I just finished watching this documentary. Part of the BBC's "Bible Secrets" series, "Did God Have A Wife?" shows compelling evidence that early Judaism was polytheistic, an offshoot of Canaanite religion, and featured a powerful and holy goddess figure who was a counterpart to good ol' Yahweh.
The parts are on YouTube and can be watched via Unreasonable Faith.
The whole show is really interesting, but the part that I found the most compelling (though horrifying) concerned Asherah, El's wife and the goddess of life and fertility. According to Dr. Stavrakopoulou, some of the first scholars to get their hands on Asherah took one look at her exaggerated breasts and vulva and decided that she was, essentially, a porno goddess and that her followers had all succumbed to their love of teh secks.
Really, guys.
I can only try to communicate my disgust at this reaction. For me, Asherah is a beautiful, wonderful figure. She represents the fact that once upon a time in the history of the religion that shapes our world, a woman's organs were considered holy, not obscene. They were a source of power, not shame. They were more than the value assigned to them by our modern society, who has the presumption to look back on them and decide that she must have been a horrible character not from evidence but because of their own filthy misogyny.
I guess what I'm trying to say is Asherah is every woman. As Dr. Stavrakopoulou expresses at the end of the video, her erasure from the pantheon and subsequent (though cleverly concealed) demonization represents nothing less than the fall of womanhood from its rightful place as an equal way of being to a state of less-than-human. It enables laws that make a woman responsible for her own rape if she does not cry for help, laws that turn that woman into a piece of property who must be bought from her father, the continued absence of laws to accommodate a painful and awkward time in the life of most working women, the treatment of women as "bitches" or "chicks" who exist to lavish love and attention upon men, and the sickening double standard that forbids women and only women from baring their nipples in public.
While men make representations of themselves for various uses, erect large phalluses in each other's honor (see the Washington Monument), and get together to brag about how many holes they've stuck their penises into, women are told to cover up the same parts of their body that were once venerated as wonderful and necessary to humanity or else they'll get into trouble.
It's sick. Just sick. To repurpose a quote, my vagina is offended.
Showing posts with label sexism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sexism. Show all posts
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
The Two Paths, Retort Edition
'Cause you KNOW you wanted to see this. For your reading pleasure and GNARGNARGNARG, here's the original.
I realize I'm treading on dangerous territory here. There's a lot of sentiment in some circles that staying home and raising a family = oppression, while staying single and joining the "official" workforce = liberation. After making this, I realize that it's further problematic by contrasting motherhood with employment, because motherhood IS employment. And it's a damn tough job.
HOWEVER.
Forcing women to get married and bear children is not okay.
Pretending that you're NOT forcing them, by telling them that getting married and having children is "virtuous" as in the original image, is not okay.
Young women and trans men, that stuff that your parents are calling "bad literature" is probably the key to your liberation. Read it.
And sexual promiscuity is not the big, bad beast that the fundies say it is. It's risky, like driving a car, but it probably won't cause premature aging and it CERTAINLY won't stop you from having a happy and fulfilled life.
That's all, folks.
I realize I'm treading on dangerous territory here. There's a lot of sentiment in some circles that staying home and raising a family = oppression, while staying single and joining the "official" workforce = liberation. After making this, I realize that it's further problematic by contrasting motherhood with employment, because motherhood IS employment. And it's a damn tough job.
HOWEVER.
Forcing women to get married and bear children is not okay.
Pretending that you're NOT forcing them, by telling them that getting married and having children is "virtuous" as in the original image, is not okay.
Young women and trans men, that stuff that your parents are calling "bad literature" is probably the key to your liberation. Read it.
And sexual promiscuity is not the big, bad beast that the fundies say it is. It's risky, like driving a car, but it probably won't cause premature aging and it CERTAINLY won't stop you from having a happy and fulfilled life.
That's all, folks.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Renee of Womanist Musings on Chris Brown
TRIGGER WARNING: discusses domestic violence (non-explicit)
When I saw the headline "Chris Brown refers to beating of Rihanna as 'mishap'," I knew this wasn't going to be pretty. And Renee of Womanist Musings explains exactly why.
A-MEN. Let me reiterate: anyone who can look back at BEATING ANOTHER HUMAN BEING and call it a "mishap" has not learned their lesson. And I just want to add: the recipient doesn't have to be a woman. The same kind of language has been used by parents who have beaten their children (who often add "I just got too mad and lost control!" as if that was an acceptable excuse. Ho-hum, ageism), white men beating black men, cis men murdering trans women. The only thing that matters is that the victim has less privilege than his or her attacker, because when THAT factor comes into play suddenly it was a horrible mistake and he didn't mean it and he really, REALLY shouldn't be punished that hard because HOW COULD HE HELP IT?
You know if Rihanna was a white man - or even a white woman, possibly - it wouldn't have played out this way. And his behavior should not be going unchecked in this instance, either. The enemy is right in front of you. Let's treat him like the criminal he is.
When I saw the headline "Chris Brown refers to beating of Rihanna as 'mishap'," I knew this wasn't going to be pretty. And Renee of Womanist Musings explains exactly why.
Abusers like Brown don't just hit one time and then change their ways. Abuse become a pattern, a way of life, and the fact that he was raised watching domestic violencem means that he has already identified the oppressor rather than the victim. The pattern of abuse is very hard to break and even men that receive counseling often end up re abusing. While there is no guarantee that Brown will hit another woman, there is also no guarantee he won't. We need to remember that most often, domestic abuse goes on for year and in some cases ends in death.
...
He then went on to complain about those who stopped associating with him in the wake of his violent actions against Rihanna. He finishes by referring to the battering of Rihanna as "mishap." If he cannot even acknowledge what he did, how is anyone to believe that he feels responsible for his actions and wants to genuinely make amends. There have stars like Rick Sanchez and even my beloved Queen Latifah who have suggested that the public should consider his youth, or that enough time has passed for us to move on. This comes down to the fact that even talented, beautiful, class privileged women like Rihanna are disposable. Violence against women is an issue that society tends to pay lip service to and this is why men like Brown can freely refer to instances of outright violence as a "mishap."
A-MEN. Let me reiterate: anyone who can look back at BEATING ANOTHER HUMAN BEING and call it a "mishap" has not learned their lesson. And I just want to add: the recipient doesn't have to be a woman. The same kind of language has been used by parents who have beaten their children (who often add "I just got too mad and lost control!" as if that was an acceptable excuse. Ho-hum, ageism), white men beating black men, cis men murdering trans women. The only thing that matters is that the victim has less privilege than his or her attacker, because when THAT factor comes into play suddenly it was a horrible mistake and he didn't mean it and he really, REALLY shouldn't be punished that hard because HOW COULD HE HELP IT?
You know if Rihanna was a white man - or even a white woman, possibly - it wouldn't have played out this way. And his behavior should not be going unchecked in this instance, either. The enemy is right in front of you. Let's treat him like the criminal he is.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
No Ordinary Family: Pilot
This review is also belated - not because I didn't watch the episode, but because I had some other things to get out of the way first, but here goes.
