I am invisible.
I usually don't realize that because I spend a lot of time hanging around transgender-safe message boards, but the fact is: I am invisible. When people talk about atheists, even though they don't specify, they are thinking of cisgendered atheists. When people talk about gays and lesbians, even though they don't specify, they are thinking of cisgendered atheists. Men means cisgendered men. LGBT means L, G, sometimes B, and those other weirdoes we heard were out there. Transgendered people are invisible.
Obviously there are some people out there who know we exist - shows such as Family Guy, The L Word, Coronation Street, and Degrassi have had transgendered characters. The film The World According To Garp has an excellent portrayal of a trans woman, and there are other movies that are just about us. But to the majority of people, we do not exist - or exist only in a theory so abstract that we may not exist at all.
I know. I used to be one of those people.
For the first eighteen years of life, I either didn't know about transgendered/transsexual people, or what I knew was very abstract: sometimes there were boys that felt like they should be girls, and underwent treatments to become girls, and often their parents kicked them out of their homes and they ended up homeless and/or addicted to drugs but sometimes they turned out okay. I'd heard somewhere about FTM's (courtesy of my mum, actually) but it never sunk in for me. Why? Because I didn't know anyone who is transgendered. I didn't know anyone who knew anyone who was transgendered. I'd never bumped into a transgendered person on the Internet, and when I did, I didn't spend a lot of time with him. My mother was on the site, watching my every move, and she didn't approve of his "lesbianism." Plus I think I was afraid that if I told the forumites that I felt similarly I'd be laughed at. You can't be a "gay man in a woman's body," after all. You can only be a straight woman. But I digress. Naturally, I never thought to include trans people in any of my writing or correspondence or anything.
This is the mindset that prevents trans people from getting their rights. Someone introduces a piece of legislation that covers trans people (or gays, or POC, or atheists, or whatever), and you think that since you don't know (or like) anyone who will be affected, it isn't important. So you let it slide.
People can't live like this. You can't go on holding in your minds that transsexual people don't exist, or there are too few of us to count. There are never too few of us to count. This is something that I didn't truly understand until I became a member of two of the least regarded minorities in the United States of America, and looking back I am ashamed to think that I once thought differently. Here is what I didn't realize: The majority, or the average if you will, does not equal the default. There is no default for the human condition. I am not a cisgendered white male unless I specify otherwise. It's not easy to remember this, with our parents, teachers, peers, and the media convincing us that diversity equals deviance. Society is not a dichotomy between white males and everyone else. It is a complex mosaic of people. Some of them are descended from Europeans, some from Africans, some from Asians, some from Eurasians, some from Americans, some from European-Asians, some from African-Caribbeans, some from people of many different continents. Some of us are Christian, some are Hindu, some are Jewish, some are Muslim, some are Jedi. Some used to be religious but aren't anymore. Some were never religious at all. Some are close to six feet tall and others are closer to three. Some are HIV-positive, some have cancer, some have diabetes or syphilis or angina or Chronic Fatigue Syndrome or missing organs and some have no outstanding health problems at all. Some are organ donors; some aren't. Some are female, some are male, some are intersexed. Some are cis, some are trans, some are genderqueer. Some are bisexual, some are straight, some are gay, some are pansexual, and some are one or the other but willing to experiment. Some of us have very little money, some of us have a lot; some of us just have what we need to get by comfortably. Some of us live in the cities. Many of us live outside of them. Some of us love only one person at the same time, but some love more. Some of us masturbate. Some of us don't. Some of us do and lie about it. Some of us promise our parents that we'll never have sexual intercourse until we find the one we'll be with for the rest of our lives. Some of us wouldn't have found the one we'll be with for the rest of our lives unless we had sexual intercourse first. Some of us love feet. Some of us hate feet. Some of us couldn't care less about feet. Everything about you is part of your identity, and it is no less diverse, beautiful, and strange than that of someone whose traits are less common than yours. And here's the thing: every trait about that person, to the extent that it does not harm another person, deserves to exist and be respected and protected by human law. If your identities are protected, and you can't find the time to make sure others have the same courtesy, then you don't deserve the protection you have.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Hulu's Fall Lineup: The Good, The Bad, and the What-The-Fuck-Were-You-Thinking
It's September, and that means it's time for new shows. Hulu is on the ball as usual, throwing up trailers for all the cool stuff we can expect this fall. Or is it all cool?
