Geri Silver
Log in to comment or register to create your own blog
Since its HBO debut in 2012, Lena Dunham’s Girls has become a platform for cultural debate. Dunham’s often self-referential character, Hannah, is one of the most divisive leading characters that has ever been on television—some see her as unlikable and selfish, while others view her struggles with relationships, friendships, work, and self-fulfilment as widely representative of millennial life. Her trademark sex scenes are considered brave by some, unnecessarily excessive by others, and have sparked widespread dialogue about young adults’ sexuality and the impact of porn culture. After two Golden Globe wins, a renewed third season, and achieving acclaimed cultural relevance, it must have come as a shock to Lena Dunham to hear that her complicated, political, and personal comedy-drama is now being adapted to a Hustler porn parody.
In the Girls porn parody, titled This Ain’t Girls XXX, Hannah supposedly leaves her boyfriend Adam, denouncing men and experimenting with women before eventually returning to her man. Richie Calhoun, who plays Adam in the parody, said “they didn’t have to do much” to adapt the original material to pornography due to the show’s frequent sexual themes.
Dunham first tweeted about the news of the porn parody yesterday morning, expressing her unhappiness by saying she wishes she “had a better attitude” about the situation.
A full twelve hours later, she took to Twitter again in a series of five tweets, clarifying why she is particularly disturbed over This Ain't Girls XXX, and why she feels it’s worthy of discussion.
First of all, good for Lena Dunham for returning to the subject after her initial “I’m just a crazy emotional girl with no sense of humor” response. It’s what many people are sure to tell her--- that it was bound to happen, to take it as a compliment, to laugh it off, or that the amount of sex and nudity in Girls itself is already comparable to porn. But Dunham is right to value and validate her concerns, even if her critics will likely write them off as a “bad attitude.”
She’s also right about why she shouldn’t just “laugh off” the Girls porn parody. Girls, in many ways, holds a mirror to society and millennial culture, revealing, scrutinizing, and critiquing the complexities of modern young adult life. The cringe-worthy sex scenes and rocky relationships unpack the harmful myths about sex and sexuality created and perpetuated by pornography; Adam’s tendency to sexually degrade his partners, Hannah’s psychosis over being “13 pounds overweight,” Shoshanna’s shame over being a 21-year-old virgin, and many other elements embody the notion “the personal is political.”
If Girls holds a critical mirror to society, This Ain’t Girls XXX is like a twisted funhouse mirror, absorbing Dunham’s personal and political subject matter and spitting it back out into the same recognizably harmful narrative that necessitated its very creation. It’s like taking an anti-war film and adapting it for the latest bloodthirsty version of the Call of Duty video game.
The good thing is that with or without a porn parody, Girls continues to make its statement. The even better thing is that Lena Dunham can express herself in two worlds—the world through her characters’ eyes in Girls, and in the real world, where her personal voice as an artist has come to be respected as well. For Dunham to openly discuss the political and feminist nature of her show, especially in the wake of its porn parody, shines light on the unique gravitas of her work—and why its continuing success is more important than ever.
In a move that is nothing short of formulaic, Seth Meyers is the new face of NBC’s Late Night. Just like his Late Night predecessor, Jimmy Fallon, Meyers is best known for delivering satirical news reports for SNL’s Weekend Update. And just like Jimmy Fallon, Jay Leno, Jimmy Kimmel, Conan O’Brien, David Letterman, Craig Ferguson, and every other major network’s late night talk show host for the last 30+ years, he’s a middle-aged white guy.
With Fallon taking Jay Leno’s Tonight Show spot and Meyers stepping up to the Late Night plate, this shift (I’d hesitate to use the more significant word ‘change’) is an unsurprisingly disappointing move to the many people who know that plenty of funny, smart, and prime time-worthy individuals exist outside of the middle-aged white guy mold. In the weeks leading up to the announcement, many news outlets speculated about NBC’s opportunity to break from its boring tradition—suggesting qualified and deserving comedians like Amy Sedaris, Wanda Sykes, Aziz Ansari, Ellen DeGeneres, Amy Poehler, Melissa McCarthy, Sarah Silverman, Chelsea Handler, Tina Fey, and Kenan Thompson. Any one of these names would have offered a fresh break from what CNN called the “white-guy-in-a-suit-sitting-behind-the-desk tradition” that has dominated for over 30 years.