First of all, the plot is as insipid as I expected. A middle-class white family's middle-class whiteness is causing them to become dysfunctional. GO FIGURE. That lifestyle is bad for you, you know. Of course, their failure (according to the story) is also that they are not heteronormative enough - Dad is taking care of his family instead of saving the world, Mom is working a full-time job instead of taking care of her family, and the daughter is (get this) USING HER OWN JUDGMENT TO CHOOSE HER BOYFRIEND. Which, according to tradition, means that he is a total douchebag who (as it turns out) is sleeping with her best friend and lying to her about it.
ANYWAY.
I was going to take the race angle first, but this mess is just too complex. The fact is, I have absolutely no quibble about a story about a white family. I have EVERY quibble about a story that just "happens to" choose a middle-class, heteronormative, almost entirely able (more on that later) white family as The Most Average People Imaginable. Like we haven't seen that a bajillion times before (Sky High, The Incredibles, The Gates, plus a slew of older shows and films) and done better to boot (see also: The Incredibles). A lot of people seem to think that this is acceptable because European-descended people comprise the majority in the United States. This kind of thinking betrays huge ignorance about the population breakdown of individual cities within the United States - many of which have non-white majorities. Yeah, I'm not buying it.
Then there's the "black best friend" angle, which is also popular in television and brings nothing new to this show - except severe unfortunate implications, as George is all too willing to donate his garage and significant quantities of resources to his white friend's newfound powers. Only the addition of Stephanie's white friend, who is equally enthusiastic, and the Rule Of Superhero Worship (as follows: IT'S GONNA HAPPEN) keep this to an even tolerable level. Additionally, the person I took to be a nameless thug of color turned out to be a white guy in an Obama mask, so we're not throwing random POC-as-criminal stereotypes around yet.
Speaking of Stephanie's white friend, her inclusion and the conversation the two have about Stephenie's powers (and Kitty Pryde) means that this show passes the Bechtel test. Which says nothing about its validity as non-oppressive entertainment, obviously. Especially given the things I mentioned above: Stephanie's prioritization of career over family being repeatedly depicted as the wrong choice, and Daphne's atrocious taste in boyfriends (nothing less than a sexist/ageist stereotype).
We'll start with Stephanie (and by extension, Jim). The show does not expressly condemn the mother's choice to pursue her career, or the father's choice to take a less demanding job so that he can spend time with his family - instead, the characters express frustration at their roles, indicating the writers' sentiment that their family is somehow "broken" because of this. I could give them the benefit of the doubt and say maybe they were just trying to twist up the usual order. There have been plenty of stories (such as Multiplicity and 17 Again, also films about heteronormative white people) where the father wants more time with his kids and the mother wants an outside life. Problem is, the original formula is vaguely subversive of the traditional heteronormative family unit. Reverse it, and... yeah. Getting super-speed enables Stephanie to achieve that magic jugglement of career and family, which is what every woman should aspire to, right? Right?
NO. This is an unreasonable goal to set for a mother, even one with superpowers. A more realistic solution would be for her to negotiate some time off from her job so she can spend some more time with her kids. Her boss would totally go for that, even. Also to accept that maybe sharing the parenting job with her husband is OK.
Next up we have Daphne, the teenage daughter who is obsessed with her personal life, sucks at choosing boyfriends, and wants nothing to do with her parents... where have we heard that one before? (Hint: 17 Again, Modern Family, The Vampire Diaries.) It's not so much that her parents don't approve of her boyfriend, but that she doesn't appraise them of everything going on in their relationship, which is punished soundly when she learns that he is boinking her best friend behind her back. And of course it's not his problem for being a lying douchebag - it's her problem for having the naivete to actually trust the guy. Eeeeeyup. In addition to cluing her in to her boyfriend's shenanigans, her psychic powers force her to actually spend some time talking to her parents (yet another way in which they magically start fixing the family).
Remember, girls: your growing independence from your parents as you age is a bad thing. Mommy and Daddy know what's best for you, so make sure you attend all your Meaningful Family Talks, and always do what they say!
Now, I could be completely off on this. For all I know, Daphne could turn out to be an intelligent, independent character (as much as is reasonable for a teenage girl) whose opinion is valid and valued by her parents... but I'm not holding my breath.
Next up is JJ, the token learning-disabled kid. Knowing as little as I do about the learning disabled, I'm not going to take this one on in detail, but even I can tell that they're doing it wrong here. First of all, there's his mother, who is a total asshat about the problem. Paraphrased: "They want to put him in a SPECIAL EDUCATION class. MY son. In a SPECIAL EDUCATION class. This is ridiculous! I'm a middle-class white mother! WHY are they punishing me like this?" Seriously, she acts like it's about her, rather than about the actual difficulties her son is having. Her temper tantrum, and the rest of the show's context, further lead one to believe (without ever confirming) that there's nothing actually wrong with JJ, that he's perfectly intelligent and would be getting good grades if only his mommy was around to help him with his homework. This, of course, casts the school officials who want to put him into a special-education class as clueless monsters who just don't understand how speshul her kid is, and really denigrates the reality of being learning disabled.
Secondly, none of it matters, because GUESS WHAT! Getting dunked in a lake full of magical glowing stuff has made him a SUPER-GENIUS! Ha ha, and you thought he was actually going to have to deal with his problem for a second. You noob. This is another fantastic example of disability erasure - where any character who is disabled either has some superpower to compensate (Daredevil, Percy Jackson et al), or is magically cured of it before the plot ever starts (many amateur Mary-Sue stories), which makes it completely moot. Anyway, becoming a super-genius magically fixes JJ's bad-grades problem, re-encouraging him to apply himself to his schoolwork and Be Successful.
Now here's the thing: Faildelivery aside, I'm enjoying that they've cast a supergenius into a main role. I'm a smart guy, and my kind are often deeply misunderstood in TV. Like Gil Grissom, Data, Bones, or House, they are typically brilliant but lacking in social ability; they have no sense of humor but are always played for laughs, and in many cases they are cast across a less-intelligent protagonist with whom we are supposed to sympathize for having to live/work with a stuffy, clueless know-it-all. Furthermore, we allegedly have only the nerdiest of hobbies - crossword puzzles, sci-fi shows, or randomly building amazing devices in our garages over the weekend (depending on the target age of the show in question).
Now, JJ wasn't raised smart, he became smart. So culturally, he should be more like a real smart person - calculating, liable to overthink things, continually frustrated that everyone around him is so dense, but otherwise no different from anyone else. On the other hand, I don't want his character to become worthless because he doesn't have a physical ability like his parents. If he ends up building incredible physics-defying devices and giving them all to Superdad, I'm going to be pissed. On the other hand, he could be more like Syndrome or Kick-Ass, which would be well worth my viewing time.
Now that that bit of ARGHWHATTHECRAP is out of the way, we'll go to Jimbo!
Jim is the protagonist of the story. This white, middle-class guy was written by white, middle-class guys, and it shows. He's an overall great guy; he works as a police artist, but his job isn't so demanding that he doesn't have time for his kids. He doesn't get his kids, to be sure, and he's convinced that their burgeoning independence is a sign that his family is falling apart (a sentiment the writers obviously agree with), but with a family as obviously dysfunctional as his (workaholic Stephanie, selfish Daphne, emo JJ), what's a guy to do? Man up! Force the family on a vacation to South America, where you continually nag them to enjoy themselves and do Family Things (read: the stuff you want) until you all get into a horrible plane accident. Then just go home and keep nagging them until BAM, they get superpowers, forcing your kids to turn back to you and Mom to help them. VICTORY!
