoxious, and just about as regressive as your typical gendered ad for cleaning products. The fact that dirt is personified as a woman is disturbing, the fact that she lusts after a mop to essentially destroy her is bizarre (and suggests some deeply fucked-up sexual politics), and the fact that a woman’s enemy (a filmy floor–oh no!) is another woman plays into the typical trope that says women are naturally enemies.

If you look at the other ads in the campaign, however, it gets worse. Here’s “The Mud Lady” (note: this is embedded from YouTube, so if it gets removed, you can likely find the ad somewhere else with a simple search):

Again, we have a woman personifying something you mop up–mud, in this case–and here the woman even claims she’s “not easy” before (literally) throwing herself at the mop pad. Again, the camera pans out to a woman happily mopping her floor. Just as the dramatic actress behaves stereotypically, this woman has a “Valley Girl” (is that term still in use?) accent and quickly contradicts what she says with her actions.

There’s another one featuring an elderly woman as yet another variety of dirt, which I can’t find online (if you know of a link, please let me know and I’ll update!) and she’s unhappy that no one’s given her any romantic attention in a while. Once again, enter that irresistible mop and the woman throws herself at it. And yet another woman mopping is pleased that her floors are now so clean.

These three ads are the only ones in the campaign that I’ve seen on TV here in the U.S. When I went to the official product website, there were some ads I’d never seen that feature men in lust with the mop pad. As a matter of fact, there are two ads there featuring women, and two featuring men (perhaps they’re attempting to thwart accusations of sexism there, but I doubt the ones featuring men are in rotation as heavily as the others)–although all of them show women doing the actual cleaning.

It’s remarkable how different the portrayals of the dirt people are: the men-as-dirt ads show a Crocodile Dundee-esque character (also stereotypical) and two buddies lamenting the state of their romantic lives, while the women-as-dirt ads always show a lonely, solitary woman desperate for the kind of attention provided by this wonder mop.

I’m less interested in equal-opportunity offense here: men as dirt is disturbing, too. But for me, there’s something particularly insidious about these women-as-dirt ads. This isn’t the first time Swiffer has been accused of sexism in their ads, either. In 2008, The Hathor Legacy called out the bizarre ad campaign featuring women in relationships with their cleaning tools:

Swiffer has a whole line of commercials featuring women breaking up with their old mops and brooms to hook up with Swiffer, or the rejected cleaning tools sending flowers in an attempt to woo back their former owners. All the commercials frame women’s relationships with cleaning tools like relationships with boyfriends who are/aren’t meeting their needs. Some of them have involved the woman and the mop in couples therapy, too.

I mentioned in my Dr. Pepper Ten post that I actually like that company’s product, and I feel the same way about Swiffer. And although my husband usually cleans the floors in our home, I’m still the one who buys a majority of the products we use. Swiffer has succeeded in pissing me off and alienating me with this ad campaign to the point that I’m basically finished with their products. It’s yet another example of a company’s humor gone wrong, outdated gender roles, and the assumption that customers will just accept sexism as the norm. Nope. Not here. It doesn’t take much effort to replace a company’s product that has no respect for its customers (and that just makes horrible ads).