Or: does it sound interesting (a must for entertainment), and is it offensive to one or more major marginalized group(s)?
I dunno, Billy! Let's find out!
(Note: These are first impressions of the shows in question and are subject to change.)
Trailer #1: The Event.
Plot-wise, I have no idea what's going on here. There's a string of events (but not The Event, we're told) that show an assassination attempt on the President, a man who suddenly finds that his girlfriend is missing, a group of underground something-or-others in Canada... or... something? and some other stuff. It looks like it could be cool, but I can't even tell.
On a racial level alone, it sort of passes. We have a black President with a black military advisor (good roles, but are these getting to be stereotypes?) Another of his advisors is white, and the guy who's missing his girlfriend appears white, as is the woman who runs the underground whatevers. Dig deeper into the kyriarchy, though, and it falls apart. The Event is clearly an able, straight, cisgendered, adult man's club, with only one female character of importance (aside from the missing MacGuffin girlfriend), no women of color in important roles, and no disabled, "alternative sexuality," lower-class, and/or any other members of the mosaic. It's not offensive enough to write it off the watch list (though erasure IS offensive), but it's worth noting.
Trailer #2: No Ordinary Family
The plot: A middle-class, white, dysfunctional (A.K.A. "normal") family takes a vacation to South America. While they're there, they get into a plane crash and end up in water with some weird glowing stuff. When they get back, they discover that they have superpowers. Fun for the whole family! If you're a white, patriarchy-induced, nuclear family, anyway.
I went beyond the trailer on this one, checking out the other promotional material on Hulu, and what I found was not pretty. It's not that the family is white that bothers me - hey, we have stories to tell too - but the other facts. The clear protagonist is the father: a middle-aged, middle-class, able, straight, cis man who feels like he's not strong enough because he... can't control his family? I'm not exactly clear, but the reason seems to be because his teenage children are becoming independent and have less need for an authorative dad, which just bothers him. His wife is a career-oriented power lady who, according to the promotional material, is a "failure" as a mother because she focuses on her job more than her kids. That's right, lady, get back into the kitchen. (Fortunately, as far as I can tell, getting superpowers isn't an instant ticket into stay-at-home-mom mode. But seriously, guys.) The teenage girl is a walking stereotype: addicted to text messaging, constantly trying to blow off her parents, and dating a guy who is only into her for her pussy. (Remember, honey, the only man you need in your life is Dad.) The boy - the only character whose problems aren't inextricably tied to gender - has a learning disability (or at least seems to) that is holding him back in school.
So there are no people of color in main roles, no trans characters, no gay characters (unless the teenage boy is gay, which I doubt because again it's not "that kind of show"), yadda. The only important minority character you see in the trailer is the protagonist's black best friend, who encourages him to try out his powers and then arranges to have a superhero lair installed in his garage (out of the goodness of his heart, we presume). Okay, I understand enthusiasm, but the black guy's willingness to do ALL this stuff for the white guy leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
This is ridiculous. One of the protagonists is a young woman who feels like her familial responsibilities are stopping her from growing up, and she's portrayed as a "rebel" who needs to get over herself and come back to Dad. Another one is a woman who is a "failure" because she can't juggle her 80-hour work week with her kids, leaving Dad (OH NOES!) to fill in. Dad sucks because he's not the glue holding everyone together (the "head of the household," as they say.) Furthermore, the title perpetuates the idea that white, straight, cis, able, and middle class = ordinary. The only thing "ordinary" about this family, EVER, is that one time they did not have superpowers. But the writers don't seem to get that.
At least they didn't get their powers from some "ancient Aztec artifact." The last thing they need to stack onto this nonsense is a dose of cultural appropriation.
Also, what happened to the pilot of the plane? Did he get superpowers too, or what?
In conclusion: Despite the obvious flaws out of the gate, I will be giving this one a shot. It looks entertaining, and it might be better than it sounds. And, y'know, SUPERPOWERS!
(Bear with me! It gets better.)
Trailer #3: Raising Hope
The plot: Some dude living with his mother has a baby fall into his lap and decides to raise it. Hijinks ensue.