But what's that? You want MORE? You want to fight crime and help people and other stuff you're inexplicably not doing just by working for the police force? Well, no problem! Just recruit your Black Best Friend for a sidekick, promise your wife that you're not going to start doing what you're about to do, and then launch yourself into deadly situations with absolutely no experience or idea of what you're facing.
GAAAAAAAW.
First there's the ageism. Jim's kids are growing up, which means that it is totally unreasonable for him to expect that they stay under his thumb. Not that they don't still need his guidance, but maybe he should try engaging them as the nearly-adult minds that they are instead of the children he expects them to be. (Yes, I know that's difficult. Real life usually is, even if you have superpowers.) Furthermore, Stephanie ignores her son's insistence that he is genuinely disabled in favor of her Important Adult Opinion that he only has self-esteem issues that he needs to get over. (She's never proven wrong, either.) Then there's the sexism. Jim somehow thinks it's okay to lie to his wife about his activity because he "needs" to "do this." He has a burning urge to fight crime which somehow supersedes his marriage vows, and apparently we're supposed to be okay with this. Well, I'm not.
Furthermore, he has no problem with co-opting George's garage for a superhero base. Now maybe it's just me, but I think if my best friend volunteered that much time and resources, I'd be a little hesitant. I might even say something like "Who there, Black Best Friend. You have a life and a family and stuff. I appreciate the offer, but you don't need to be the Magical Negro on my behalf." Again, it's about the wedding vows. Their families should be coming first - especially with the way Jim keeps carrying on about his.
Now that I've done ripped this show to shreds, you might find it crazy that I'm going to keep watching it. And you may be right. But one of the crazy things about us Smart People is that we find value in watching stuff that is crap, so we can analyze it, figure out why it is crap, and maybe educate others about the problems in it. Besides, I am curious, in a completely non-stereotypical-smart-guy way. The show managed to wrap up nearly every problem it started with in one episode. I really want to see where it takes the next. Hopefully somewhere where the kids learn to use their abilities to empower themselves and Jim realizes he can't control his family and run off to do whatever he pleases.
First of all, the plot is as insipid as I expected. A middle-class white family's middle-class whiteness is causing them to become dysfunctional. GO FIGURE. That lifestyle is bad for you, you know. Of course, their failure (according to the story) is also that they are not heteronormative enough - Dad is taking care of his family instead of saving the world, Mom is working a full-time job instead of taking care of her family, and the daughter is (get this) USING HER OWN JUDGMENT TO CHOOSE HER BOYFRIEND. Which, according to tradition, means that he is a total douchebag who (as it turns out) is sleeping with her best friend and lying to her about it.
ANYWAY.
I was going to take the race angle first, but this mess is just too complex. The fact is, I have absolutely no quibble about a story about a white family. I have EVERY quibble about a story that just "happens to" choose a middle-class, heteronormative, almost entirely able (more on that later) white family as The Most Average People Imaginable. Like we haven't seen that a bajillion times before (Sky High, The Incredibles, The Gates, plus a slew of older shows and films) and done better to boot (see also: The Incredibles). A lot of people seem to think that this is acceptable because European-descended people comprise the majority in the United States. This kind of thinking betrays huge ignorance about the population breakdown of individual cities within the United States - many of which have non-white majorities. Yeah, I'm not buying it.
Then there's the "black best friend" angle, which is also popular in television and brings nothing new to this show - except severe unfortunate implications, as George is all too willing to donate his garage and significant quantities of resources to his white friend's newfound powers. Only the addition of Stephanie's white friend, who is equally enthusiastic, and the Rule Of Superhero Worship (as follows: IT'S GONNA HAPPEN) keep this to an even tolerable level. Additionally, the person I took to be a nameless thug of color turned out to be a white guy in an Obama mask, so we're not throwing random POC-as-criminal stereotypes around yet.
Speaking of Stephanie's white friend, her inclusion and the conversation the two have about Stephenie's powers (and Kitty Pryde) means that this show passes the Bechtel test. Which says nothing about its validity as non-oppressive entertainment, obviously. Especially given the things I mentioned above: Stephanie's prioritization of career over family being repeatedly depicted as the wrong choice, and Daphne's atrocious taste in boyfriends (nothing less than a sexist/ageist stereotype).
We'll start with Stephanie (and by extension, Jim). The show does not expressly condemn the mother's choice to pursue her career, or the father's choice to take a less demanding job so that he can spend time with his family - instead, the characters express frustration at their roles, indicating the writers' sentiment that their family is somehow "broken" because of this. I could give them the benefit of the doubt and say maybe they were just trying to twist up the usual order. There have been plenty of stories (such as Multiplicity and 17 Again, also films about heteronormative white people) where the father wants more time with his kids and the mother wants an outside life. Problem is, the original formula is vaguely subversive of the traditional heteronormative family unit. Reverse it, and... yeah. Getting super-speed enables Stephanie to achieve that magic jugglement of career and family, which is what every woman should aspire to, right? Right?
NO. This is an unreasonable goal to set for a mother, even one with superpowers. A more realistic solution would be for her to negotiate some time off from her job so she can spend some more time with her kids. Her boss would totally go for that, even. Also to accept that maybe sharing the parenting job with her husband is OK.
Next up we have Daphne, the teenage daughter who is obsessed with her personal life, sucks at choosing boyfriends, and wants nothing to do with her parents... where have we heard that one before? (Hint: 17 Again, Modern Family, The Vampire Diaries.) It's not so much that her parents don't approve of her boyfriend, but that she doesn't appraise them of everything going on in their relationship, which is punished soundly when she learns that he is boinking her best friend behind her back. And of course it's not his problem for being a lying douchebag - it's her problem for having the naivete to actually trust the guy. Eeeeeyup. In addition to cluing her in to her boyfriend's shenanigans, her psychic powers force her to actually spend some time talking to her parents (yet another way in which they magically start fixing the family).
Remember, girls: your growing independence from your parents as you age is a bad thing. Mommy and Daddy know what's best for you, so make sure you attend all your Meaningful Family Talks, and always do what they say!
Now, I could be completely off on this. For all I know, Daphne could turn out to be an intelligent, independent character (as much as is reasonable for a teenage girl) whose opinion is valid and valued by her parents... but I'm not holding my breath.
Next up is JJ, the token learning-disabled kid. Knowing as little as I do about the learning disabled, I'm not going to take this one on in detail, but even I can tell that they're doing it wrong here. First of all, there's his mother, who is a total asshat about the problem. Paraphrased: "They want to put him in a SPECIAL EDUCATION class. MY son. In a SPECIAL EDUCATION class. This is ridiculous! I'm a middle-class white mother! WHY are they punishing me like this?" Seriously, she acts like it's about her, rather than about the actual difficulties her son is having. Her temper tantrum, and the rest of the show's context, further lead one to believe (without ever confirming) that there's nothing actually wrong with JJ, that he's perfectly intelligent and would be getting good grades if only his mommy was around to help him with his homework. This, of course, casts the school officials who want to put him into a special-education class as clueless monsters who just don't understand how speshul her kid is, and really denigrates the reality of being learning disabled.