But sadly, and without any offense to the admittedly funny Seth Meyers, NBC took the predictable route in hiring what’s basically a carbon copy of the status quo. Meanwhile, funny women remain banished to daytime talk shows and half-hour shows on less popular networks. As Martha Lauzen of San Diego State University’s Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film said earlier to CNN, "Perception is reality. I think the perception is still that a network show is higher in status than a cable show, and that those higher status positions remain reserved for primarily white males." It’s a shame and a disappointment that NBC continues to perpetuate this twisted form of reality in which white guys are the only ones worthy of primetime fame.
The good news is, although white males may dominate the primetime talk show scene, there are other options for viewers who seek insightful comedy and wit from a more diverse set of personalities. Supplement talk shows with Veep, the HBO comedy starring the hilarious Julia Louis-Dreyfus, which makes a delightful mockery of the behind-the-scenes problems of political public relations. Chelsea Handler has had her own talk show on E! since 2007, and although it runs only 30 minutes, the nightly show regularly features diverse panels of smart comedians and Chelsea’s reliably funny dry humor. Watch Parks and Recreation and The Mindy Project, and DVR Ellen, who has some of the funniest, most moving, and most important segments shown on TV.
It’s not hard to find proof that gut-busting comedy is not only a white man’s domain. If the late night talk shows of major television networks don’t reflect that, I know I’ll be looking elsewhere.
Cornell University has taken the spotlight a few times this year for instances of rape and sexual assault on campus, but last week’s arrest of wrestler Peter Mesko was the first time an alleged perpetrator was identified. So why does the media put the victim on trial?
According to court papers, a Cornell University student awoke in the middle of the night to find herself being raped by a total stranger. She screamed and woke up her girlfriend, and they both were able to run away and lock themselves in another room. The victim’s girlfriend was able to snap a photo of the attacker, and they were later able to identify the assailant as Peter Mesko, who has since been arrested and charged with first-degree rape.
As the media covers this developing case, the Associated Press’s account, which has been published in The Huffington Post, USA Today, Fox News, The Washington Post, and other mainstream media outlets, includes one particularly eyebrow-raising detail from the night of the incident:
“Court papers said the two women had gone out for drinks Friday night, and the alleged victim told police she had had two beers, a shot of tequila and a whiskey and Coke.”
More local coverage also included this tidbit, including Cornell’s university newspaper, which stated:
“The victim consumed two beers, a shot of tequila and a whiskey and Coke, and was ‘moderately intoxicated,’ according to court documents. Still, the victim told police, ‘I remember the entire night and purchased my own drinks.’”
Though none of these articles directly place blame on the victim, I find it deeply troubling that the victim’s alcohol consumption that night was even considered relevant to report. What’s most disturbing is that this inclusion wasn’t random—it’s part of a normalized cycle of rape coverage that judges and scrutinizes victims in ways that would be unheard of for any other sort of crime. Victim blaming has apparently become so engrained in rape investigations and coverage that a victim can be randomly attacked by an intruder in the middle of the night and still have her own actions and decisions called into question for judgment, and it says a lot about rape culture that the world’s largest news wire service finds it necessary to publish these irrelevant details. I’m actually surprised they failed to mention whether or not she was wearing sexy pajamas.
What if the victim had been totally drunk during the attack? Would that have changed the fact that a stranger entered her room and raped her in her sleep? Many other rape victims don’t fit so clearly into the ‘ideal victim’ narrative of being attacked by a total stranger. Some rape victims are blackout drunk, others are friends or in relationships with their assailants, some are wearing “slutty” clothes, or walking alone too late at night—and these victims would probably have an even harder time finding justice. Giving weight to these unrelated details slowly blurs the line between what is and isn’t viewed as “real” victimization, and it shouldn’t. Eventually, it spreads the message that unless you’re a chaste, white grandmother walking home mid-afternoon after church, you better watch the way you act just in case a man decides to rape you later. That makes the world a pretty scary place for women.
Women should be able to get drunk, stay out late, wear what they want, and know that these decisions have absolutely no impact on whether or not they consent to sex. Yet still women are told over and over by the media, by the police, and by society that these things matter. After this case, my question for the Associated Press is this: did you have six beers, two tequila shots, and a whiskey and Coke before you decided to turn a blind eye to your role in rape culture?
If you were spared from following yesterday’s most idiotic news, you might not know that some people have boldly decided to #boycottgoogle. Why? Because yesterday, on Easter Sunday, the search engine’s ‘Google Doodle’ wasn’t eggs and bunnies.