This one didn't give me a lot to work with, as the trailer was less than a minute long. But here's what I know: The protagonist is (naturally) a cis, straight, able, white male, but then I'm not sure anyone else would want to get close to this silliness. The story plays the stereotype that men are bad with babies for laughs, while perpetuating it, which sucks. It doesn't look so much offensive as just plain dumb.
Trailer #4: My Generation
Again, I'm not entirely sure what this is. It seems to be a fictional documentary about ten people who were teenagers in the year 2000, and what they're doing now in 2010. It's an interesting concept, but the execution looks trite. To be honest, my biggest complaint is that the trailer was deceptive - at the beginning, it looked like a story about 9/11 and its impact on the way members of that generation grew up, but then it switched directions and became more "slice of life"-ish.
From the trailer, I can tell that most of the cast are white, cis, able, straight, and a whole slew of other "default"-isms. There are a few POC, including two women (the cast is almost half female, which is nice), no gay characters that I know of, no trans characters, disabled characters, dwarves, fat characters, and/or yadda. I can't tell if there are any poor characters or anything else I might have missed. Still, it seems like decent mainstream entertainment, even though I probably won't watch it.
Trailer #5: Outlaw
A Supreme Court justice resigns from the Court so he can become a defense attorney and use his totally kickass knowledge of the law to help a man who was falsely imprisoned for murder. He succeeds! So he decides to help others, too. Definitely worth checking out.
Now here's the surprise: The protagonist is... a Latino! The guy he helps is... a black dude! His legal team is a mixture of races and sexes (though all the women seem to be white, and have minor roles compared to the big boys). The bad news is, our guy is a misogynist. He "can't remember the names of the last three women [he] slept with," and hired one team member "because [she's] pretty." And there are STILL no characters who aren't cisgendered, straight, able, full-sized, yadda - at least not that is mentioned in the trailer.
Trailer #6: Running Wilde: Will Interviews Will
Will Arnett interviews Will Arnett. I don't know what this is supposed to promote, nor do I even care. He just douches around for a couple of minutes - which is enough time for him to crack misogynistic and ageist. Whoopee.
Trailer #7: Lone Star
A charming, attractive, talented, and secretly nice con man (who is not Josh Holloway) falls in love with a couple of his marks and wants to quit the business. Dad says no. Angst happens. It's all very dramatic; looks like a decent show, but not my thing.
So, the protagonist is a rich, cis, straight, able, white guy, his dad is a rich, cis, straight, able, white guy, the girl characters are plot devices for the protagonist to play off of, and that's all we know. Not a great showing, I have to say. However, I am liking the growing tendency of story writers to portray in their stories that it is possible to really be in love with multiple people at the same time. LOST did this as well. It's a nice counter to the monogamist propoganda.
Trailer #8: Undercovers
A happily married black couple has their lives interrupted by a guy from their past... who knows that they are ex-spies and wants them to come back to the job. Very traditional spy story. Might be interesting.
As mentioned above, the protagonists are black (pale, pointy black, of course). ABC's motto this season is "more colorful," and they seem to be living up to it pretty well. Of course, they are a middle-class, cisgendered, heterosexual, able-bodied couple. In fact, aside from skin color, there's really nothing to distinguish them from an equally-endowed white couple. Also, why is it a woman can't be a spy unless she's (A) married to a male spy, (B) going to be married to a male spy, or (C) going to sleep with a male spy (or already has)? This SUCKS.
Even so, it's nice to have some non-white protagonists.
Trailer #9: Chase
A U.S. Marshal tracks a serial killer cross-country. He avoids her and kills more people, 'cause he's good at it. Then she catches him! Not really my thing.
Finally, after eight shows, there's a female protagonist (white, able-bodied, cisgendered, straight... eh) who isn't sharing the stage with a man. Plus she's competent at her job. Every other minority group (because you can't have more than one!) is ignored, of course. But just MAYBE this will give young, law-enforcement-ambitions girls who watch NBC someone to look up to.
Trailer #10: Outsourced
A white dude gets a managerial position at a novelty-item company's call center... which has just been moved to India. Lulz ensue.
Naturally, most of the characters in the show are Indian. This being a comedy, however, they are strictly gag Indians. Laughs are gleaned both from the protagonist's ineptitude and from... LOADS AND LOADS OF RACISM! Indian culture is played for laughs, as is the protagonist's racist reactions to it. YAAAAAAY. In between insulting Indian headgear and teaching the locals about America's culture through pop music, he finds time for romance... with a white woman, who was clearly dredged out of the woodwork just so he'd have someone to date who wasn't brown.