Secondly, none of it matters, because GUESS WHAT! Getting dunked in a lake full of magical glowing stuff has made him a SUPER-GENIUS! Ha ha, and you thought he was actually going to have to deal with his problem for a second. You noob. This is another fantastic example of disability erasure - where any character who is disabled either has some superpower to compensate (Daredevil, Percy Jackson et al), or is magically cured of it before the plot ever starts (many amateur Mary-Sue stories), which makes it completely moot. Anyway, becoming a super-genius magically fixes JJ's bad-grades problem, re-encouraging him to apply himself to his schoolwork and Be Successful.
Now here's the thing: Faildelivery aside, I'm enjoying that they've cast a supergenius into a main role. I'm a smart guy, and my kind are often deeply misunderstood in TV. Like Gil Grissom, Data, Bones, or House, they are typically brilliant but lacking in social ability; they have no sense of humor but are always played for laughs, and in many cases they are cast across a less-intelligent protagonist with whom we are supposed to sympathize for having to live/work with a stuffy, clueless know-it-all. Furthermore, we allegedly have only the nerdiest of hobbies - crossword puzzles, sci-fi shows, or randomly building amazing devices in our garages over the weekend (depending on the target age of the show in question).
Now, JJ wasn't raised smart, he became smart. So culturally, he should be more like a real smart person - calculating, liable to overthink things, continually frustrated that everyone around him is so dense, but otherwise no different from anyone else. On the other hand, I don't want his character to become worthless because he doesn't have a physical ability like his parents. If he ends up building incredible physics-defying devices and giving them all to Superdad, I'm going to be pissed. On the other hand, he could be more like Syndrome or Kick-Ass, which would be well worth my viewing time.
Now that that bit of ARGHWHATTHECRAP is out of the way, we'll go to Jimbo!
Jim is the protagonist of the story. This white, middle-class guy was written by white, middle-class guys, and it shows. He's an overall great guy; he works as a police artist, but his job isn't so demanding that he doesn't have time for his kids. He doesn't get his kids, to be sure, and he's convinced that their burgeoning independence is a sign that his family is falling apart (a sentiment the writers obviously agree with), but with a family as obviously dysfunctional as his (workaholic Stephanie, selfish Daphne, emo JJ), what's a guy to do? Man up! Force the family on a vacation to South America, where you continually nag them to enjoy themselves and do Family Things (read: the stuff you want) until you all get into a horrible plane accident. Then just go home and keep nagging them until BAM, they get superpowers, forcing your kids to turn back to you and Mom to help them. VICTORY!
But what's that? You want MORE? You want to fight crime and help people and other stuff you're inexplicably not doing just by working for the police force? Well, no problem! Just recruit your Black Best Friend for a sidekick, promise your wife that you're not going to start doing what you're about to do, and then launch yourself into deadly situations with absolutely no experience or idea of what you're facing.
GAAAAAAAW.
First there's the ageism. Jim's kids are growing up, which means that it is totally unreasonable for him to expect that they stay under his thumb. Not that they don't still need his guidance, but maybe he should try engaging them as the nearly-adult minds that they are instead of the children he expects them to be. (Yes, I know that's difficult. Real life usually is, even if you have superpowers.) Furthermore, Stephanie ignores her son's insistence that he is genuinely disabled in favor of her Important Adult Opinion that he only has self-esteem issues that he needs to get over. (She's never proven wrong, either.) Then there's the sexism. Jim somehow thinks it's okay to lie to his wife about his activity because he "needs" to "do this." He has a burning urge to fight crime which somehow supersedes his marriage vows, and apparently we're supposed to be okay with this. Well, I'm not.
Furthermore, he has no problem with co-opting George's garage for a superhero base. Now maybe it's just me, but I think if my best friend volunteered that much time and resources, I'd be a little hesitant. I might even say something like "Who there, Black Best Friend. You have a life and a family and stuff. I appreciate the offer, but you don't need to be the Magical Negro on my behalf." Again, it's about the wedding vows. Their families should be coming first - especially with the way Jim keeps carrying on about his.
Now that I've done ripped this show to shreds, you might find it crazy that I'm going to keep watching it. And you may be right. But one of the crazy things about us Smart People is that we find value in watching stuff that is crap, so we can analyze it, figure out why it is crap, and maybe educate others about the problems in it. Besides, I am curious, in a completely non-stereotypical-smart-guy way. The show managed to wrap up nearly every problem it started with in one episode. I really want to see where it takes the next. Hopefully somewhere where the kids learn to use their abilities to empower themselves and Jim realizes he can't control his family and run off to do whatever he pleases.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Undercovers: Pilot
This review is a bit belated, on account of I only got around to watching the episode yesterday (on account of spy shows aren't usually my thing), but here goes. Starting with race issues, since they're the elephant in the room here.
First of all, my predictions were correct: the main couple are a pair of Oreos. While I won't argue the importance of having any black characters in the main roles, it is pretty obvious that they were written by white people who have no idea how black culture works in the middle class. (Furthermore, while the creative minds behind the show were hoping to get black actors, their casting call was unracified, so... yeah.) In a way that's good - who says a role has to be intended for a black person for a black person to get it? On the other hand, who says it's not cool to write a leading role specifically for a black person? In addition, almost the entire supporting cast consists of white people. I guess that's how you be an acceptable black person in this country - hire white people to run your catering business, rescue white spies, work for white government agents, etc. I know they didn't mean to show it that way, but it's thoughtless.
The show has also been criticized for hiring two black foreigners (Gugu Mbatha-Raw is English; Boris Kodjoe is Austrian-born German) to play their American roles. Its critics have in turn been criticized for being too picky - after all, nobody had a cow when British Hugh Laurie was cast as American Dr. House. Well, that's all fine and good, but Dr. House isn't exactly the sole representation of cranky, middle-aged, white male doctors on television. Or one of only a handful of white leads, period. Here they had a chance to represent an entire demographic of American people with two roles, and they felt they had to bring in foreigners? Are American black actors just not good enough, or what?
The bottom line on race: Black protagonists are a great start, but they're a start. Keep working, folks.
Then there's the sexism angle. It continues to bother me that no woman is allowed to be a spy unless 1: she is partnered with a male spy, 2: she is married to a male spy, or 3: she is going to sleep with a male spy at some point. Also, the portrayal of Samantha and Leo's past relationship also bugs me - not because they had one, but because her repeated insistence that he could not be a turncoat comes across as an interference of her personal (womanly) feelings with what would otherwise be sound judgment. (The fact that Steven was Leo's partner for some time but does not feel this way compounds the idea.) She turns out to be right, which does vindicate the problem slightly, but the fact that they never confront this assumption leaves some niggling doubt in my mind. Then there's the scene where she has to hit on a guy she is repulsed by in order to obtain information.
On the other hand, Samantha gets some totally kick-ass moments. She disregards her husband's irrational insistence that she stays "safe," and in doing so manages to save Steven and Leo. Then when she takes off to try and stop the bad guy, she not only takes out his minion without a problem, but stops him single-handedly while Steven is busy rescuing Leo. That, dear reader, is girl power. And it rocks.