Instead of featuring an Easter ‘doodle,’ Google instead paid tribute to Cesar Chavez, the Latino American civil rights activist and labor leader. Cesar Chavez Day is an official March 31st holiday recognizing Chavez’s legacy of educational, environmental, and civil rights leadership. But despite the fact that Chavez dedicated his life to improving the lives of thousands of workers, it is important to note that he is still not bunnies.
I’d say the outrage that ensued is too dumb for words, but as a blogger, I can think of some.
Undertones of ignorance and racism are undeniably present in these #boycottgoogle tweets. Some people have condemned Google’s decision to honor a Venezuelan dictator (because anyone with the same last name is obviously the same person, just look at George and Denzel Washington!). Another guy tweeted, “#google honors #Chavez on easter, who knew google is anti-american?” Over at The American Conservative, Rod Dreher says, “Google could have ignored Easter, and nobody would have noticed. But choosing to observe something other than Easter on Easter Sunday is deliberate,” later going on to call Chavez “a relatively obscure cultural figure.” I’d like to offer some advice to these people: Wikipedia.
These lamentations make the writers’ prejudices extremely transparent. Many seem to have heard a Spanish name that they didn’t recognize, and without further inquiry, labelled his recognition as “Anti-American.” No matter, of course, that Chavez was an American, whose contributions to American society left a legacy to make the country “stronger, more just, and more prosperous,” in the words of President Obama. And yet, people suggest that they’d rather Google have done nothing than honor his legacy when the holiday fell on Easter Sunday.
As I see conservative sites and tweeters rail against Google’s act of “hostility,” “dishonor,” and “disrespect,” to Christians, I can’t help but hear distant echoes of, “And why can’t we have a white history month?” Somehow, their twisted logic insinuates that, despite the fact that white Christians hold the majority of power in America, a failure to further advertise their dominant religious beliefs is not only unacceptable, but also actually “intolerant.” To claim that Christian holidays, and Easter in particular, are not given enough widespread recognition is like calling for a “Men’s Appreciation Day.” Easter is already everywhere—it’s at Chipotle, when I desperately want a burrito and remember the store is closed. It’s at the supermarket, when aisles of snacks are dominated by chocolate eggs and marshmallow Peeps for the entire month. It’s in schools, when kids learn the story of Easter as if it were a history lesson while the non-Christian kids sit quietly and pretend to be invisible. It’s true—for a country without a national religion, Easter has already infiltrated American culture whether or not it is recognized by a pastel-colored search engine.
At the end of the day, if you want to #boycottgoogle and start using Bing, go for it. Bing was the default browser back in my unfortunate Blackberry days and was the bane of my existence, but I hope you have a great time. But if you do get around to that Wikipedia search, you might want to note that Cesar Chavez’s activism included a 25 day fast to promote nonviolence, leading a five year strike for worker’s rights, and organising the largest farm worker strike in U.S. history. But of course, your switch from Google to Bing is very brave.
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit has never shied away from controversy. The events that unfold in the show’s sex crimes unit are admittedly and proudly “ripped from the headlines,” and whether the assailant is a fictionalized Jerry Sandusky or Chris Brown, the show’s unsubtle nods to current events can be quite powerful. In Wednesday night’s episode, a Congressman and quack doctor took the stand in a rape case to share his “expert” knowledge about how the female body has ways of “shutting down” pregnancy in instances of “legitimate rape.” Sound familiar?
The weekly show always opens with the line, “This story is fictional and does not depict any actual person or event,” but after 14 years of covering topical subjects and mirroring real-life incidents, this statement should really come accompanied with a winky face. This week’s episode, titled “Legitimate Rape,” executes a pretty straightforward evisceration of conservative politician Todd Akin and other rape apologists who use de-bunked “scientific” evidence to blame the victim. The show brings the conservative politician’s faulty and offensive remarks front-and-center, exposing the blatant ignorance and thinly veiled misogyny that underlie these claims.
In “Legitimate Rape,” a popular sports reporter (Lauren Cohan) accuses her cameraman of rape and stalking, and later finds out she’s pregnant with his child. Bringing the rape to court destroys her career and personal life, and when her rapist decides to act as his own lawyer, she is forced to endure his subtle tactics of harassment and degradation publicly in the courtroom. Her rapist calls in an “expert,” who flies in from out of town because he’s so passionate about the issue of “women lying” about rape.