Kill me now.
This is also put out by NBC "more colorful," which really makes me wonder WHAT THE FUCK THEY WERE THINKING.
Trailer #11: School Pride
Nonfiction! A bunch of rich guys find one of the crappiest schools in the country and engage the students and faculty in a huge effort to improve it. And they do.
This show looks AWESOME. Being a really run-down school in a poor neighborhood, it's naturally attended by children of color - intelligent, hardworking, enthusiastic children of color who are shown as nothing less than the victims of a bad situation. The School Pride team features a mix of races and sexes (including a woman of color), and they work together with the faculty and students to renovate the facility and get things back on track. The show's upbeat tone seems to prevent it from being exploitative of the children's suffering, though I could be wrong on that since reality television tends to be exploitative by its nature. It is upbeat and inspiring, though - something that children of color need to see more of in mainstream media.
Or: does it sound interesting (a must for entertainment), and is it offensive to one or more major marginalized group(s)?
I dunno, Billy! Let's find out!
(Note: These are first impressions of the shows in question and are subject to change.)
Trailer #1: The Event.
Plot-wise, I have no idea what's going on here. There's a string of events (but not The Event, we're told) that show an assassination attempt on the President, a man who suddenly finds that his girlfriend is missing, a group of underground something-or-others in Canada... or... something? and some other stuff. It looks like it could be cool, but I can't even tell.
On a racial level alone, it sort of passes. We have a black President with a black military advisor (good roles, but are these getting to be stereotypes?) Another of his advisors is white, and the guy who's missing his girlfriend appears white, as is the woman who runs the underground whatevers. Dig deeper into the kyriarchy, though, and it falls apart. The Event is clearly an able, straight, cisgendered, adult man's club, with only one female character of importance (aside from the missing MacGuffin girlfriend), no women of color in important roles, and no disabled, "alternative sexuality," lower-class, and/or any other members of the mosaic. It's not offensive enough to write it off the watch list (though erasure IS offensive), but it's worth noting.
Trailer #2: No Ordinary Family
The plot: A middle-class, white, dysfunctional (A.K.A. "normal") family takes a vacation to South America. While they're there, they get into a plane crash and end up in water with some weird glowing stuff. When they get back, they discover that they have superpowers. Fun for the whole family! If you're a white, patriarchy-induced, nuclear family, anyway.
I went beyond the trailer on this one, checking out the other promotional material on Hulu, and what I found was not pretty. It's not that the family is white that bothers me - hey, we have stories to tell too - but the other facts. The clear protagonist is the father: a middle-aged, middle-class, able, straight, cis man who feels like he's not strong enough because he... can't control his family? I'm not exactly clear, but the reason seems to be because his teenage children are becoming independent and have less need for an authorative dad, which just bothers him. His wife is a career-oriented power lady who, according to the promotional material, is a "failure" as a mother because she focuses on her job more than her kids. That's right, lady, get back into the kitchen. (Fortunately, as far as I can tell, getting superpowers isn't an instant ticket into stay-at-home-mom mode. But seriously, guys.) The teenage girl is a walking stereotype: addicted to text messaging, constantly trying to blow off her parents, and dating a guy who is only into her for her pussy. (Remember, honey, the only man you need in your life is Dad.) The boy - the only character whose problems aren't inextricably tied to gender - has a learning disability (or at least seems to) that is holding him back in school.
So there are no people of color in main roles, no trans characters, no gay characters (unless the teenage boy is gay, which I doubt because again it's not "that kind of show"), yadda. The only important minority character you see in the trailer is the protagonist's black best friend, who encourages him to try out his powers and then arranges to have a superhero lair installed in his garage (out of the goodness of his heart, we presume). Okay, I understand enthusiasm, but the black guy's willingness to do ALL this stuff for the white guy leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
This is ridiculous. One of the protagonists is a young woman who feels like her familial responsibilities are stopping her from growing up, and she's portrayed as a "rebel" who needs to get over herself and come back to Dad. Another one is a woman who is a "failure" because she can't juggle her 80-hour work week with her kids, leaving Dad (OH NOES!) to fill in. Dad sucks because he's not the glue holding everyone together (the "head of the household," as they say.) Furthermore, the title perpetuates the idea that white, straight, cis, able, and middle class = ordinary. The only thing "ordinary" about this family, EVER, is that one time they did not have superpowers. But the writers don't seem to get that.