Also, the white guy got shot. That was funny.
But what about the show itself? Does it have entertainment value? Definitely. I'm a little irked by some of the spy tropes (ooh, we're spies, we get to go to these exotic European locations!), but I enjoy the storyline, I enjoy the action, I definitely enjoyed Samantha's dress, and I appreciate the implication that they can successfully juggle their spy careers with their catering business. And I loved the little robot-shaped flash drive. So cute.
However, there is one last thing that I do not appreciate: the continued normalization of the overworked middle-class citizen. They spend all day working so they can afford all these luxuries that they're now too tired to enjoy - what's the point? Heck, what's the point of working so hard every day that you're always too tired for sex? More than a spy job, it struck me that these characters needed some time off to rethink their priorities. Maybe they're not so middle class; maybe they're struggling just to keep food on the table and clothes on their backs. But I doubt it. It certainly isn't made to seem that way.
I will, of course, keep watching to see how things play out.
First of all, my predictions were correct: the main couple are a pair of Oreos. While I won't argue the importance of having any black characters in the main roles, it is pretty obvious that they were written by white people who have no idea how black culture works in the middle class. (Furthermore, while the creative minds behind the show were hoping to get black actors, their casting call was unracified, so... yeah.) In a way that's good - who says a role has to be intended for a black person for a black person to get it? On the other hand, who says it's not cool to write a leading role specifically for a black person? In addition, almost the entire supporting cast consists of white people. I guess that's how you be an acceptable black person in this country - hire white people to run your catering business, rescue white spies, work for white government agents, etc. I know they didn't mean to show it that way, but it's thoughtless.
The show has also been criticized for hiring two black foreigners (Gugu Mbatha-Raw is English; Boris Kodjoe is Austrian-born German) to play their American roles. Its critics have in turn been criticized for being too picky - after all, nobody had a cow when British Hugh Laurie was cast as American Dr. House. Well, that's all fine and good, but Dr. House isn't exactly the sole representation of cranky, middle-aged, white male doctors on television. Or one of only a handful of white leads, period. Here they had a chance to represent an entire demographic of American people with two roles, and they felt they had to bring in foreigners? Are American black actors just not good enough, or what?
The bottom line on race: Black protagonists are a great start, but they're a start. Keep working, folks.
Then there's the sexism angle. It continues to bother me that no woman is allowed to be a spy unless 1: she is partnered with a male spy, 2: she is married to a male spy, or 3: she is going to sleep with a male spy at some point. Also, the portrayal of Samantha and Leo's past relationship also bugs me - not because they had one, but because her repeated insistence that he could not be a turncoat comes across as an interference of her personal (womanly) feelings with what would otherwise be sound judgment. (The fact that Steven was Leo's partner for some time but does not feel this way compounds the idea.) She turns out to be right, which does vindicate the problem slightly, but the fact that they never confront this assumption leaves some niggling doubt in my mind. Then there's the scene where she has to hit on a guy she is repulsed by in order to obtain information.
On the other hand, Samantha gets some totally kick-ass moments. She disregards her husband's irrational insistence that she stays "safe," and in doing so manages to save Steven and Leo. Then when she takes off to try and stop the bad guy, she not only takes out his minion without a problem, but stops him single-handedly while Steven is busy rescuing Leo. That, dear reader, is girl power. And it rocks.
Also, the white guy got shot. That was funny.
But what about the show itself? Does it have entertainment value? Definitely. I'm a little irked by some of the spy tropes (ooh, we're spies, we get to go to these exotic European locations!), but I enjoy the storyline, I enjoy the action, I definitely enjoyed Samantha's dress, and I appreciate the implication that they can successfully juggle their spy careers with their catering business. And I loved the little robot-shaped flash drive. So cute.
However, there is one last thing that I do not appreciate: the continued normalization of the overworked middle-class citizen. They spend all day working so they can afford all these luxuries that they're now too tired to enjoy - what's the point? Heck, what's the point of working so hard every day that you're always too tired for sex? More than a spy job, it struck me that these characters needed some time off to rethink their priorities. Maybe they're not so middle class; maybe they're struggling just to keep food on the table and clothes on their backs. But I doubt it. It certainly isn't made to seem that way.
I will, of course, keep watching to see how things play out.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
The Discrimination Litmus Test (The Easy Version)
Whenever someone points out a case of heterosexism/cissexism/sexism/racism/ableism/any form of non-imaginary discrimination, it's only a matter of time before this happens:
We find these truths to be self-evident, but for easy reference, here is the most recent example. Scroll down to the comments where a Well-Intentioned White Liberal (we presume) immediately argues that Glee is not transphobic (read: perpetuating transphobia) because "Ryan Murphy likes to play with gender lines," not racist (read: perpetuating racism) because "Tina [the Asian girl] had a storylone(sic) before" and because it has "one of the most diverse casts on television," and not misogynistic (read: perpetuating misogyny) because "Artie is a teenage boy" and therefore he's expected to be misogynistic. Oh, and it's not heterosexist (you know how to read this by now) because its creator is gay. (They didn't touch the ableism, strangely.)
WRONG. WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Here's how it works, guys. If a show portrays a stereotype or puts down a marginalized character and does nothing to combat it, it's discriminatory. Period. If a show portrays a stereotype or puts down a marginalized character, then attempts to combat it without actually empowering the character in question, it's discriminatory. Period. This is a complex issue that I could spend pages upon pages trying to explain, but who wants to read that? No one. Instead, I offer this quick-and-dirty litmus test that will allow you as a viewer/reader/other form of consumer to determine whether X's portrayal of Y is, in fact, discriminatory. Just a few simple questions and then you'll know.
Why are these things discriminatory? That's an extremely complex issue that would require multiple paragraphs to explain in-depth, so I'll sum up: To express an idea is to perpetuate the belief that that idea is valid. The only exception is when you express said idea with the direct cause of invalidating it - and even then, unless everyone knows that you are a past or possible victim of the idea you're expressing, it's risky.
Of course, there are other ways for stories to be discriminatory, even if they pass this test. This is nothing more than a quick way to weed out obvious instances.
(Initial Argument): And that's why X's portrayal of Y is discriminatory.
(Rebuttal): That's not discrimination! That's just how X happened to portray Y. It's a joke/based on reality/just how that character is/a fluke/ironic.
We find these truths to be self-evident, but for easy reference, here is the most recent example. Scroll down to the comments where a Well-Intentioned White Liberal (we presume) immediately argues that Glee is not transphobic (read: perpetuating transphobia) because "Ryan Murphy likes to play with gender lines," not racist (read: perpetuating racism) because "Tina [the Asian girl] had a storylone(sic) before" and because it has "one of the most diverse casts on television," and not misogynistic (read: perpetuating misogyny) because "Artie is a teenage boy" and therefore he's expected to be misogynistic. Oh, and it's not heterosexist (you know how to read this by now) because its creator is gay. (They didn't touch the ableism, strangely.)
WRONG. WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Here's how it works, guys. If a show portrays a stereotype or puts down a marginalized character and does nothing to combat it, it's discriminatory. Period. If a show portrays a stereotype or puts down a marginalized character, then attempts to combat it without actually empowering the character in question, it's discriminatory. Period. This is a complex issue that I could spend pages upon pages trying to explain, but who wants to read that? No one. Instead, I offer this quick-and-dirty litmus test that will allow you as a viewer/reader/other form of consumer to determine whether X's portrayal of Y is, in fact, discriminatory. Just a few simple questions and then you'll know.
