I just saw this video over at The Curvature (the link to which came from Yes Means Yes - both feminist blogs, both worth reading) and wanted to share it. I can't embed it, so see it at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h95-IL3C-Z8
If you don't want to watch a 30-second clip (or just have a really crappy connection), here's the summary: A young woman, wearing a short, blue, sequined-covered skirt, is talking to a man at a bar. The man turns to his friend and says "Check out that skirt! She's asking for it." Cut to the store earlier that day, where the woman tells the sales assistant, "I'm going out tonight, and I want to get raped. I need a skirt that will encourage a guy to have sex with me against my will." She picks the blue skirt, then looks at the camera and says "As if." Cut to a screen of the skirt with a voice-over saying, "Nobody asks to be raped. Ever."
Ever.
A woman who wants to reveal part of her body is not "asking for it." Even if you can see down her chest. Even if you get a glimpse of her ass if she bends over. Is she dressing to tantalize? Maybe. (Maybe she's just dressing for comfort.) But I can guarantee you she's not dressing to get raped. Maybe she's dressing to attract some consensual sex from the right guy. Maybe she's just dressing to make herself feel sexy. She is not dressing to get raped.
A woman who goes out at night, alone, is not "asking for it." She is taking a risk. Getting into a car to go into town is not "asking" to get into a horrible wreck; putting a sign outside your business announcing that you have rare jewels for sale is not "asking" to be robbed. Do these actions make bad things more likely to happen to you? YES. Is that the fault of the person doing them?
No. GOD, no.
People have this perverse urge to protect and control and railroad women into fitting this preset mold. And don't try to tell me it isn't true. I've heard people going on about "gallant" men who rush to the aid of a woman in need; "chivalrous" male children who insist that they must hold a door open for every woman they come across. This is neither chivalry or gallantry. This is sexism. Saying that a woman's rape has anything to do with the outfit she was wearing at the time is bullshit - and if you don't believe me, imagine for a minute what would happen if a man was dressed "provocatively" and raped by a woman. We'd say that was bullshit; that it had nothing to do with his clothing and everything to do with a woman who couldn't keep her filthy whore hands to herself. Why don't we have the same standard for the other direction? Women know we need them.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
I Freakin' Love This Movie: In & Out.
Having spent a bit of time bitching about movies that were terrible (Chuck & Larry, It's A Boy/Girl Thing) I thought it was high time to talk about a movie that I love, and that movie is In & Out.
In & Out is a gay movie. Specifically, it's a gay, white, cisgendered, male, small-town, able, full-size, nondenominational-Christian movie, but it can be summed up pretty well as a gay white cisgendered movie, since those are the biggest cultural factors.
The story is about Howard Brackett, a mild-mannered English teacher who has been engaged to the same woman for three years. A few short days before his wedding, he is unintentionally outed by an earlier student of his during his Oscar acceptance speech. Hilarity ensues.
The premise of the movie is about the challenges Howard goes through as an involuntarily-outed gay man in a small, reserved, semi-conservative town. It does not go well - not only does he have to deal with the gossip of the locals, but his own self-made mess when he realizes that, in fact, he is gay.
Before I get to the meat of the review, I want to say this. This movie is so white and able it hurts. There are no POC in Greenleaf. None. This was probably done to bolster the idea of Greenleaf as a "wholesome" town, which is a sickening commentary on the perceived "wholesomeness" of white people. There are no clearly disabled people save an old woman with a walker and Howard's slightly mentally-challenged brother, who is treated as something of an embarrassment (not hugely, but still noticeably). Just to be clear, I have nothing against white movies about able people, but this one really made me stop and go "lolwhut?"
And that's really the worst I can say, because the rest of the movie is awesome.
In & Out attacks the kyriarchy on several fronts. First there's the obvious "gay" front - Howard's mishaps in being outed, then coming out, then being accepted. Then there's the "heteronormativity/gender nonconformist" front - while Howard is shown with some stereotypically gay traits that someone might jump on, it's also show that a lot of people in Greenleaf have something "gay" about them, from Howard's male hairstylist to his buddies who enjoy watching Barbra Streisand movies with him. Conformity to some oversexed idea of masculinity, the movie says, is overrated.
Next up: women and fatness. This movie had so much potential to go wrong here. Howard's fiancé, Emily, is a woman whose low self-esteem issues pushed her to lose weight in time to fit into the right size of wedding dress (which she succeeded at - and was continually miserable about because it was such a battle). Furthermore, it turns out that she forced herself to stay in a celibate relationship for three years just because she thought Howard was the only one who would have her, and whaddya know? She was pretty darned horny after all that time. She's messed up, and that could have gone really badly. As luck would have it, though, breaking up with Howard is the best thing that ever happened to her, as she later finds true love with someone who is both straight and into chubby ladies, and the lesson (as is true for Howard) is that you will be much happier if you're loved for who you are instead of forcing yourself into someone else's ideal.
Another great Emily thing was the breakdown/fight at the church, right after Howard comes out. She is pissed. I mean, really pissed. Her sudden exclamation of "Fuck Barbra Streisand!" is one of the best points of the movie, highlighting the sheer amount of rage and frustration she feels at being essentially lied to by the guy she was supposed to marry for three years. Her rage is totally understandable and justifiable, and whaddya know? The supporting characters feel the same way. Even Howard, who's just freaked out the entire town by coming out, lost his job, and is otherwise sort of despondent, takes the time to apologize for ruining her life. It's almost like this movie was written by a woman, rather than Paul Rudnick. And then she goes and finds true love with a guy who, at least in my eyes, is at least 3x hotter than she is. Win/win.
(The movie touches on transgenderism once, in passing, in the sense that "being gay does not mean you want a sex change." Which is a good point to make.)
Now, this movie is at its heart a comedy - and fear not, it is hilarious. It pokes fun at the movie industry, including Oscars and outrageously vain celebrities, at over-reserved nondenominational white Christians, at the tendency of dudes in charge to completely overreact at a sudden case of teh ghey, and at the whole concept of heteronormativity from both male and female standpoints (though mostly male). It's also a very sweet movie, with lovable characters and a heartwarming-yet-hilarious climax that should not be missed. All in all, it's worth at least one viewing - personally, I'm up to three.
In & Out is a gay movie. Specifically, it's a gay, white, cisgendered, male, small-town, able, full-size, nondenominational-Christian movie, but it can be summed up pretty well as a gay white cisgendered movie, since those are the biggest cultural factors.
The story is about Howard Brackett, a mild-mannered English teacher who has been engaged to the same woman for three years. A few short days before his wedding, he is unintentionally outed by an earlier student of his during his Oscar acceptance speech. Hilarity ensues.
The premise of the movie is about the challenges Howard goes through as an involuntarily-outed gay man in a small, reserved, semi-conservative town. It does not go well - not only does he have to deal with the gossip of the locals, but his own self-made mess when he realizes that, in fact, he is gay.
Before I get to the meat of the review, I want to say this. This movie is so white and able it hurts. There are no POC in Greenleaf. None. This was probably done to bolster the idea of Greenleaf as a "wholesome" town, which is a sickening commentary on the perceived "wholesomeness" of white people. There are no clearly disabled people save an old woman with a walker and Howard's slightly mentally-challenged brother, who is treated as something of an embarrassment (not hugely, but still noticeably). Just to be clear, I have nothing against white movies about able people, but this one really made me stop and go "lolwhut?"