Under cross-examination, the “expert knowledge” of the Congressman sporting a red tie and American flag pin unsurprisingly falls apart— citing the extensive research that has since de-bunked the doctor’s decades-old research, the prosecutor proves instead that women are just as likely to get pregnant from rape as they are from consensual sex. When the Congressman refutes by saying that women are less likely to conceive under stress, the prosecutor forces him to clarify that the research indicates that is only true for long-term stress, not short-term stress that would result from situations of rape.
But the Congressman’s words were enough to sway a single juror, which proves to be enough to get a rapist acquitted. After his acquittal, the rapist sues for custody rights and uses the victim’s subsequent PTSD and anti-depressant use to argue that she’s an unfit mother, successfully winning visitation rights with the infant.
The episode shines a harsh light on the significant role that conservative politics play in perpetuating rape culture. The episode also makes a more timely reference to a New Mexico bill that would criminalize abortion for rape victims, hinting that Akin’s gaffe was not a one-off flub, but rather one of many instances that reveal that victim-blaming is embedded in right-wing ideology.
Of course, real-life conservatives claim to be the real victims of Dick Wolf’s Law & Order: SVU. Right-wingers have hated the show for years, stating that the show exploits current events to “promote liberal agendas and to bash Christians.” It’ll be interesting to see how those conservatives respond to this episode, seeing as a nearly verbatim delivery and factual deconstruction of Akin’s remarks is all that it took to so-called “promote the liberal agenda.”
If right-wing conservatives don’t like being “victimized” by a prime-time entertainment television show, they may want to consider how much worse it must feel to, well, actually be a victim. When a little empathy and science seems to promote your enemy’s agenda, then you’re probably doing it wrong.
Critics of the first season of Lena Dunham’s Girls moaned about privilege and “first world problems.” Others heralded its 26-year-old creator as “the voice of a generation.” The show won two Golden Globe Awards. After the buzz around its controversial inaugural season, the ten-episode second season couldn’t have been more highly anticipated.
Season one of Girls was hilarious. Remember “The Crackcident,” when the high-strung Shoshanna accidentally smoked crack at a party and then attacked Ray on the streets of Brooklyn while wearing only underwear? And all those times Hannah ruined her chances of a career, from the failed rape joke at a job interview to that time she propositioned her overweight, married, too-friendly boss for sex because she thought it would make a good story? Season one was not all jokes and gags, but humor was sprinkled all over—Hannah once confronted Adam about how terrible he makes her feel, but did so with horribly drawn on eyebrows that made the whole thing a little ridiculous. Jessa needed an abortion, but luckily got her period before anything got to be too much of a downer. Season one touched upon serious problems, insecurities, and issues without ever abandoning the comedy genre for which it ended up winning the Golden Globe.
Season two had a noticeable shift, one that got stronger and more intense as the season went on. Things got pretty dark, and writer and producer Lena Dunham didn’t lean on comedy much to lighten the mood. At first it was a lot to take in, and made a lot of people pretty angry (“But that episode wasn’t even funny!”). But Dunham is a smart writer, and trusted her audience enough to allow the show to take a slightly different path. The characters’ serious flaws, which we saw highlighted and exposed all throughout season one, finally brought on some real-life consequences. Jessa’s spontaneous wedding crumbled and caused her real pain, and Marnie lost her job, and more difficultly, her sense of identity. Shoshanna’s first love ended up becoming much less idyllic than she had probably imagined on her “manifestation board.” Adam and Ray, who had once been pretty obnoxious supporting characters, came through to show some serious complexities and vulnerabilities. And Hannah, overcome with pressure, loneliness, and a lack of support, re-developed horrible symptoms of OCD that destroyed some of her adolescent years.
The “first world problems” critics have been pretty silent—maybe because they’ve just lost interest in the show, but more likely because the characters in Girls are no longer so enviable. Hannah may have a nice apartment to herself in Brooklyn, but after the last few episodes, would anyone seriously volunteer to trade lives with her? Although some fans may get nostalgic for the good old days when Shoshanna analyzed Jerry Springer's dating show Baggage and Marnie and Hannah flung toothbrushes at each other after a passive aggressive girl fight, Lena Dunham’s bold decision to reduce the blatant humor and amplify the characters’ problems had an enormous payoff. Fans are hooked on the characters, and now Dunham has the artistic license to take greater writing risks, transform the mood of the show and introduce gritty darkness without any punch line guaranteed.