At least they didn't get their powers from some "ancient Aztec artifact." The last thing they need to stack onto this nonsense is a dose of cultural appropriation.
Also, what happened to the pilot of the plane? Did he get superpowers too, or what?
In conclusion: Despite the obvious flaws out of the gate, I will be giving this one a shot. It looks entertaining, and it might be better than it sounds. And, y'know, SUPERPOWERS!
(Bear with me! It gets better.)
Trailer #3: Raising Hope
The plot: Some dude living with his mother has a baby fall into his lap and decides to raise it. Hijinks ensue.
This one didn't give me a lot to work with, as the trailer was less than a minute long. But here's what I know: The protagonist is (naturally) a cis, straight, able, white male, but then I'm not sure anyone else would want to get close to this silliness. The story plays the stereotype that men are bad with babies for laughs, while perpetuating it, which sucks. It doesn't look so much offensive as just plain dumb.
Trailer #4: My Generation
Again, I'm not entirely sure what this is. It seems to be a fictional documentary about ten people who were teenagers in the year 2000, and what they're doing now in 2010. It's an interesting concept, but the execution looks trite. To be honest, my biggest complaint is that the trailer was deceptive - at the beginning, it looked like a story about 9/11 and its impact on the way members of that generation grew up, but then it switched directions and became more "slice of life"-ish.
From the trailer, I can tell that most of the cast are white, cis, able, straight, and a whole slew of other "default"-isms. There are a few POC, including two women (the cast is almost half female, which is nice), no gay characters that I know of, no trans characters, disabled characters, dwarves, fat characters, and/or yadda. I can't tell if there are any poor characters or anything else I might have missed. Still, it seems like decent mainstream entertainment, even though I probably won't watch it.
Trailer #5: Outlaw
A Supreme Court justice resigns from the Court so he can become a defense attorney and use his totally kickass knowledge of the law to help a man who was falsely imprisoned for murder. He succeeds! So he decides to help others, too. Definitely worth checking out.
Now here's the surprise: The protagonist is... a Latino! The guy he helps is... a black dude! His legal team is a mixture of races and sexes (though all the women seem to be white, and have minor roles compared to the big boys). The bad news is, our guy is a misogynist. He "can't remember the names of the last three women [he] slept with," and hired one team member "because [she's] pretty." And there are STILL no characters who aren't cisgendered, straight, able, full-sized, yadda - at least not that is mentioned in the trailer.
Trailer #6: Running Wilde: Will Interviews Will
Will Arnett interviews Will Arnett. I don't know what this is supposed to promote, nor do I even care. He just douches around for a couple of minutes - which is enough time for him to crack misogynistic and ageist. Whoopee.
Trailer #7: Lone Star
A charming, attractive, talented, and secretly nice con man (who is not Josh Holloway) falls in love with a couple of his marks and wants to quit the business. Dad says no. Angst happens. It's all very dramatic; looks like a decent show, but not my thing.
So, the protagonist is a rich, cis, straight, able, white guy, his dad is a rich, cis, straight, able, white guy, the girl characters are plot devices for the protagonist to play off of, and that's all we know. Not a great showing, I have to say. However, I am liking the growing tendency of story writers to portray in their stories that it is possible to really be in love with multiple people at the same time. LOST did this as well. It's a nice counter to the monogamist propoganda.
Trailer #8: Undercovers
A happily married black couple has their lives interrupted by a guy from their past... who knows that they are ex-spies and wants them to come back to the job. Very traditional spy story. Might be interesting.
As mentioned above, the protagonists are black (pale, pointy black, of course). ABC's motto this season is "more colorful," and they seem to be living up to it pretty well. Of course, they are a middle-class, cisgendered, heterosexual, able-bodied couple. In fact, aside from skin color, there's really nothing to distinguish them from an equally-endowed white couple. Also, why is it a woman can't be a spy unless she's (A) married to a male spy, (B) going to be married to a male spy, or (C) going to sleep with a male spy (or already has)? This SUCKS.