And that's really the worst I can say, because the rest of the movie is awesome.
In & Out attacks the kyriarchy on several fronts. First there's the obvious "gay" front - Howard's mishaps in being outed, then coming out, then being accepted. Then there's the "heteronormativity/gender nonconformist" front - while Howard is shown with some stereotypically gay traits that someone might jump on, it's also show that a lot of people in Greenleaf have something "gay" about them, from Howard's male hairstylist to his buddies who enjoy watching Barbra Streisand movies with him. Conformity to some oversexed idea of masculinity, the movie says, is overrated.
Next up: women and fatness. This movie had so much potential to go wrong here. Howard's fiancé, Emily, is a woman whose low self-esteem issues pushed her to lose weight in time to fit into the right size of wedding dress (which she succeeded at - and was continually miserable about because it was such a battle). Furthermore, it turns out that she forced herself to stay in a celibate relationship for three years just because she thought Howard was the only one who would have her, and whaddya know? She was pretty darned horny after all that time. She's messed up, and that could have gone really badly. As luck would have it, though, breaking up with Howard is the best thing that ever happened to her, as she later finds true love with someone who is both straight and into chubby ladies, and the lesson (as is true for Howard) is that you will be much happier if you're loved for who you are instead of forcing yourself into someone else's ideal.
Another great Emily thing was the breakdown/fight at the church, right after Howard comes out. She is pissed. I mean, really pissed. Her sudden exclamation of "Fuck Barbra Streisand!" is one of the best points of the movie, highlighting the sheer amount of rage and frustration she feels at being essentially lied to by the guy she was supposed to marry for three years. Her rage is totally understandable and justifiable, and whaddya know? The supporting characters feel the same way. Even Howard, who's just freaked out the entire town by coming out, lost his job, and is otherwise sort of despondent, takes the time to apologize for ruining her life. It's almost like this movie was written by a woman, rather than Paul Rudnick. And then she goes and finds true love with a guy who, at least in my eyes, is at least 3x hotter than she is. Win/win.
(The movie touches on transgenderism once, in passing, in the sense that "being gay does not mean you want a sex change." Which is a good point to make.)
Now, this movie is at its heart a comedy - and fear not, it is hilarious. It pokes fun at the movie industry, including Oscars and outrageously vain celebrities, at over-reserved nondenominational white Christians, at the tendency of dudes in charge to completely overreact at a sudden case of teh ghey, and at the whole concept of heteronormativity from both male and female standpoints (though mostly male). It's also a very sweet movie, with lovable characters and a heartwarming-yet-hilarious climax that should not be missed. All in all, it's worth at least one viewing - personally, I'm up to three.
So Far: Outlaw
Time for a return review on one of Hulu's fall shows: Outlaw.
I've just watched the second episode, and I think it's an appropriate time. I enjoyed the pilot and all, but it didn't really deviate from my predictions, so I didn't have much to say about it (Other than the fact that the real murderer was a WASP male, which was just kickass). The second episode, on the other hand, left me with a lot to say.
A quick recap (spoilers!): In Arizona, a white police officer is charged with violating a man's civil rights after he gets into an altercation with a Latino man, resulting from the recent anti-immigration law. Cyrus Garza takes the side of the cop (surprise!) and gets him found not guilty.
Let me just say I have no quibble with the way the story played out. I felt that it was perfectly reasonable to find the cop innocent - especially, as Garza points out, since he was following the law. I don't believe one could safely claim racial profiling in this case because of Reyes' proximity to the Mexican border - the fact is, there aren't a lot of white immigrants coming in from Mexico. So I agree with Garza.
However, I have a complaint, and it's a biggie.
The other day, my sister came to me, having read some anti-racist blogs, and confessed that she now found the Avenue Q song "Everyone's A Little Bit Racist" horrifying. When I asked her why, she explained with a question: "Who does it help?"
Who, indeed? While the song makes a point - nearly everyone harbors some racial prejudice - it doesn't deflate some high-and-mighty darkie who thinks that he or she is better than the white man. It just excuses white people's behavior because everyone else does it too, ignoring the power factors that make it a much bigger problem when a pale (presumed white, usually is) person does it.
So when I saw this episode, I had to ask myself: Who does it help?
And therein lies the problem. It plays out like some kind of knee-jerk "white victim panic." Ohnoez, innocent white cops will be forced to follow this law and be prosecuted unfairly by those mean ol' pro-alien liberals! We're DOOMED! And while the story doesn't deny (explicitly or implicitly) that real victims of color do happen, giving the center stage to the rare, non-overtly-racist, actually-had-reasonable-suspicion cop is just white-serving. Not that there would be anything wrong with that if media didn't tend to serve white people already. But it does, so I was really hoping we'd see a case of actual profiling.
There's one thing that I'm not sure on, and that is the eventual "not guilty" verdict. On the one hand, oh boy, all the darkies came out of the woodwork to support poor Whitey! YAAAAY! On the other hand, maybe it will do something to reassure the paranoid that POC are perfectly capable of being reasonable and fair and not letting their bad experiences bias them. So it's a good/bad thing, in my opinion.
Then there was one thing that really got my goat: the fact that Al - the Black Best Friend, of all people - was the one upset about the issue. The one guy who probably knew exactly what he was talking about got shut down not only by Garza (who apparently has never lived in this kind of area) but by all the white people, and then it turned out that they were all right and he was overreacting. Uh, gee. Way to go, writers.
That pretty much sums it up. Good story, unfortunate choice of plot factors, kind of on-the-fence about its overall benefit level. If a PoC wants to take this on and cover something that I missed (goodness knows being a white kid there's probably something), I'd love to hear from xem.
I've just watched the second episode, and I think it's an appropriate time. I enjoyed the pilot and all, but it didn't really deviate from my predictions, so I didn't have much to say about it (Other than the fact that the real murderer was a WASP male, which was just kickass). The second episode, on the other hand, left me with a lot to say.
A quick recap (spoilers!): In Arizona, a white police officer is charged with violating a man's civil rights after he gets into an altercation with a Latino man, resulting from the recent anti-immigration law. Cyrus Garza takes the side of the cop (surprise!) and gets him found not guilty.
Let me just say I have no quibble with the way the story played out. I felt that it was perfectly reasonable to find the cop innocent - especially, as Garza points out, since he was following the law. I don't believe one could safely claim racial profiling in this case because of Reyes' proximity to the Mexican border - the fact is, there aren't a lot of white immigrants coming in from Mexico. So I agree with Garza.
However, I have a complaint, and it's a biggie.
The other day, my sister came to me, having read some anti-racist blogs, and confessed that she now found the Avenue Q song "Everyone's A Little Bit Racist" horrifying. When I asked her why, she explained with a question: "Who does it help?"
Who, indeed? While the song makes a point - nearly everyone harbors some racial prejudice - it doesn't deflate some high-and-mighty darkie who thinks that he or she is better than the white man. It just excuses white people's behavior because everyone else does it too, ignoring the power factors that make it a much bigger problem when a pale (presumed white, usually is) person does it.