Question 1: Is a stereotype being perpetuated? If not, is a member of a marginalized group being put down for their membership in that group, by the storyline or by another character? (Use your own judgment, but before you do, read the work of someone who belongs to that minority so you have some idea what you're looking for. For instance, a trans woman becoming a prostitute, a black teenager becoming involved in drug use, a teenage girl falling prey to a jerkwad boyfriend and being rescued by her father.)
Question 2: Is the character in question the only member of his/her minority to be portrayed?
Question 3: If yes, is the character in question the only member of the cast to fall under said stereotype/be put down? If no, are other characters belonging to the same minority treated the same way? (Protip: Using a stereotype or putting down a marginalized character for their marginalized trait is NEVER okay, but if the answer to either of these questions is "no," then you can safely say that the work is doing something to fight it.)
Question 4: Does the story, through plot or another character, obviously break the stereotype or re-empower the character? (If yes, and only in this case, is it safe to argue that the portrayal was "ironic" or "subversive." Examples of this happening would be a trans person finding a happy ending, an Asian pointing out that not all Asians are math geniuses, etc.)
Question 5: Does the re-empowerment of the character come at the hands of someone who is not a member of the same marginalized group? (If yes, it's not re-empowerment, and it's still discriminatory.)
Why are these things discriminatory? That's an extremely complex issue that would require multiple paragraphs to explain in-depth, so I'll sum up: To express an idea is to perpetuate the belief that that idea is valid. The only exception is when you express said idea with the direct cause of invalidating it - and even then, unless everyone knows that you are a past or possible victim of the idea you're expressing, it's risky.
Of course, there are other ways for stories to be discriminatory, even if they pass this test. This is nothing more than a quick way to weed out obvious instances.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Not Ever.
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Fat, Pt. 2
In the last post, I made an introduction to the topic of fatness and a criticism of pervasive fatphobia. In this post I'm going to take on an equal and opposite problem: the Fat Acceptance movement.
Fat Acceptance, despite its desire to combat the unhealthy thinking and behavior that accompanies fatphobia, is not an appropriate option. The majority of people involved in the fat acceptance movement are obese or overweight people who have had little to no success controlling their weight through the diet methods prescribed by conventional wisdom. They can shed the weight, sure (or some of it, anyway) but as soon as they get tired of starving it comes back.
Frustrated - and rightly so - they've given up. Instead of fighting their fatness, they've decided to embrace it, and tell the rest of the world that it's time to do so to.
So what's the problem?
Firstly, fat acceptance places a false dichotomy on the entire health/diet issue. Either you follow Conventional Wisdom's starvation model or you live with being obese your entire life. Either you have no willpower (which simply isn't true for many of these people) or your genes are wired to keep you from slimming down. This either/or declaration completely ignores the many other options there are available - including alternative diets, which are not only sustainable when done correctly but have proven effective in many cases where the conventional diet has failed.
(Full confession: I subscribe to one of these "alternative" diets. As I have said, I am a caveman. I haven't lost weight in years - in fact, I've gained a lot recently due to exercise - but I have successfully ended the fat-building cycle while managing to eat the foods I want and stay fully nourished.)
Secondly, fat acceptance push several other notions that are contrary to reality: the "healthy at any size" philosophy, which flouts such facts as internal fatty buildup, skeletal strain, and correlation to a number of illnesses to proclaim that obesity has no impact on a person's health; the "fat is normal" philosophy, which ignores the inherent suddenness of this rise of overweight people; the "beautiful at any size" philosophy, which will optimistically describe the fattest bodies as "curvy;" and the associated "everyone is fatphobic" idea, which insists that if we could all get over our societal hang-ups we could learn to love fleshy blobs that barely resemble human beings.
If I have offended anyone or caused them to cry, I sincerely apologize for hurting your feelings, but I stand by this: As the saying goes (credit to Krishnamurti), "it is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." The reason fat bodies are not the standard is not because they are not the social ideal, but because they are not the ideal for good health or functionality. Obesity cripples the body, limiting one's strength and stamina. The types of diets which are known to cause or reinforce it are equally as harmful, crippling the immune system and throwing the body's functions out of whack, leaving it vulnerable to stroke, heart disease, and diabetes - three of the greatest killers in the modern era. Occasionally, you will come upon someone who is truly obese in spite of the best health care conditions, or someone who eats a poorer diet but survives free of the typical killers, but these are rare occasions. For every obese person you know who lives to a healthy old age, there will doubtless be five or more who have suffered from heart problems, or else are afflicted by diabetes or mobility problems. Some of these problems are doubtless brought on by age, but it is not practical to dismiss obesity and diet simply because one is frustrated with one's own inability to lose weight.
This is not a one-size-fits-all assessment, of course. Much of it is based on my own experiences and family, but plenty of it is based on interpersonal stories from others on the Internet and my own experience with the fat acceptance community. Yo-yo dieting is not the answer, but treading carefully into a new lifestyle with your eyes wide open and plenty of knowledge at hand cannot be more dangerous than giving up and letting the pounds pile on.
But if I do not agree with either of these camps, where then do I stand? I am not instantly critical of someone just for being overweight. It makes them appear less healthy, and therefore attractive, in my eyes, because extra weight is a common indicator of poor diet or other problems that can result in weakness or early death. But I cannot criticize someone simply for having that body - not when I have been completely unsuccessful in curing my own weight problems. The greatest hurdle, I believe, is in overcoming my eating disorder; it is true that weight loss can be prevented or even reversed through the consumption of excess calories. The second hurdle is in mustering up the strength to say "no" - to fight the societal pressures to consume certain foods, and also my own senseless urges as they crop up. I will not say that I am perfect or that my experiences speak for everyone, but this is your world as I see it.
Fat Acceptance, despite its desire to combat the unhealthy thinking and behavior that accompanies fatphobia, is not an appropriate option. The majority of people involved in the fat acceptance movement are obese or overweight people who have had little to no success controlling their weight through the diet methods prescribed by conventional wisdom. They can shed the weight, sure (or some of it, anyway) but as soon as they get tired of starving it comes back.
Frustrated - and rightly so - they've given up. Instead of fighting their fatness, they've decided to embrace it, and tell the rest of the world that it's time to do so to.
So what's the problem?
Firstly, fat acceptance places a false dichotomy on the entire health/diet issue. Either you follow Conventional Wisdom's starvation model or you live with being obese your entire life. Either you have no willpower (which simply isn't true for many of these people) or your genes are wired to keep you from slimming down. This either/or declaration completely ignores the many other options there are available - including alternative diets, which are not only sustainable when done correctly but have proven effective in many cases where the conventional diet has failed.
(Full confession: I subscribe to one of these "alternative" diets. As I have said, I am a caveman. I haven't lost weight in years - in fact, I've gained a lot recently due to exercise - but I have successfully ended the fat-building cycle while managing to eat the foods I want and stay fully nourished.)