If the first season could be characterized as a comedy sprinkled with tragedy, the second was a tragedy with a dusting of humor. But last night’s finale left us with some salient developments for the leading characters, perhaps misleadingly indicating a light at the end of the tunnel for some. Marnie attempts to find herself again by reuniting with Charlie, but it’s hard to believe that their fairy-tale happy ending is going to be the end of their tumultuous story. Shoshanna can’t bear the loss of her innocence, crushing Ray and moving on to turn over a new leaf in her young life. Hannah and Adam’s reunion was a long time coming, but they both have plenty of healing to do.
This progression in powerful writing is reflected in HBO’s decision to renew the show for a third season and extend the new season’s length from ten to 12 episodes. If last night’s season finale was any indication, it seems that the third season will have quite a bit of “picking up the pieces,” as each character seems to be finding new ways to move forward, or as Shoshanna coined it, they’ll each embark on some form of “personal renaissance.” Now that Lena Dunham has played with comedy and toyed with tragedy, often sewn together in poignant and unfailingly realistic displays, one can only wait and see what she has in store for the third time around.
Nudity is provocative. It draws people’s attention, and sometimes it draws their attention to a cause. When a former SlutWalk-er at City University criticized the university cheerleading team’s “Naked Calendar” for breast cancer awareness, it started a heated debate about what it means to use your body to make a statement. Breast cancer fundraising and rape culture awareness are both important causes—is it right to condemn one form of nakedness as buying into a toxic culture of sexism and objectification while lauding the other as brave and bold?
The conversation began with a scathing article in which a female student harshly criticized the “Naked Calendar” being produced and sold by the campus cheerleading team to benefit the "Coppa Feel!” campaign. Using their hands, different objects, and creative poses to cover their nips, the cheerleaders had recently posed naked to raise money for breast cancer awareness. The author of the article accused the girls of distastefully sexualising the breast cancer cause while pushing forward a much more harmful “women as sex toys” stereotype, using their nakedness to reduce themselves to sexually pleasing objects just to make a few bucks for charity.
The author of the negative critique threw herself into a danger zone— we may not be in high school anymore, but apparently the rules are the same: you mess with the cheerleaders and you face the wrath of the jocks. In this case, guys on the rugby team, some using their own names and others anonymously, responded with personal attacks to the author and called her a c*nt. It escalated to veiled death threats that are now undergoing university investigation. Ironically, in many ways, the backlash poignantly illustrates her point: that men are often happy to support women as objects, but are quick to degrade, despise, and threaten women who seek to establish a different sort of role in society—and the more willingly women buy into the former category, the harder it is for women in the latter.
Others criticized the author for another reason—they believe that it’s hypocritical for her to criticize the cheerleaders’ naked calendar when she herself organized and participated in the SlutWalk, where many women went naked or barely dressed to protest the trend of men blaming a woman’s rape on her own appearance during the attack. How, people asked, could she endorse nudity for her own cause but judge it so harshly for another?
The problem, in this instance, seems to lie not with the particular individuals involved with the calendar. After all, in their rebuttal article they pointed out that they are not the first group to put out a naked calendar for this campaign, and they probably won’t be the last. Instead, I think a lot of the discomfort with their charity attempt should be re-directed at the Coppa Feel campaign itself.
Coppa Feel, along with similar campaigns like “Save the Tattas,” “Save Second Base,” and “Help the Hooters,” are guilty of normalizing many harmful assumptions about gender and bodies in their attempt to spread awareness. The goal of Coppa Feel and similar campaigns is to “lighten up” the issue of breast cancer, hoping to get women comfortable with the idea of feeling their breasts for lumps by making it sound cool and funny. The idea is well-intentioned but problematic.
For one, men can also get breast cancer. But when the disease is embroiled with messages about titty-grabbing and hooters, you’d easily think otherwise— can you imagine a man going into his doctor and saying, “I heard about the Save the Tattas campaign and realised I have a lump in my chest that I think should be checked out..."
Coppa Feel and similar campaigns embody some pretty serious stereotypes about women and sexuality. The tactic they use to “lighten it up,” to sell funny shirts and bracelets to both boys and girls, is to center cancer awareness around the importance of breasts to a woman’s femininity, and to the men who want to “get to second base” with them. If the shirts said “Save Your Lives” instead of “Save the Tattas”, and the bracelets said “I <3 Good Health!” instead of “I <3 Boobies!” would anyone be wearing them? If the calendar was filled with clothed girls and featured tips about how to give yourself a breast exam, would they have made a profit? Probably not, but that reveals that this campaign isn’t just about cancer awareness and prevention—it’s about strategically using stereotypes about women’s bodies, identities, sexuality and worth for a “sex sells” campaign around a completely unsexy disease. A disease that often requires mastectomies or leaves breasts deformed, forcing women to re-define their femininity while being constantly surrounded by “supporters” who sport “I <3 Boobies!” bracelets and show off their own healthy breasts to “raise awareness.”