So when I saw this episode, I had to ask myself: Who does it help?
And therein lies the problem. It plays out like some kind of knee-jerk "white victim panic." Ohnoez, innocent white cops will be forced to follow this law and be prosecuted unfairly by those mean ol' pro-alien liberals! We're DOOMED! And while the story doesn't deny (explicitly or implicitly) that real victims of color do happen, giving the center stage to the rare, non-overtly-racist, actually-had-reasonable-suspicion cop is just white-serving. Not that there would be anything wrong with that if media didn't tend to serve white people already. But it does, so I was really hoping we'd see a case of actual profiling.
There's one thing that I'm not sure on, and that is the eventual "not guilty" verdict. On the one hand, oh boy, all the darkies came out of the woodwork to support poor Whitey! YAAAAY! On the other hand, maybe it will do something to reassure the paranoid that POC are perfectly capable of being reasonable and fair and not letting their bad experiences bias them. So it's a good/bad thing, in my opinion.
Then there was one thing that really got my goat: the fact that Al - the Black Best Friend, of all people - was the one upset about the issue. The one guy who probably knew exactly what he was talking about got shut down not only by Garza (who apparently has never lived in this kind of area) but by all the white people, and then it turned out that they were all right and he was overreacting. Uh, gee. Way to go, writers.
That pretty much sums it up. Good story, unfortunate choice of plot factors, kind of on-the-fence about its overall benefit level. If a PoC wants to take this on and cover something that I missed (goodness knows being a white kid there's probably something), I'd love to hear from xem.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
One Man, One Woman
Over at TeenInk, some clueless Christian kid is opining the Deep Divine Reasons why two guys should not be able to join in holy matrimony. Naturally, she's using the second weakest reason why gay marriage is Just Nasty:
I'm going to dredge out my dirty atheist knowledge of the Bible to explain why now.
By the way, I know this is going to blow your minds, but God put one Jewish man and one Jewish woman on the Earth. They had brown skin, black hair, yadda. Somehow nobody thinks that it's a good idea to argue that blondes shouldn't exist using this logic.
Now, I'm not harpin' on your right to argue against teh gayz (though since I'm a gay dude in a woman's body, that's okay, right?) That's your prerogative. But if you're going to do it, stick to the Leviticus/Paul combo. That one at least makes sense internally, though you'll want to keep it from us atheists who frankly couldn't give a rip what your god thinks. Especially since a lot of us quit BECAUSE he was a douche.
By the way, the worst argument of all time against same-sex relations?
God put one man and One woman on this earth. Not two men. or two women.I am going to do every Christian who ever stumbles across this blog a HUGE favor and say: Please, please stop using this argument. You are making yourself look stupid.
I'm going to dredge out my dirty atheist knowledge of the Bible to explain why now.
- God put one man and one woman on the earth... and then their kids banged each other. According to some traditions, when Cain was exiled from God's presence, he took his sister with him for a wife; his brothers likewise married their sisters. Yet incest is forbidden in the Old Testament (except when God says otherwise - see Abraham and Sarah), the New Testament, and every halfway sane Christian tradition on the face of the planet.
- God put one man and one woman on the earth... and their descendants went on to have many wives. Adam is possibly THE only monogamous character in the Bible. Abraham only had one official wife, but his wife wasn't above loaning him a prostitute when she failed to conceive. The rest of them were more official about their bangage. See also: Solomon.
- God put one man and one woman on the earth... when there was nobody else around to reproduce. Let's face it: when you're starting a species, it's kind of counterproductive if your first couple can't breed with each other. Now we have six billion humans on the planet, millions of married couples devoted to creating more, and plenty of people who are happily single, sterile, or using contraceptives. What's a few gay couples?
By the way, I know this is going to blow your minds, but God put one Jewish man and one Jewish woman on the Earth. They had brown skin, black hair, yadda. Somehow nobody thinks that it's a good idea to argue that blondes shouldn't exist using this logic.
Now, I'm not harpin' on your right to argue against teh gayz (though since I'm a gay dude in a woman's body, that's okay, right?) That's your prerogative. But if you're going to do it, stick to the Leviticus/Paul combo. That one at least makes sense internally, though you'll want to keep it from us atheists who frankly couldn't give a rip what your god thinks. Especially since a lot of us quit BECAUSE he was a douche.
By the way, the worst argument of all time against same-sex relations?
The plumbing doesn't fit! It doesn't even make sense!Let me blow your mind with a few alternatives to straight-on vaginal intercourse:
- Oral sex
- Anal sex
- Manual sex
- Mutual masturbation (though this one barely qualifies, in my book)
- The almighty dildo
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Bisexual Erasure: Buffy Edition
Okay, guys, I know how great it is to have a good gay character in the media who doesn't die, doesn't lose xir true love, and isn't all about the gayness, but a quick heads up:
Willow is bisexual.
She never stated that she wasn't attracted to Oz - in fact, for some time she was torn between him and Tara (and it's not like you can pretend that lingering attraction/affection for her old boyfriend wasn't there, folks). She did what so many of us monogamists do, which is to choose one, but that doesn't make her 100% lesbian. Please make an effort to get your head around the fact that we CAN be into both sexes, yet only end up with one, who might even be the same sex as us. It happens.
Willow is bisexual.
She never stated that she wasn't attracted to Oz - in fact, for some time she was torn between him and Tara (and it's not like you can pretend that lingering attraction/affection for her old boyfriend wasn't there, folks). She did what so many of us monogamists do, which is to choose one, but that doesn't make her 100% lesbian. Please make an effort to get your head around the fact that we CAN be into both sexes, yet only end up with one, who might even be the same sex as us. It happens.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
I Am Invisible
I am invisible.
I usually don't realize that because I spend a lot of time hanging around transgender-safe message boards, but the fact is: I am invisible. When people talk about atheists, even though they don't specify, they are thinking of cisgendered atheists. When people talk about gays and lesbians, even though they don't specify, they are thinking of cisgendered atheists. Men means cisgendered men. LGBT means L, G, sometimes B, and those other weirdoes we heard were out there. Transgendered people are invisible.
Obviously there are some people out there who know we exist - shows such as Family Guy, The L Word, Coronation Street, and Degrassi have had transgendered characters. The film The World According To Garp has an excellent portrayal of a trans woman, and there are other movies that are just about us. But to the majority of people, we do not exist - or exist only in a theory so abstract that we may not exist at all.
I know. I used to be one of those people.
For the first eighteen years of life, I either didn't know about transgendered/transsexual people, or what I knew was very abstract: sometimes there were boys that felt like they should be girls, and underwent treatments to become girls, and often their parents kicked them out of their homes and they ended up homeless and/or addicted to drugs but sometimes they turned out okay. I'd heard somewhere about FTM's (courtesy of my mum, actually) but it never sunk in for me. Why? Because I didn't know anyone who is transgendered. I didn't know anyone who knew anyone who was transgendered. I'd never bumped into a transgendered person on the Internet, and when I did, I didn't spend a lot of time with him. My mother was on the site, watching my every move, and she didn't approve of his "lesbianism." Plus I think I was afraid that if I told the forumites that I felt similarly I'd be laughed at. You can't be a "gay man in a woman's body," after all. You can only be a straight woman. But I digress. Naturally, I never thought to include trans people in any of my writing or correspondence or anything.