Secondly, fat acceptance push several other notions that are contrary to reality: the "healthy at any size" philosophy, which flouts such facts as internal fatty buildup, skeletal strain, and correlation to a number of illnesses to proclaim that obesity has no impact on a person's health; the "fat is normal" philosophy, which ignores the inherent suddenness of this rise of overweight people; the "beautiful at any size" philosophy, which will optimistically describe the fattest bodies as "curvy;" and the associated "everyone is fatphobic" idea, which insists that if we could all get over our societal hang-ups we could learn to love fleshy blobs that barely resemble human beings.
If I have offended anyone or caused them to cry, I sincerely apologize for hurting your feelings, but I stand by this: As the saying goes (credit to Krishnamurti), "it is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." The reason fat bodies are not the standard is not because they are not the social ideal, but because they are not the ideal for good health or functionality. Obesity cripples the body, limiting one's strength and stamina. The types of diets which are known to cause or reinforce it are equally as harmful, crippling the immune system and throwing the body's functions out of whack, leaving it vulnerable to stroke, heart disease, and diabetes - three of the greatest killers in the modern era. Occasionally, you will come upon someone who is truly obese in spite of the best health care conditions, or someone who eats a poorer diet but survives free of the typical killers, but these are rare occasions. For every obese person you know who lives to a healthy old age, there will doubtless be five or more who have suffered from heart problems, or else are afflicted by diabetes or mobility problems. Some of these problems are doubtless brought on by age, but it is not practical to dismiss obesity and diet simply because one is frustrated with one's own inability to lose weight.
This is not a one-size-fits-all assessment, of course. Much of it is based on my own experiences and family, but plenty of it is based on interpersonal stories from others on the Internet and my own experience with the fat acceptance community. Yo-yo dieting is not the answer, but treading carefully into a new lifestyle with your eyes wide open and plenty of knowledge at hand cannot be more dangerous than giving up and letting the pounds pile on.
But if I do not agree with either of these camps, where then do I stand? I am not instantly critical of someone just for being overweight. It makes them appear less healthy, and therefore attractive, in my eyes, because extra weight is a common indicator of poor diet or other problems that can result in weakness or early death. But I cannot criticize someone simply for having that body - not when I have been completely unsuccessful in curing my own weight problems. The greatest hurdle, I believe, is in overcoming my eating disorder; it is true that weight loss can be prevented or even reversed through the consumption of excess calories. The second hurdle is in mustering up the strength to say "no" - to fight the societal pressures to consume certain foods, and also my own senseless urges as they crop up. I will not say that I am perfect or that my experiences speak for everyone, but this is your world as I see it.
Fat
Back in the 1970's, when my mother was a teenager, she was what they referred to as "fat." (Whether she was overweight or obese, I neither know nor particularly need to know.) Back in the day, if you were a young, white, dating-age woman, being fat was absolutely the worst thing that could happen to you (worse, even, than belonging to a different religion from the guy you were interested in). It wasn't just that individual men saw fat girls as unattractive. It was that the male hivemind saw fat girls as unattractive, so even if you were a man who found a fat girl attractive you wouldn't have dared go out with her. Many of these young women were so desperate to get some male attention that they would sleep with anyone who asked, just to say that they had a boyfriend. (In case that sounds remotely like a good idea: as a consequence, fat girls were proclaimed "easy lays," further discouraging anyone from wanting to date them for other reasons.) In order to get my dad to pay any attention to her (and boy, what a catch he was), my mum had to virtually starve herself until they were married.
Fortunately, things are a lot better now. Right?
Haaaaaaahahahahahaha.
Sure, it's no longer quite so stigmatized for a man to date a fat woman. He's allowed to it, but now he's derogatorily referred to as a "chubby chaser" - a special brand of pervert who's into FAT WOMEN of all things. (Same goes for gay men, actually.) Meanwhile, fat people on the whole are seen as stupid, slovenly, lazy beasts, shuffling down the sidewalk in search of their next Big Mac. On the other hand you've got the "size acceptance" people, who are so frustrated with their inability to lose weight through conventional means that they've given up and are declaring that they - and the rest of the world - need to get over it and "embrace their curves," among other optimistic euphemisms.
The problem with these mindsets - the "hey, fatty, ever heard of a gym?" and the "beauty at any size" perspectives - is that neither of them seem to grasp the complexity of the situation.
Before I continue, I feel I should point out that I am a caveman, and everything I am going to say is going to be informed by that fact, and therefore it will not necessarily be congruent with the perceived reality of non-cavemen. Gehddovuhit.
Firstly, the anti-fat. This is the mindset that is the most annoying and potentially damaging, for a few reasons: firstly, it is so pervasive that even fat people hang onto it, and secondly, it advocates a "weight-loss-at-any-cost" mindset that can and has destroyed people's health. Even worse, it's based on a model for health that is narrow, incomplete, and based on dodgy science.
Case in point: my mother. Weight problems from a young age, as I said. She spent most of her earlier adulthood doing the "yo-yo" form of diet - follow the guidelines until you reach the recommended poundage for your height, at which point you get sick of starving yourself and start eating again, at which point the weight comes back with extras. The reason this happened was because she followed the "starvation diet" model - an idea that encouraged her to underconsume calories to force her body to cannibalize itself, and get most of her other calories from carbohydrates - a source known for its low calorie-to-consumption ratio, which gives the consumer the illusion of being full without eating extra calories, and its ability to burn up extremely quickly inside the body, leaving you with... nothing.
So just from a scientific standpoint, this kind of thing is damaging. Fatphobia has led to doctors and dietitians everywhere to advocate the dangerous "calories in/calories out" lifestyle, wherein people try to eat as little food as possible and expend as much energy as possible to force their bodies into a starvation state so they can shed those horrible, horrible pounds.
Problem is, it doesn't work. For one thing, the body isn't fooled by your attempt to stuff it with calorie-void fluff (hence why you can eat three cups of salad, but only one six-ounce chicken breast). You can persuade it to accept fewer calories if the food you eat is nutritious, but the kind of food they advocate - bread, cereal, rice, and pasta - is anything but. It's cheap energy, and the human body doesn't appreciate it.
Since continuing on this subject would require a long, dull, scientific and highly controversial blog post all on its own, I'm going to turn the reins over to Mark Sisson at Mark's Daily Apple. He is also a caveman, which means that he eschews the "stuff with fluff" dietary ethos in favor of a grain-free, meat-and-veggies type of diet. Before you read any of his resources, check out the pics of his abs.
Anyway, so in lieu of an actual health-focused diet for the overweight, they have the low-calorie model begotten by a knee-jerk fear of fat and fat people. That's the scientific side; now let's talk social.
Years after she recovered from the need to yo-yo diet, my mother is still suffering from fatphobia. I can hear it in the things she says. She describes her own body (a victim of lower-end obesity) as "gross." She puts down chubby women who dress in revealing clothing, rails against pot bellies, and gripes regularly about the bad food choices people make - despite being a fat woman herself.
This hypocrisy not only confused me, but encouraged severe self-esteem issues when I was a child. I remember getting into a spat with my little brother over some food, and my mother marching me into the bathroom, made me look at my own obese reflection and made it known to me that the reason I was fat was because I ate too much. Another fat-combating tactic that she employed: poking me in the stomach and telling me exactly what I'd been eating too much of. My dad joined in the fun, criticizing me for an accidental overspill of bleu cheese dressing by telling me I was well on my way to becoming my obese aunt. The message: "Even though I am buying you highly-processed food, including sweets, and ignoring your actual nutritional needs, you are making yourself fat."