Even so, it's nice to have some non-white protagonists.
Trailer #9: Chase
A U.S. Marshal tracks a serial killer cross-country. He avoids her and kills more people, 'cause he's good at it. Then she catches him! Not really my thing.
Finally, after eight shows, there's a female protagonist (white, able-bodied, cisgendered, straight... eh) who isn't sharing the stage with a man. Plus she's competent at her job. Every other minority group (because you can't have more than one!) is ignored, of course. But just MAYBE this will give young, law-enforcement-ambitions girls who watch NBC someone to look up to.
Trailer #10: Outsourced
A white dude gets a managerial position at a novelty-item company's call center... which has just been moved to India. Lulz ensue.
Naturally, most of the characters in the show are Indian. This being a comedy, however, they are strictly gag Indians. Laughs are gleaned both from the protagonist's ineptitude and from... LOADS AND LOADS OF RACISM! Indian culture is played for laughs, as is the protagonist's racist reactions to it. YAAAAAAY. In between insulting Indian headgear and teaching the locals about America's culture through pop music, he finds time for romance... with a white woman, who was clearly dredged out of the woodwork just so he'd have someone to date who wasn't brown.
Kill me now.
This is also put out by NBC "more colorful," which really makes me wonder WHAT THE FUCK THEY WERE THINKING.
Trailer #11: School Pride
Nonfiction! A bunch of rich guys find one of the crappiest schools in the country and engage the students and faculty in a huge effort to improve it. And they do.
This show looks AWESOME. Being a really run-down school in a poor neighborhood, it's naturally attended by children of color - intelligent, hardworking, enthusiastic children of color who are shown as nothing less than the victims of a bad situation. The School Pride team features a mix of races and sexes (including a woman of color), and they work together with the faculty and students to renovate the facility and get things back on track. The show's upbeat tone seems to prevent it from being exploitative of the children's suffering, though I could be wrong on that since reality television tends to be exploitative by its nature. It is upbeat and inspiring, though - something that children of color need to see more of in mainstream media.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Skip This One: It's A Boy Girl Thing
Being a trans guy, I'm into genderflip movies. It's just one of those things, like gay men being into gay male movies, kids being into movies about teenagers, and the entire film industry being obsessed with movies about white people. (One of these is not okay, but that's been covered by much more qualified writers than I.) Basically, I like these movies because some small part of them reflects the kind of things I go through, or would like to go through. I also watch them just for a laugh, because hey - nobody's serious all the time, not even the super serious trans man.
This one, though, can be skipped.
It's A Boy Girl Thing is a (SPOILERS!) romantic comedy about two white teenagers of opposite sexes. Nell, the girl, is fairly well-off. She's educated, well-mannered, nicely dressed, and hoping to get into Yale University. Woody, the boy (nice name, eh?), comes from a working-class family. His clothes are worn out, his manners are lacking, and his mom can't cook very well. He'll be lucky if he gets into any university.
Nell and Woody hate each other with a passion. So much that they get into a fight in a museum, which awakens the statue of an ancient god (for serious), who does some magical mist-fu that causes them to switch bodies. I will admit, this part of the movie is actually pretty entertaining. Aside from a couple of blunders, the two actors playing the roles do so very well, and the jokes are mostly funny. (Very raunchy, but funny.) The film does an average job of subverting gender roles, in that the characters do learn to appreciate each others' hobbies, but the male is still such a dunce that he can only learn to appreciate something that he already appreciates. Long story. The movie also comes down a little bit on classism, and has a bit in support of rap music, which is nice.
Those are the redeeming qualities. Now for the bad stuff.
First of all, the film just misses its mark. It's supposed to be about the differences between boys and girls (or so one would assume, based on the title), but it's as much, if not more, about the differences between class levels. It's entertaining, but it doesn't fit the title. Another gripe of mine - minor, I will admit - is that the setting of the film is a little too reminiscent of The Fantasticks. The two live right next to each other, she in a nice house with a neat lawn, he in a shabby house with a filthy yard, and while the families are presumably locked into feud, secretly their fathers would like nothing better than to see them together.
Those are just infractions - things that are a little annoying, but don't really ruin the movie for me. No, what really gets me is the bigotry. While the film fights gender roles and class divides with one hand, with the other it dispenses racism, homophobia, and slut shaming in the traditional "I'm not really bigoted" way that white cinema tends to do.