This is the mindset that prevents trans people from getting their rights. Someone introduces a piece of legislation that covers trans people (or gays, or POC, or atheists, or whatever), and you think that since you don't know (or like) anyone who will be affected, it isn't important. So you let it slide.
People can't live like this. You can't go on holding in your minds that transsexual people don't exist, or there are too few of us to count. There are never too few of us to count. This is something that I didn't truly understand until I became a member of two of the least regarded minorities in the United States of America, and looking back I am ashamed to think that I once thought differently. Here is what I didn't realize: The majority, or the average if you will, does not equal the default. There is no default for the human condition. I am not a cisgendered white male unless I specify otherwise. It's not easy to remember this, with our parents, teachers, peers, and the media convincing us that diversity equals deviance. Society is not a dichotomy between white males and everyone else. It is a complex mosaic of people. Some of them are descended from Europeans, some from Africans, some from Asians, some from Eurasians, some from Americans, some from European-Asians, some from African-Caribbeans, some from people of many different continents. Some of us are Christian, some are Hindu, some are Jewish, some are Muslim, some are Jedi. Some used to be religious but aren't anymore. Some were never religious at all. Some are close to six feet tall and others are closer to three. Some are HIV-positive, some have cancer, some have diabetes or syphilis or angina or Chronic Fatigue Syndrome or missing organs and some have no outstanding health problems at all. Some are organ donors; some aren't. Some are female, some are male, some are intersexed. Some are cis, some are trans, some are genderqueer. Some are bisexual, some are straight, some are gay, some are pansexual, and some are one or the other but willing to experiment. Some of us have very little money, some of us have a lot; some of us just have what we need to get by comfortably. Some of us live in the cities. Many of us live outside of them. Some of us love only one person at the same time, but some love more. Some of us masturbate. Some of us don't. Some of us do and lie about it. Some of us promise our parents that we'll never have sexual intercourse until we find the one we'll be with for the rest of our lives. Some of us wouldn't have found the one we'll be with for the rest of our lives unless we had sexual intercourse first. Some of us love feet. Some of us hate feet. Some of us couldn't care less about feet. Everything about you is part of your identity, and it is no less diverse, beautiful, and strange than that of someone whose traits are less common than yours. And here's the thing: every trait about that person, to the extent that it does not harm another person, deserves to exist and be respected and protected by human law. If your identities are protected, and you can't find the time to make sure others have the same courtesy, then you don't deserve the protection you have.
I usually don't realize that because I spend a lot of time hanging around transgender-safe message boards, but the fact is: I am invisible. When people talk about atheists, even though they don't specify, they are thinking of cisgendered atheists. When people talk about gays and lesbians, even though they don't specify, they are thinking of cisgendered atheists. Men means cisgendered men. LGBT means L, G, sometimes B, and those other weirdoes we heard were out there. Transgendered people are invisible.
Obviously there are some people out there who know we exist - shows such as Family Guy, The L Word, Coronation Street, and Degrassi have had transgendered characters. The film The World According To Garp has an excellent portrayal of a trans woman, and there are other movies that are just about us. But to the majority of people, we do not exist - or exist only in a theory so abstract that we may not exist at all.
I know. I used to be one of those people.
For the first eighteen years of life, I either didn't know about transgendered/transsexual people, or what I knew was very abstract: sometimes there were boys that felt like they should be girls, and underwent treatments to become girls, and often their parents kicked them out of their homes and they ended up homeless and/or addicted to drugs but sometimes they turned out okay. I'd heard somewhere about FTM's (courtesy of my mum, actually) but it never sunk in for me. Why? Because I didn't know anyone who is transgendered. I didn't know anyone who knew anyone who was transgendered. I'd never bumped into a transgendered person on the Internet, and when I did, I didn't spend a lot of time with him. My mother was on the site, watching my every move, and she didn't approve of his "lesbianism." Plus I think I was afraid that if I told the forumites that I felt similarly I'd be laughed at. You can't be a "gay man in a woman's body," after all. You can only be a straight woman. But I digress. Naturally, I never thought to include trans people in any of my writing or correspondence or anything.
This is the mindset that prevents trans people from getting their rights. Someone introduces a piece of legislation that covers trans people (or gays, or POC, or atheists, or whatever), and you think that since you don't know (or like) anyone who will be affected, it isn't important. So you let it slide.
People can't live like this. You can't go on holding in your minds that transsexual people don't exist, or there are too few of us to count. There are never too few of us to count. This is something that I didn't truly understand until I became a member of two of the least regarded minorities in the United States of America, and looking back I am ashamed to think that I once thought differently. Here is what I didn't realize: The majority, or the average if you will, does not equal the default. There is no default for the human condition. I am not a cisgendered white male unless I specify otherwise. It's not easy to remember this, with our parents, teachers, peers, and the media convincing us that diversity equals deviance. Society is not a dichotomy between white males and everyone else. It is a complex mosaic of people. Some of them are descended from Europeans, some from Africans, some from Asians, some from Eurasians, some from Americans, some from European-Asians, some from African-Caribbeans, some from people of many different continents. Some of us are Christian, some are Hindu, some are Jewish, some are Muslim, some are Jedi. Some used to be religious but aren't anymore. Some were never religious at all. Some are close to six feet tall and others are closer to three. Some are HIV-positive, some have cancer, some have diabetes or syphilis or angina or Chronic Fatigue Syndrome or missing organs and some have no outstanding health problems at all. Some are organ donors; some aren't. Some are female, some are male, some are intersexed. Some are cis, some are trans, some are genderqueer. Some are bisexual, some are straight, some are gay, some are pansexual, and some are one or the other but willing to experiment. Some of us have very little money, some of us have a lot; some of us just have what we need to get by comfortably. Some of us live in the cities. Many of us live outside of them. Some of us love only one person at the same time, but some love more. Some of us masturbate. Some of us don't. Some of us do and lie about it. Some of us promise our parents that we'll never have sexual intercourse until we find the one we'll be with for the rest of our lives. Some of us wouldn't have found the one we'll be with for the rest of our lives unless we had sexual intercourse first. Some of us love feet. Some of us hate feet. Some of us couldn't care less about feet. Everything about you is part of your identity, and it is no less diverse, beautiful, and strange than that of someone whose traits are less common than yours. And here's the thing: every trait about that person, to the extent that it does not harm another person, deserves to exist and be respected and protected by human law. If your identities are protected, and you can't find the time to make sure others have the same courtesy, then you don't deserve the protection you have.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Hulu's Fall Lineup: The Good, The Bad, and the What-The-Fuck-Were-You-Thinking
It's September, and that means it's time for new shows. Hulu is on the ball as usual, throwing up trailers for all the cool stuff we can expect this fall. Or is it all cool?
Or: does it sound interesting (a must for entertainment), and is it offensive to one or more major marginalized group(s)?
I dunno, Billy! Let's find out!
(Note: These are first impressions of the shows in question and are subject to change.)