In reality, the only honest and informative way to spread awareness should be to do just that— to make people aware. These campaigns are hardly “lightening up” the issues; instead, they’re misrepresenting them. Cute-ifying cancer through hot pink bracelets, naked cheerleaders winking at rugby boys, and frivolous “save second base” T-shirts doesn’t really make people aware of the disease or how to effectively prevent it, but it does reinforce some harmful stereotypes about our feminine identities. Spreading real awareness isn't cute or commercial, but neither is cancer.
So yes, the girls in the calendar got naked for a cause, and yes, SlutWalk protestors get naked for a cause, too. But is it hypocritical to be critical of using nudity for one cause and not the other? I say no. It comes down to normalising vs. challenging societal expectations about women and their bodies. Coppa Feel, and women who proudly pose naked to earn their profits, reinforces existing notions about breasts—that they’re sexualised objects separate from the woman herself, and they exist largely for male pleasure. SlutWalk challenges these sorts of ideas—women’s breasts are not men’s toys, and their bodies are their own. However, it’s important to recognize that criticism should be examined from the top-down—these large and complicated issues did not start nor will they end with a cheerleading team’s naked calendar.
A naked female body makes a statement, but that statement is not a blank canvas—whether we like it or not, our bodies are always political. But the politics are always changing—two years ago, who would have thought that there’d one day be a powerful movement called a SlutWalk? Context matters. Motivation matters. And when it comes to breast cancer awareness, lives should matter—not just “boobies.”
If comic book characters mirrored real life, what would our heroes look like? Superheroes have been a staple of American culture since the 1930s; they’re in our TV shows, our fashion, our toys, our music, our theme parks, our Broadway musicals, and of course, our top-grossing box office hits. Although some may consider comic book superheroes to be childish entertainment or geeky collectors items, there’s little doubt that reading between the lines offers some valuable insight into who and what is valued by a large portion of society. If that’s the case, this month has brought both good and bad news.
But first, how and why do our superheroes matter? An interesting Forbes article last month gave some good answers to this question, when author Christina Blanch gave some powerful examples of heroes from the past and present that have been overwhelmingly reflective of societal norms. From Lois Lane (who was strong and independent during the WWII era but became a deferent ‘damsel in distress’ type when men returned from war) to Sue Storm (the 1960s “Invisible Girl”) to Northstar (Marvel’s first openly gay character who tied the knot shortly after Barack Obama’s marriage endorsement last year), Blanch discusses how the art of comic books has imitated and reflected societal trends for the past 80 years—it’s worth a read.
So where are we today? In recent news, Marvel has just announced a plan to release novels featuring comic superheroines to target more women readers. But rather than incorporate female heroes into the existing superhero genre, they’ve made the frustrating decision to incorporate them into a dumbed-down ‘girly’ genre. Take the description for the upcoming She-Hulk Diaries—in this chick lit novel, the hulk’s female cousin is “climbing the corporate ladder by day and battling villains and saving the world by night – all the while trying to navigate the dating world to find a Mr. Right who might not mind a sometimes very big and green girlfriend.” Similarly, their new novel Rogue Touch starring the female X-Men character with a mutant lethal touch is about “a young woman trying to navigate the challenges of everyday life and romance.” The cover image for The She-Hulk Diaries is green lipstick. Anyone else think these sound super-stupid, not to mention super-sexist?
Meanwhile, DC Comics, a division of Warner Bros, will be publishing a new Superman anthology, and their choice of hiring known homophobe Orson Scott Card to author one of the stories is rightfully seen by many as a step in the wrong direction. The Enders Game author is on the board of the National Organisation for Marriage, the anti-gay marriage group that spreads hateful propaganda in their fervent fight against equality. Card has famously spoken out against same-sex marriage as “the end of democracy in America,” and described gay people as “simply confused.”