First of all, let's look at the racism. There are exactly two characters of color in this film (neither of which are the protagonists, naturally). One of them is a randy, apelike, teenaged black boy who is obsessed with sex to the point that he cheats on his white girlfriend regularly. The other one has very little character, but is a motorcycle-driving Latino who will have sex with any girl on campus at the drop of a hat, and comes dangerously close to destroying Nell's virginity (except he doesn't - more on that later). Of course the filmmakers didn't intend the film to be racist, but when the only lesson we learn is that teenaged boys of color are all sex machines who will cheat on/destroy the innocence of your white daughters, guess what I call it. Yup.
Also, it is implied throughout the film that the black character is extremely well-endowed, which never fails to catch the attention of the characters who get an eyeful of his junk. 'Cause all black guys have big penises, get it?
Now the homophobia. This is mostly character-driven, in a scene where Woody (in Nell's body) attempts to have sex with the aforementioned Latino, only to realize at the last minute that it's a terrible idea because he's not into guys. That's not bad. In fact, it was a great idea. But then he starts going on: "This is so gay! He's gonna make me his bitch!" He's more worried about having a "gay" experience - which he is certain will be demeaning and disgusting - than he is about having sex with someone that he's not into.
Just in case you thought this was just a character thing and had no bearing on the writers' views: first, no effort is made to contradict Woody's opinions, and secondly, it happens again, at the end of the movie. The aforementioned black character, having been dumped and thoroughly humiliated by his girlfriend, finds himself naked at a party, in front of a gay man who is obviously impressed with his super-sized black junk. Lesson #2: Don't cheat on your girlfriend, or else the gays will come after you. And while you might not think that's a bad thing, the filmmakers obviously believe that it would be gross and embarrassing.
After those two whoppers, this one is more of a footnote. See, there isn't actual slut shaming in this movie per se, but its effects are quite visible. Nell, trapped in Woody's body, is thoroughly convinced that her hymen is her virginity, and that if Woody in Nell's body has sex, that means that Nell is no longer a virgin. This would be horrible, because she was saving her first time for someone special. While there's nothing wrong with Nell's desire to wait for her first sexual experience, there is something hugely wrong with her assumption. Regardless of whose hymen is abused, if Woody had gone through with his plan, all it would mean is that Woody had sex that night. Nell wasn't there, she didn't have sex, she's still a virgin, end of discussion. And again, the movie does nothing to counteract this idea.
So, that's it in a nutshell. You might think that these things are minor - after all, nobody is going to watch one movie and think "Well, gee, I guess all boys of color are bad and gay sex is disgusting!" Can't I just forget the bad parts and enjoy the movie?
Well, no. Because the bad parts are in the movie. And people are going to watch this film and come away with a niggling subconscious idea that white boys, like the eventually honorable Woody, are better potential mates than boys of color, just because this movie showed it. A conscious knowledge to the contrary cannot completely overcome a subconscious suspicion. And this movie offers way too many of them for comfort.
This one, though, can be skipped.
It's A Boy Girl Thing is a (SPOILERS!) romantic comedy about two white teenagers of opposite sexes. Nell, the girl, is fairly well-off. She's educated, well-mannered, nicely dressed, and hoping to get into Yale University. Woody, the boy (nice name, eh?), comes from a working-class family. His clothes are worn out, his manners are lacking, and his mom can't cook very well. He'll be lucky if he gets into any university.
Nell and Woody hate each other with a passion. So much that they get into a fight in a museum, which awakens the statue of an ancient god (for serious), who does some magical mist-fu that causes them to switch bodies. I will admit, this part of the movie is actually pretty entertaining. Aside from a couple of blunders, the two actors playing the roles do so very well, and the jokes are mostly funny. (Very raunchy, but funny.) The film does an average job of subverting gender roles, in that the characters do learn to appreciate each others' hobbies, but the male is still such a dunce that he can only learn to appreciate something that he already appreciates. Long story. The movie also comes down a little bit on classism, and has a bit in support of rap music, which is nice.
Those are the redeeming qualities. Now for the bad stuff.