Trailer #1: The Event.
Plot-wise, I have no idea what's going on here. There's a string of events (but not The Event, we're told) that show an assassination attempt on the President, a man who suddenly finds that his girlfriend is missing, a group of underground something-or-others in Canada... or... something? and some other stuff. It looks like it could be cool, but I can't even tell.
On a racial level alone, it sort of passes. We have a black President with a black military advisor (good roles, but are these getting to be stereotypes?) Another of his advisors is white, and the guy who's missing his girlfriend appears white, as is the woman who runs the underground whatevers. Dig deeper into the kyriarchy, though, and it falls apart. The Event is clearly an able, straight, cisgendered, adult man's club, with only one female character of importance (aside from the missing MacGuffin girlfriend), no women of color in important roles, and no disabled, "alternative sexuality," lower-class, and/or any other members of the mosaic. It's not offensive enough to write it off the watch list (though erasure IS offensive), but it's worth noting.
Trailer #2: No Ordinary Family
The plot: A middle-class, white, dysfunctional (A.K.A. "normal") family takes a vacation to South America. While they're there, they get into a plane crash and end up in water with some weird glowing stuff. When they get back, they discover that they have superpowers. Fun for the whole family! If you're a white, patriarchy-induced, nuclear family, anyway.
I went beyond the trailer on this one, checking out the other promotional material on Hulu, and what I found was not pretty. It's not that the family is white that bothers me - hey, we have stories to tell too - but the other facts. The clear protagonist is the father: a middle-aged, middle-class, able, straight, cis man who feels like he's not strong enough because he... can't control his family? I'm not exactly clear, but the reason seems to be because his teenage children are becoming independent and have less need for an authorative dad, which just bothers him. His wife is a career-oriented power lady who, according to the promotional material, is a "failure" as a mother because she focuses on her job more than her kids. That's right, lady, get back into the kitchen. (Fortunately, as far as I can tell, getting superpowers isn't an instant ticket into stay-at-home-mom mode. But seriously, guys.) The teenage girl is a walking stereotype: addicted to text messaging, constantly trying to blow off her parents, and dating a guy who is only into her for her pussy. (Remember, honey, the only man you need in your life is Dad.) The boy - the only character whose problems aren't inextricably tied to gender - has a learning disability (or at least seems to) that is holding him back in school.
So there are no people of color in main roles, no trans characters, no gay characters (unless the teenage boy is gay, which I doubt because again it's not "that kind of show"), yadda. The only important minority character you see in the trailer is the protagonist's black best friend, who encourages him to try out his powers and then arranges to have a superhero lair installed in his garage (out of the goodness of his heart, we presume). Okay, I understand enthusiasm, but the black guy's willingness to do ALL this stuff for the white guy leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
This is ridiculous. One of the protagonists is a young woman who feels like her familial responsibilities are stopping her from growing up, and she's portrayed as a "rebel" who needs to get over herself and come back to Dad. Another one is a woman who is a "failure" because she can't juggle her 80-hour work week with her kids, leaving Dad (OH NOES!) to fill in. Dad sucks because he's not the glue holding everyone together (the "head of the household," as they say.) Furthermore, the title perpetuates the idea that white, straight, cis, able, and middle class = ordinary. The only thing "ordinary" about this family, EVER, is that one time they did not have superpowers. But the writers don't seem to get that.
At least they didn't get their powers from some "ancient Aztec artifact." The last thing they need to stack onto this nonsense is a dose of cultural appropriation.
Also, what happened to the pilot of the plane? Did he get superpowers too, or what?
In conclusion: Despite the obvious flaws out of the gate, I will be giving this one a shot. It looks entertaining, and it might be better than it sounds. And, y'know, SUPERPOWERS!
(Bear with me! It gets better.)
Trailer #3: Raising Hope
The plot: Some dude living with his mother has a baby fall into his lap and decides to raise it. Hijinks ensue.
This one didn't give me a lot to work with, as the trailer was less than a minute long. But here's what I know: The protagonist is (naturally) a cis, straight, able, white male, but then I'm not sure anyone else would want to get close to this silliness. The story plays the stereotype that men are bad with babies for laughs, while perpetuating it, which sucks. It doesn't look so much offensive as just plain dumb.
Trailer #4: My Generation
Again, I'm not entirely sure what this is. It seems to be a fictional documentary about ten people who were teenagers in the year 2000, and what they're doing now in 2010. It's an interesting concept, but the execution looks trite. To be honest, my biggest complaint is that the trailer was deceptive - at the beginning, it looked like a story about 9/11 and its impact on the way members of that generation grew up, but then it switched directions and became more "slice of life"-ish.
From the trailer, I can tell that most of the cast are white, cis, able, straight, and a whole slew of other "default"-isms. There are a few POC, including two women (the cast is almost half female, which is nice), no gay characters that I know of, no trans characters, disabled characters, dwarves, fat characters, and/or yadda. I can't tell if there are any poor characters or anything else I might have missed. Still, it seems like decent mainstream entertainment, even though I probably won't watch it.
Trailer #5: Outlaw
A Supreme Court justice resigns from the Court so he can become a defense attorney and use his totally kickass knowledge of the law to help a man who was falsely imprisoned for murder. He succeeds! So he decides to help others, too. Definitely worth checking out.
Now here's the surprise: The protagonist is... a Latino! The guy he helps is... a black dude! His legal team is a mixture of races and sexes (though all the women seem to be white, and have minor roles compared to the big boys). The bad news is, our guy is a misogynist. He "can't remember the names of the last three women [he] slept with," and hired one team member "because [she's] pretty." And there are STILL no characters who aren't cisgendered, straight, able, full-sized, yadda - at least not that is mentioned in the trailer.
Trailer #6: Running Wilde: Will Interviews Will
Will Arnett interviews Will Arnett. I don't know what this is supposed to promote, nor do I even care. He just douches around for a couple of minutes - which is enough time for him to crack misogynistic and ageist. Whoopee.
Trailer #7: Lone Star
A charming, attractive, talented, and secretly nice con man (who is not Josh Holloway) falls in love with a couple of his marks and wants to quit the business. Dad says no. Angst happens. It's all very dramatic; looks like a decent show, but not my thing.
So, the protagonist is a rich, cis, straight, able, white guy, his dad is a rich, cis, straight, able, white guy, the girl characters are plot devices for the protagonist to play off of, and that's all we know. Not a great showing, I have to say. However, I am liking the growing tendency of story writers to portray in their stories that it is possible to really be in love with multiple people at the same time. LOST did this as well. It's a nice counter to the monogamist propoganda.
Trailer #8: Undercovers
A happily married black couple has their lives interrupted by a guy from their past... who knows that they are ex-spies and wants them to come back to the job. Very traditional spy story. Might be interesting.
As mentioned above, the protagonists are black (pale, pointy black, of course). ABC's motto this season is "more colorful," and they seem to be living up to it pretty well. Of course, they are a middle-class, cisgendered, heterosexual, able-bodied couple. In fact, aside from skin color, there's really nothing to distinguish them from an equally-endowed white couple. Also, why is it a woman can't be a spy unless she's (A) married to a male spy, (B) going to be married to a male spy, or (C) going to sleep with a male spy (or already has)? This SUCKS.