Of course, no one is arguing that any and all 21st century superheroes must be avid and clear advocates and supporters of progressive agendas, or that the content of their stories have a duty to be political. But what would have happened if the writer of X-Men, who created Northstar as the first and only gay superhero, thought that gays were “simply confused”? We’d have one less role model for already underrepresented gay children and teens, and the superhero world would have remained stagnantly hetero-sexist. Plus, why should we trust someone as comically villainous as Orson Scott Card to redefine heroism for a new generation? Many people, and even a few comic book stores, have already declared official boycotts of the new anthology, admirably showing that we’ve come too far to let bigots be the judge of good and evil.
But it’s not all bad news. A brand new comic superhero series entitled “My So-Called Secret Identity” is introducing the world to what may become the best and definitely least sexist female superhero to ever enter the hero-sphere, and she’s not defined by the color of her lipstick. Will Brooker, the British author, academic, and comic fan behind the books Batman Unmasked and Hunting the Dark Knight created Cat, the new superheroine, because he was so horrified at the representation of women in comics that he created his own to change the game. Described as having a “feminist approach from the ground up, in terms of story, character, artwork and production,” “My So-Called Secret Identity” seeks to challenge the popular trend of female heroes acting as sexualized, peripheral to and weaker than male counterparts, and fulfilling antiquated gender stereotypes. The new comic has just been launched online and can be viewed for free, with an intention to create at least 15 episodes and publish at least five as books. While “My So-Called Secret Identity” probably won’t get nearly as many viewers as anything produced by Marvel, having a female PhD student superheroine is a necessary addition in an age where badass smart women like Elizabeth Warren are taking the Senate by storm, and women continue to earn doctorate degrees at unprecedented rates.
So do superheroes reflect society? This year, we have a traditional superhero penned by an ultra-conservative homophobe, stereotypically feminized and boyfriend-seeking hero-ettes, and a less mainstream feminist hero with super intelligence. Yep, that seems accurate-- the fictionalized world of superheroes is getting pulled in drastically different directions, both backward and forward.
Happy Valentine’s Day! For those of you who are getting sick of those corny catchphrases inside all those annoyingly warm and fuzzy Hallmark cards, try these ones on for size. While the soon-to-be former Pope Benedict XVI may be retiring from his global platform of spreading backward rhetoric, he leaves behind a strong legacy of making us feel positively squeamish about some otherwise pleasant subjects: love, sex, and marriage. Whenever you need a reminder that absolutely nothing about your love life is acceptable, you can always rely on the good old Catholic Church for a solid unreality check. Here’s a few cheery quotes you won’t find in any Hallmark card this Valentine’s Day.
Cohabitating? You are:
“gravely sinful, not to mention damaging to the stability of society.”(March 2012)
Have you ever used condoms, birth control, or any other form of artificial contraception? Well, you’re basically a serial killer:
"How many children are killed who might one day have been geniuses, who could have given humanity something new, who could have given us a new Mozart or some new technical discovery?" (November 2010)
But sometimes birth control makes sense, right? Like to prevent the spread of AIDS? According to Benny, AIDS is:
"a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems." (March 2009)
And to all you smug married (straight) couples out there, he’s talking to you too. Married couples that opt for any birth control method outside of Rick Santorum’s questionable “Rhythm Method” (which successfully created eight children) are:
“negating the intimate truth of conjugal love.” (October 2008)
But you straight married couples shouldn’t worry too much. We have much more serious problems. On to the gays…
You know those feelings you have about members of your own gender? Well:
“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered to an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” (1986) (Good thing he’s being objective!)