Now, it's true: I have an eating disorder. I will eat when I'm bored, I will eat when I'm stressed, and I will eat even when I'm full just because I like the taste of whatever I'm eating. It's something I fight with all the time. And realistically, there's no way my parents could have known that I was sneaking frozen snack cakes to eat in the middle of my chores. But maybe instead of blaming a ten-year-old child - who saw his/her parents not as trying to help him/her, but as creatures bent on controlling as much of his/her life as possible without actually making an effort to help him/her change - they might have taken a little more proactive steps. Like not bringing snack cakes into the house. You can't ask a ten-year-old child to muster up a level of self-control that many adults (including my dad) can't cultivate in themselves.
Yes, I would say that fatphobia has affected me deeply.
Even today, when my mother professes herself to be an ally of persons with "extra fat", it doesn't take long in any conversation for her colors to come through. We can talk about someone who appears 20-40 pounds overweight, and her favorite way to preface her acceptance of their fat level: "I'm not saying he/she couldn't stand to lose a little weight, but..."
Persons familiar with the anti-racism movement might notice a similarity between this and another popular white phrase: "I'm not a racist, but..." It means basically the same thing. "I don't want you to think I actually support being people being fat, but I think she's fine just the way she is [as long as she doesn't dress in any clothing that I think is unflattering on her]."
So. Anti-fat = fail.
Tune in next time for Part 2, where I take on the fat acceptance movement and why it isn't any better for people.
Fortunately, things are a lot better now. Right?
Haaaaaaahahahahahaha.
Sure, it's no longer quite so stigmatized for a man to date a fat woman. He's allowed to it, but now he's derogatorily referred to as a "chubby chaser" - a special brand of pervert who's into FAT WOMEN of all things. (Same goes for gay men, actually.) Meanwhile, fat people on the whole are seen as stupid, slovenly, lazy beasts, shuffling down the sidewalk in search of their next Big Mac. On the other hand you've got the "size acceptance" people, who are so frustrated with their inability to lose weight through conventional means that they've given up and are declaring that they - and the rest of the world - need to get over it and "embrace their curves," among other optimistic euphemisms.
The problem with these mindsets - the "hey, fatty, ever heard of a gym?" and the "beauty at any size" perspectives - is that neither of them seem to grasp the complexity of the situation.
Before I continue, I feel I should point out that I am a caveman, and everything I am going to say is going to be informed by that fact, and therefore it will not necessarily be congruent with the perceived reality of non-cavemen. Gehddovuhit.
Firstly, the anti-fat. This is the mindset that is the most annoying and potentially damaging, for a few reasons: firstly, it is so pervasive that even fat people hang onto it, and secondly, it advocates a "weight-loss-at-any-cost" mindset that can and has destroyed people's health. Even worse, it's based on a model for health that is narrow, incomplete, and based on dodgy science.
Case in point: my mother. Weight problems from a young age, as I said. She spent most of her earlier adulthood doing the "yo-yo" form of diet - follow the guidelines until you reach the recommended poundage for your height, at which point you get sick of starving yourself and start eating again, at which point the weight comes back with extras. The reason this happened was because she followed the "starvation diet" model - an idea that encouraged her to underconsume calories to force her body to cannibalize itself, and get most of her other calories from carbohydrates - a source known for its low calorie-to-consumption ratio, which gives the consumer the illusion of being full without eating extra calories, and its ability to burn up extremely quickly inside the body, leaving you with... nothing.
So just from a scientific standpoint, this kind of thing is damaging. Fatphobia has led to doctors and dietitians everywhere to advocate the dangerous "calories in/calories out" lifestyle, wherein people try to eat as little food as possible and expend as much energy as possible to force their bodies into a starvation state so they can shed those horrible, horrible pounds.
Problem is, it doesn't work. For one thing, the body isn't fooled by your attempt to stuff it with calorie-void fluff (hence why you can eat three cups of salad, but only one six-ounce chicken breast). You can persuade it to accept fewer calories if the food you eat is nutritious, but the kind of food they advocate - bread, cereal, rice, and pasta - is anything but. It's cheap energy, and the human body doesn't appreciate it.
Since continuing on this subject would require a long, dull, scientific and highly controversial blog post all on its own, I'm going to turn the reins over to Mark Sisson at Mark's Daily Apple. He is also a caveman, which means that he eschews the "stuff with fluff" dietary ethos in favor of a grain-free, meat-and-veggies type of diet. Before you read any of his resources, check out the pics of his abs.
Anyway, so in lieu of an actual health-focused diet for the overweight, they have the low-calorie model begotten by a knee-jerk fear of fat and fat people. That's the scientific side; now let's talk social.
Years after she recovered from the need to yo-yo diet, my mother is still suffering from fatphobia. I can hear it in the things she says. She describes her own body (a victim of lower-end obesity) as "gross." She puts down chubby women who dress in revealing clothing, rails against pot bellies, and gripes regularly about the bad food choices people make - despite being a fat woman herself.
This hypocrisy not only confused me, but encouraged severe self-esteem issues when I was a child. I remember getting into a spat with my little brother over some food, and my mother marching me into the bathroom, made me look at my own obese reflection and made it known to me that the reason I was fat was because I ate too much. Another fat-combating tactic that she employed: poking me in the stomach and telling me exactly what I'd been eating too much of. My dad joined in the fun, criticizing me for an accidental overspill of bleu cheese dressing by telling me I was well on my way to becoming my obese aunt. The message: "Even though I am buying you highly-processed food, including sweets, and ignoring your actual nutritional needs, you are making yourself fat."
Now, it's true: I have an eating disorder. I will eat when I'm bored, I will eat when I'm stressed, and I will eat even when I'm full just because I like the taste of whatever I'm eating. It's something I fight with all the time. And realistically, there's no way my parents could have known that I was sneaking frozen snack cakes to eat in the middle of my chores. But maybe instead of blaming a ten-year-old child - who saw his/her parents not as trying to help him/her, but as creatures bent on controlling as much of his/her life as possible without actually making an effort to help him/her change - they might have taken a little more proactive steps. Like not bringing snack cakes into the house. You can't ask a ten-year-old child to muster up a level of self-control that many adults (including my dad) can't cultivate in themselves.
Yes, I would say that fatphobia has affected me deeply.
Even today, when my mother professes herself to be an ally of persons with "extra fat", it doesn't take long in any conversation for her colors to come through. We can talk about someone who appears 20-40 pounds overweight, and her favorite way to preface her acceptance of their fat level: "I'm not saying he/she couldn't stand to lose a little weight, but..."
Persons familiar with the anti-racism movement might notice a similarity between this and another popular white phrase: "I'm not a racist, but..." It means basically the same thing. "I don't want you to think I actually support being people being fat, but I think she's fine just the way she is [as long as she doesn't dress in any clothing that I think is unflattering on her]."
So. Anti-fat = fail.
Tune in next time for Part 2, where I take on the fat acceptance movement and why it isn't any better for people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)