Even so, it's nice to have some non-white protagonists.
Trailer #9: Chase
A U.S. Marshal tracks a serial killer cross-country. He avoids her and kills more people, 'cause he's good at it. Then she catches him! Not really my thing.
Finally, after eight shows, there's a female protagonist (white, able-bodied, cisgendered, straight... eh) who isn't sharing the stage with a man. Plus she's competent at her job. Every other minority group (because you can't have more than one!) is ignored, of course. But just MAYBE this will give young, law-enforcement-ambitions girls who watch NBC someone to look up to.
Trailer #10: Outsourced
A white dude gets a managerial position at a novelty-item company's call center... which has just been moved to India. Lulz ensue.
Naturally, most of the characters in the show are Indian. This being a comedy, however, they are strictly gag Indians. Laughs are gleaned both from the protagonist's ineptitude and from... LOADS AND LOADS OF RACISM! Indian culture is played for laughs, as is the protagonist's racist reactions to it. YAAAAAAY. In between insulting Indian headgear and teaching the locals about America's culture through pop music, he finds time for romance... with a white woman, who was clearly dredged out of the woodwork just so he'd have someone to date who wasn't brown.
Kill me now.
This is also put out by NBC "more colorful," which really makes me wonder WHAT THE FUCK THEY WERE THINKING.
Trailer #11: School Pride
Nonfiction! A bunch of rich guys find one of the crappiest schools in the country and engage the students and faculty in a huge effort to improve it. And they do.
This show looks AWESOME. Being a really run-down school in a poor neighborhood, it's naturally attended by children of color - intelligent, hardworking, enthusiastic children of color who are shown as nothing less than the victims of a bad situation. The School Pride team features a mix of races and sexes (including a woman of color), and they work together with the faculty and students to renovate the facility and get things back on track. The show's upbeat tone seems to prevent it from being exploitative of the children's suffering, though I could be wrong on that since reality television tends to be exploitative by its nature. It is upbeat and inspiring, though - something that children of color need to see more of in mainstream media.
Or: does it sound interesting (a must for entertainment), and is it offensive to one or more major marginalized group(s)?
I dunno, Billy! Let's find out!
(Note: These are first impressions of the shows in question and are subject to change.)
Trailer #1: The Event.
Plot-wise, I have no idea what's going on here. There's a string of events (but not The Event, we're told) that show an assassination attempt on the President, a man who suddenly finds that his girlfriend is missing, a group of underground something-or-others in Canada... or... something? and some other stuff. It looks like it could be cool, but I can't even tell.
On a racial level alone, it sort of passes. We have a black President with a black military advisor (good roles, but are these getting to be stereotypes?) Another of his advisors is white, and the guy who's missing his girlfriend appears white, as is the woman who runs the underground whatevers. Dig deeper into the kyriarchy, though, and it falls apart. The Event is clearly an able, straight, cisgendered, adult man's club, with only one female character of importance (aside from the missing MacGuffin girlfriend), no women of color in important roles, and no disabled, "alternative sexuality," lower-class, and/or any other members of the mosaic. It's not offensive enough to write it off the watch list (though erasure IS offensive), but it's worth noting.
Trailer #2: No Ordinary Family
The plot: A middle-class, white, dysfunctional (A.K.A. "normal") family takes a vacation to South America. While they're there, they get into a plane crash and end up in water with some weird glowing stuff. When they get back, they discover that they have superpowers. Fun for the whole family! If you're a white, patriarchy-induced, nuclear family, anyway.
I went beyond the trailer on this one, checking out the other promotional material on Hulu, and what I found was not pretty. It's not that the family is white that bothers me - hey, we have stories to tell too - but the other facts. The clear protagonist is the father: a middle-aged, middle-class, able, straight, cis man who feels like he's not strong enough because he... can't control his family? I'm not exactly clear, but the reason seems to be because his teenage children are becoming independent and have less need for an authorative dad, which just bothers him. His wife is a career-oriented power lady who, according to the promotional material, is a "failure" as a mother because she focuses on her job more than her kids. That's right, lady, get back into the kitchen. (Fortunately, as far as I can tell, getting superpowers isn't an instant ticket into stay-at-home-mom mode. But seriously, guys.) The teenage girl is a walking stereotype: addicted to text messaging, constantly trying to blow off her parents, and dating a guy who is only into her for her pussy. (Remember, honey, the only man you need in your life is Dad.) The boy - the only character whose problems aren't inextricably tied to gender - has a learning disability (or at least seems to) that is holding him back in school.
So there are no people of color in main roles, no trans characters, no gay characters (unless the teenage boy is gay, which I doubt because again it's not "that kind of show"), yadda. The only important minority character you see in the trailer is the protagonist's black best friend, who encourages him to try out his powers and then arranges to have a superhero lair installed in his garage (out of the goodness of his heart, we presume). Okay, I understand enthusiasm, but the black guy's willingness to do ALL this stuff for the white guy leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
This is ridiculous. One of the protagonists is a young woman who feels like her familial responsibilities are stopping her from growing up, and she's portrayed as a "rebel" who needs to get over herself and come back to Dad. Another one is a woman who is a "failure" because she can't juggle her 80-hour work week with her kids, leaving Dad (OH NOES!) to fill in. Dad sucks because he's not the glue holding everyone together (the "head of the household," as they say.) Furthermore, the title perpetuates the idea that white, straight, cis, able, and middle class = ordinary. The only thing "ordinary" about this family, EVER, is that one time they did not have superpowers. But the writers don't seem to get that.
At least they didn't get their powers from some "ancient Aztec artifact." The last thing they need to stack onto this nonsense is a dose of cultural appropriation.
Also, what happened to the pilot of the plane? Did he get superpowers too, or what?
In conclusion: Despite the obvious flaws out of the gate, I will be giving this one a shot. It looks entertaining, and it might be better than it sounds. And, y'know, SUPERPOWERS!
(Bear with me! It gets better.)
Trailer #3: Raising Hope
The plot: Some dude living with his mother has a baby fall into his lap and decides to raise it. Hijinks ensue.
This one didn't give me a lot to work with, as the trailer was less than a minute long. But here's what I know: The protagonist is (naturally) a cis, straight, able, white male, but then I'm not sure anyone else would want to get close to this silliness. The story plays the stereotype that men are bad with babies for laughs, while perpetuating it, which sucks. It doesn't look so much offensive as just plain dumb.
Trailer #4: My Generation
Again, I'm not entirely sure what this is. It seems to be a fictional documentary about ten people who were teenagers in the year 2000, and what they're doing now in 2010. It's an interesting concept, but the execution looks trite. To be honest, my biggest complaint is that the trailer was deceptive - at the beginning, it looked like a story about 9/11 and its impact on the way members of that generation grew up, but then it switched directions and became more "slice of life"-ish.
From the trailer, I can tell that most of the cast are white, cis, able, straight, and a whole slew of other "default"-isms. There are a few POC, including two women (the cast is almost half female, which is nice), no gay characters that I know of, no trans characters, disabled characters, dwarves, fat characters, and/or yadda. I can't tell if there are any poor characters or anything else I might have missed. Still, it seems like decent mainstream entertainment, even though I probably won't watch it.