We all know the Pope thinks marriage is pretty great. But gay marriage?:
“an offence against the truth of the human person, with serious harm to justice and peace.” (December 2012)
Okay, Benedict. So I think we all understand now that sex without a baby in nine months is pretty evil. So maybe we can find some common ground—sexual abuse in the church! It’s a terribly serious problem, right? Oh wait:
“I am personally convinced that the constant presence in the press of the sins of Catholic priests, especially in the United States, is a planned campaign, as the percentage of these offenses among priests is not higher than in other categories, and perhaps it is even lower …” (December 2002)
Have you buried your face in your palms yet? Don’t let him kill the mood entirely—after all, he’s resigning! Maybe the next pope will take a more progressive stance, allowing us all to enjoy future Valentine’s Days without the burdensome Catholic guilt that some have been forced to endure, and that continues to play an aggravatingly influential role in our government and laws. Well, we can always dream…
It’s always refreshing to see family-friendly films that give positive portrayals of girls and women. Too often, it seems, girl characters are pigeonholed into predictable stereotypes or are virtually absent from a world of proactive, funny males. The majority of family classics, even some highly enjoyable ones, are pretty boy-heavy (think Home Alone, Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, The Little Rascals, Richie Rich, Toy Story) and others tend to show women as some sort of “damsel in distress” needing a prince charming (think Cinderella, Aladdin, The Little Mermaid). The following five movies are my personal favorites for kids because they feature multi-dimensional, strong, and proactive female characters, and give a much more realistic message to kids about how awesome girls really are:
1) Tangled- Disney has taken a lot of heat for showing poor representations of women in most of their princess movies, and rightfully so. But Disney’s 2010 film Tangled offers a fresh alternative to the cartoon worlds of weak and vulnerable women-- Repunzel is assertive, goal-oriented, brave, and is the true hero of the movie. Often when female protagonists are represented as heroic in children’s movies their characters are masculinised in some way; she is either a token tomboy in a group of boys, uniquely physically strong, or generally ‘tough’—she can punch and kick her way out of trouble just like the boys can. However, Repunzel’s strength is that she is determined, kind, smart, thoughtful, resourceful, and compassionate, and with these qualities she is able to escape her tower and make her dreams come true (and yes, fall in love—but landing a man is never her goal, and happens only after they’ve developed a deep and sincere friendship).
2) Hairspray- The 2007 musical movie is terrific for starting a dialogue with school-aged kids about many important subjects: body image, race, and discrimination, to name a few. Tracy Turnblad is a perfect role model—she doesn’t fit into our typical standards of beauty, is bold yet good-natured, has talent and passions, and stands up for what is right even when it’s the unpopular thing to do. The film also gives some very loose historical context about racial discrimination in the 1960s, and features a number of strong black characters who fight for equality while staying positive and passionate about life, family and friends.
3) Little Women- Strong, independent, and complex female characters are surprisingly elusive in a lot of popular family films, but Little Women (1994) offers not one, but five, fully developed female leads. The four March sisters have totally different personalities and goals, and together with their mother are completely self-sufficient and supportive of each other while their father is away at war. It takes place in the 1800s, so is a period piece—but we all know that old-fashioned expectations of women to prioritize marriage over personal achievement still aren’t completely extinct, and Jo March is a wonderful example of a young woman who challenges society’s norms in pursuit of personal fulfilment.
4) Freaky Friday- This movie has never exactly been heralded as a feminist classic, but it gives pre-teen and teenaged girls some great messages about relationships and identity. In this 2003 remake film, high schooler Anna Coleman (Lindsay Lohan) and her therapist mother (Jamie Lee Curtis) have switched bodies after falling under some sort of weird, fortune cookie-induced curse, and are destined to live their lives as each other until they truly see life from the other’s perspective. One of the best parts of the movie is when Anna’s long-time crush, Jake, stops liking Anna and falls in love with her mother after the switch—representing to young girls that it’s personality and not looks that matter. Anna is also a total badass; she has her own unique style and sings and plays guitar in a rock band. She’s also a noticeably better person after taking a walk in her mother’s shoes, reinforcing the importance of empathizing with your parents.
5) A League of Their Own- This 1992 comedy-drama about the women who played in the short-lived WWII era All-American Girls Professional Baseball League is awesome, but probably only for slightly older and more mature kids. All of the women in the film are fiercely talented baseball players, but face a constant uphill battle to be taken seriously in the male-dominated world of professional sports. Even when they’re met with mockery and objectification, the girls in the film stay committed to each other and to the game that they love. There are also some great male characters in the movie, like Tom Hanks as the washed-up baseball player and Rockford Peaches’ team manager, who goes through a transformation from sexist and spiteful to a strong and supportive advocate for the girls on the team. The film offers a fascinating look into a piece of history that is frequently ignored, and is a bittersweet but fun account of 1940s women who boldly challenged gender roles.
These films all feature strong, ambitious, and complex female characters from a wide range of historical periods. In some, challenging traditional gender roles is central to the theme, and in others, the bold and well-written female characters make a strong enough statement just by being themselves. These films show smart women and girls solving conflicts by exercising physical and emotional strength, but never using violence. They can all be used to start conversations about gender or just to enjoy, and are guaranteed to be much more satisfying and enjoyable than the 13th sequel to the Transformers movie. But we need more films like these that star or feature women of color—besides Hairspray, unfortunately this list admittedly portrays a pretty whitewashed view of the world. Any suggestions?