Trailer #5: Outlaw
A Supreme Court justice resigns from the Court so he can become a defense attorney and use his totally kickass knowledge of the law to help a man who was falsely imprisoned for murder. He succeeds! So he decides to help others, too. Definitely worth checking out.
Now here's the surprise: The protagonist is... a Latino! The guy he helps is... a black dude! His legal team is a mixture of races and sexes (though all the women seem to be white, and have minor roles compared to the big boys). The bad news is, our guy is a misogynist. He "can't remember the names of the last three women [he] slept with," and hired one team member "because [she's] pretty." And there are STILL no characters who aren't cisgendered, straight, able, full-sized, yadda - at least not that is mentioned in the trailer.
Trailer #6: Running Wilde: Will Interviews Will
Will Arnett interviews Will Arnett. I don't know what this is supposed to promote, nor do I even care. He just douches around for a couple of minutes - which is enough time for him to crack misogynistic and ageist. Whoopee.
Trailer #7: Lone Star
A charming, attractive, talented, and secretly nice con man (who is not Josh Holloway) falls in love with a couple of his marks and wants to quit the business. Dad says no. Angst happens. It's all very dramatic; looks like a decent show, but not my thing.
So, the protagonist is a rich, cis, straight, able, white guy, his dad is a rich, cis, straight, able, white guy, the girl characters are plot devices for the protagonist to play off of, and that's all we know. Not a great showing, I have to say. However, I am liking the growing tendency of story writers to portray in their stories that it is possible to really be in love with multiple people at the same time. LOST did this as well. It's a nice counter to the monogamist propoganda.
Trailer #8: Undercovers
A happily married black couple has their lives interrupted by a guy from their past... who knows that they are ex-spies and wants them to come back to the job. Very traditional spy story. Might be interesting.
As mentioned above, the protagonists are black (pale, pointy black, of course). ABC's motto this season is "more colorful," and they seem to be living up to it pretty well. Of course, they are a middle-class, cisgendered, heterosexual, able-bodied couple. In fact, aside from skin color, there's really nothing to distinguish them from an equally-endowed white couple. Also, why is it a woman can't be a spy unless she's (A) married to a male spy, (B) going to be married to a male spy, or (C) going to sleep with a male spy (or already has)? This SUCKS.
Even so, it's nice to have some non-white protagonists.
Trailer #9: Chase
A U.S. Marshal tracks a serial killer cross-country. He avoids her and kills more people, 'cause he's good at it. Then she catches him! Not really my thing.
Finally, after eight shows, there's a female protagonist (white, able-bodied, cisgendered, straight... eh) who isn't sharing the stage with a man. Plus she's competent at her job. Every other minority group (because you can't have more than one!) is ignored, of course. But just MAYBE this will give young, law-enforcement-ambitions girls who watch NBC someone to look up to.
Trailer #10: Outsourced
A white dude gets a managerial position at a novelty-item company's call center... which has just been moved to India. Lulz ensue.
Naturally, most of the characters in the show are Indian. This being a comedy, however, they are strictly gag Indians. Laughs are gleaned both from the protagonist's ineptitude and from... LOADS AND LOADS OF RACISM! Indian culture is played for laughs, as is the protagonist's racist reactions to it. YAAAAAAY. In between insulting Indian headgear and teaching the locals about America's culture through pop music, he finds time for romance... with a white woman, who was clearly dredged out of the woodwork just so he'd have someone to date who wasn't brown.
Kill me now.
This is also put out by NBC "more colorful," which really makes me wonder WHAT THE FUCK THEY WERE THINKING.
Trailer #11: School Pride
Nonfiction! A bunch of rich guys find one of the crappiest schools in the country and engage the students and faculty in a huge effort to improve it. And they do.
This show looks AWESOME. Being a really run-down school in a poor neighborhood, it's naturally attended by children of color - intelligent, hardworking, enthusiastic children of color who are shown as nothing less than the victims of a bad situation. The School Pride team features a mix of races and sexes (including a woman of color), and they work together with the faculty and students to renovate the facility and get things back on track. The show's upbeat tone seems to prevent it from being exploitative of the children's suffering, though I could be wrong on that since reality television tends to be exploitative by its nature. It is upbeat and inspiring, though - something that children of color need to see more of in mainstream media.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Skip This One: It's A Boy Girl Thing
Being a trans guy, I'm into genderflip movies. It's just one of those things, like gay men being into gay male movies, kids being into movies about teenagers, and the entire film industry being obsessed with movies about white people. (One of these is not okay, but that's been covered by much more qualified writers than I.) Basically, I like these movies because some small part of them reflects the kind of things I go through, or would like to go through. I also watch them just for a laugh, because hey - nobody's serious all the time, not even the super serious trans man.
This one, though, can be skipped.
It's A Boy Girl Thing is a (SPOILERS!) romantic comedy about two white teenagers of opposite sexes. Nell, the girl, is fairly well-off. She's educated, well-mannered, nicely dressed, and hoping to get into Yale University. Woody, the boy (nice name, eh?), comes from a working-class family. His clothes are worn out, his manners are lacking, and his mom can't cook very well. He'll be lucky if he gets into any university.
Nell and Woody hate each other with a passion. So much that they get into a fight in a museum, which awakens the statue of an ancient god (for serious), who does some magical mist-fu that causes them to switch bodies. I will admit, this part of the movie is actually pretty entertaining. Aside from a couple of blunders, the two actors playing the roles do so very well, and the jokes are mostly funny. (Very raunchy, but funny.) The film does an average job of subverting gender roles, in that the characters do learn to appreciate each others' hobbies, but the male is still such a dunce that he can only learn to appreciate something that he already appreciates. Long story. The movie also comes down a little bit on classism, and has a bit in support of rap music, which is nice.
Those are the redeeming qualities. Now for the bad stuff.
First of all, the film just misses its mark. It's supposed to be about the differences between boys and girls (or so one would assume, based on the title), but it's as much, if not more, about the differences between class levels. It's entertaining, but it doesn't fit the title. Another gripe of mine - minor, I will admit - is that the setting of the film is a little too reminiscent of The Fantasticks. The two live right next to each other, she in a nice house with a neat lawn, he in a shabby house with a filthy yard, and while the families are presumably locked into feud, secretly their fathers would like nothing better than to see them together.
Those are just infractions - things that are a little annoying, but don't really ruin the movie for me. No, what really gets me is the bigotry. While the film fights gender roles and class divides with one hand, with the other it dispenses racism, homophobia, and slut shaming in the traditional "I'm not really bigoted" way that white cinema tends to do.
First of all, let's look at the racism. There are exactly two characters of color in this film (neither of which are the protagonists, naturally). One of them is a randy, apelike, teenaged black boy who is obsessed with sex to the point that he cheats on his white girlfriend regularly. The other one has very little character, but is a motorcycle-driving Latino who will have sex with any girl on campus at the drop of a hat, and comes dangerously close to destroying Nell's virginity (except he doesn't - more on that later). Of course the filmmakers didn't intend the film to be racist, but when the only lesson we learn is that teenaged boys of color are all sex machines who will cheat on/destroy the innocence of your white daughters, guess what I call it. Yup.
Also, it is implied throughout the film that the black character is extremely well-endowed, which never fails to catch the attention of the characters who get an eyeful of his junk. 'Cause all black guys have big penises, get it?
Now the homophobia. This is mostly character-driven, in a scene where Woody (in Nell's body) attempts to have sex with the aforementioned Latino, only to realize at the last minute that it's a terrible idea because he's not into guys. That's not bad. In fact, it was a great idea. But then he starts going on: "This is so gay! He's gonna make me his bitch!" He's more worried about having a "gay" experience - which he is certain will be demeaning and disgusting - than he is about having sex with someone that he's not into.
Just in case you thought this was just a character thing and had no bearing on the writers' views: first, no effort is made to contradict Woody's opinions, and secondly, it happens again, at the end of the movie. The aforementioned black character, having been dumped and thoroughly humiliated by his girlfriend, finds himself naked at a party, in front of a gay man who is obviously impressed with his super-sized black junk. Lesson #2: Don't cheat on your girlfriend, or else the gays will come after you. And while you might not think that's a bad thing, the filmmakers obviously believe that it would be gross and embarrassing.
After those two whoppers, this one is more of a footnote. See, there isn't actual slut shaming in this movie per se, but its effects are quite visible. Nell, trapped in Woody's body, is thoroughly convinced that her hymen is her virginity, and that if Woody in Nell's body has sex, that means that Nell is no longer a virgin. This would be horrible, because she was saving her first time for someone special. While there's nothing wrong with Nell's desire to wait for her first sexual experience, there is something hugely wrong with her assumption. Regardless of whose hymen is abused, if Woody had gone through with his plan, all it would mean is that Woody had sex that night. Nell wasn't there, she didn't have sex, she's still a virgin, end of discussion. And again, the movie does nothing to counteract this idea.
So, that's it in a nutshell. You might think that these things are minor - after all, nobody is going to watch one movie and think "Well, gee, I guess all boys of color are bad and gay sex is disgusting!" Can't I just forget the bad parts and enjoy the movie?
Well, no. Because the bad parts are in the movie. And people are going to watch this film and come away with a niggling subconscious idea that white boys, like the eventually honorable Woody, are better potential mates than boys of color, just because this movie showed it. A conscious knowledge to the contrary cannot completely overcome a subconscious suspicion. And this movie offers way too many of them for comfort.
This one, though, can be skipped.
It's A Boy Girl Thing is a (SPOILERS!) romantic comedy about two white teenagers of opposite sexes. Nell, the girl, is fairly well-off. She's educated, well-mannered, nicely dressed, and hoping to get into Yale University. Woody, the boy (nice name, eh?), comes from a working-class family. His clothes are worn out, his manners are lacking, and his mom can't cook very well. He'll be lucky if he gets into any university.
Nell and Woody hate each other with a passion. So much that they get into a fight in a museum, which awakens the statue of an ancient god (for serious), who does some magical mist-fu that causes them to switch bodies. I will admit, this part of the movie is actually pretty entertaining. Aside from a couple of blunders, the two actors playing the roles do so very well, and the jokes are mostly funny. (Very raunchy, but funny.) The film does an average job of subverting gender roles, in that the characters do learn to appreciate each others' hobbies, but the male is still such a dunce that he can only learn to appreciate something that he already appreciates. Long story. The movie also comes down a little bit on classism, and has a bit in support of rap music, which is nice.
Those are the redeeming qualities. Now for the bad stuff.
First of all, the film just misses its mark. It's supposed to be about the differences between boys and girls (or so one would assume, based on the title), but it's as much, if not more, about the differences between class levels. It's entertaining, but it doesn't fit the title. Another gripe of mine - minor, I will admit - is that the setting of the film is a little too reminiscent of The Fantasticks. The two live right next to each other, she in a nice house with a neat lawn, he in a shabby house with a filthy yard, and while the families are presumably locked into feud, secretly their fathers would like nothing better than to see them together.
Those are just infractions - things that are a little annoying, but don't really ruin the movie for me. No, what really gets me is the bigotry. While the film fights gender roles and class divides with one hand, with the other it dispenses racism, homophobia, and slut shaming in the traditional "I'm not really bigoted" way that white cinema tends to do.
First of all, let's look at the racism. There are exactly two characters of color in this film (neither of which are the protagonists, naturally). One of them is a randy, apelike, teenaged black boy who is obsessed with sex to the point that he cheats on his white girlfriend regularly. The other one has very little character, but is a motorcycle-driving Latino who will have sex with any girl on campus at the drop of a hat, and comes dangerously close to destroying Nell's virginity (except he doesn't - more on that later). Of course the filmmakers didn't intend the film to be racist, but when the only lesson we learn is that teenaged boys of color are all sex machines who will cheat on/destroy the innocence of your white daughters, guess what I call it. Yup.
Also, it is implied throughout the film that the black character is extremely well-endowed, which never fails to catch the attention of the characters who get an eyeful of his junk. 'Cause all black guys have big penises, get it?
Now the homophobia. This is mostly character-driven, in a scene where Woody (in Nell's body) attempts to have sex with the aforementioned Latino, only to realize at the last minute that it's a terrible idea because he's not into guys. That's not bad. In fact, it was a great idea. But then he starts going on: "This is so gay! He's gonna make me his bitch!" He's more worried about having a "gay" experience - which he is certain will be demeaning and disgusting - than he is about having sex with someone that he's not into.
Just in case you thought this was just a character thing and had no bearing on the writers' views: first, no effort is made to contradict Woody's opinions, and secondly, it happens again, at the end of the movie. The aforementioned black character, having been dumped and thoroughly humiliated by his girlfriend, finds himself naked at a party, in front of a gay man who is obviously impressed with his super-sized black junk. Lesson #2: Don't cheat on your girlfriend, or else the gays will come after you. And while you might not think that's a bad thing, the filmmakers obviously believe that it would be gross and embarrassing.
After those two whoppers, this one is more of a footnote. See, there isn't actual slut shaming in this movie per se, but its effects are quite visible. Nell, trapped in Woody's body, is thoroughly convinced that her hymen is her virginity, and that if Woody in Nell's body has sex, that means that Nell is no longer a virgin. This would be horrible, because she was saving her first time for someone special. While there's nothing wrong with Nell's desire to wait for her first sexual experience, there is something hugely wrong with her assumption. Regardless of whose hymen is abused, if Woody had gone through with his plan, all it would mean is that Woody had sex that night. Nell wasn't there, she didn't have sex, she's still a virgin, end of discussion. And again, the movie does nothing to counteract this idea.
So, that's it in a nutshell. You might think that these things are minor - after all, nobody is going to watch one movie and think "Well, gee, I guess all boys of color are bad and gay sex is disgusting!" Can't I just forget the bad parts and enjoy the movie?
Well, no. Because the bad parts are in the movie. And people are going to watch this film and come away with a niggling subconscious idea that white boys, like the eventually honorable Woody, are better potential mates than boys of color, just because this movie showed it. A conscious knowledge to the contrary cannot completely overcome a subconscious suspicion. And this movie offers way too many of them for comfort.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)