First of all, the film just misses its mark. It's supposed to be about the differences between boys and girls (or so one would assume, based on the title), but it's as much, if not more, about the differences between class levels. It's entertaining, but it doesn't fit the title. Another gripe of mine - minor, I will admit - is that the setting of the film is a little too reminiscent of The Fantasticks. The two live right next to each other, she in a nice house with a neat lawn, he in a shabby house with a filthy yard, and while the families are presumably locked into feud, secretly their fathers would like nothing better than to see them together.
Those are just infractions - things that are a little annoying, but don't really ruin the movie for me. No, what really gets me is the bigotry. While the film fights gender roles and class divides with one hand, with the other it dispenses racism, homophobia, and slut shaming in the traditional "I'm not really bigoted" way that white cinema tends to do.
First of all, let's look at the racism. There are exactly two characters of color in this film (neither of which are the protagonists, naturally). One of them is a randy, apelike, teenaged black boy who is obsessed with sex to the point that he cheats on his white girlfriend regularly. The other one has very little character, but is a motorcycle-driving Latino who will have sex with any girl on campus at the drop of a hat, and comes dangerously close to destroying Nell's virginity (except he doesn't - more on that later). Of course the filmmakers didn't intend the film to be racist, but when the only lesson we learn is that teenaged boys of color are all sex machines who will cheat on/destroy the innocence of your white daughters, guess what I call it. Yup.
Also, it is implied throughout the film that the black character is extremely well-endowed, which never fails to catch the attention of the characters who get an eyeful of his junk. 'Cause all black guys have big penises, get it?
Now the homophobia. This is mostly character-driven, in a scene where Woody (in Nell's body) attempts to have sex with the aforementioned Latino, only to realize at the last minute that it's a terrible idea because he's not into guys. That's not bad. In fact, it was a great idea. But then he starts going on: "This is so gay! He's gonna make me his bitch!" He's more worried about having a "gay" experience - which he is certain will be demeaning and disgusting - than he is about having sex with someone that he's not into.
Just in case you thought this was just a character thing and had no bearing on the writers' views: first, no effort is made to contradict Woody's opinions, and secondly, it happens again, at the end of the movie. The aforementioned black character, having been dumped and thoroughly humiliated by his girlfriend, finds himself naked at a party, in front of a gay man who is obviously impressed with his super-sized black junk. Lesson #2: Don't cheat on your girlfriend, or else the gays will come after you. And while you might not think that's a bad thing, the filmmakers obviously believe that it would be gross and embarrassing.
After those two whoppers, this one is more of a footnote. See, there isn't actual slut shaming in this movie per se, but its effects are quite visible. Nell, trapped in Woody's body, is thoroughly convinced that her hymen is her virginity, and that if Woody in Nell's body has sex, that means that Nell is no longer a virgin. This would be horrible, because she was saving her first time for someone special. While there's nothing wrong with Nell's desire to wait for her first sexual experience, there is something hugely wrong with her assumption. Regardless of whose hymen is abused, if Woody had gone through with his plan, all it would mean is that Woody had sex that night. Nell wasn't there, she didn't have sex, she's still a virgin, end of discussion. And again, the movie does nothing to counteract this idea.
So, that's it in a nutshell. You might think that these things are minor - after all, nobody is going to watch one movie and think "Well, gee, I guess all boys of color are bad and gay sex is disgusting!" Can't I just forget the bad parts and enjoy the movie?
Well, no. Because the bad parts are in the movie. And people are going to watch this film and come away with a niggling subconscious idea that white boys, like the eventually honorable Woody, are better potential mates than boys of color, just because this movie showed it. A conscious knowledge to the contrary cannot completely overcome a subconscious suspicion. And this movie offers way too many of them for comfort.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
WHAT IS THIS. (Or: the ACTA.)
AND WHY DID I NOT HEAR ABOUT IT SOONER.
Oh, of course! Because the combined governments involved in the "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement" have refused to release the content of their proposed bill to the public.
So what is the "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement?" This video on YouTube sums it up:
Unite Against ACTA - To Arms!
Think the video's being a little scare-tacticky? Think again. The passage of the ACTA will:
Read more about it at http://www.anti-acta.com. Seriously, do. The government officials behind this heap of shit want to sign it into effectiveness no later than next month. We're almost out of time, people.
(If this seems a little excessive, check out the Wikipedia page.)
Here is a draft of the text, released back in April.
Oh, of course! Because the combined governments involved in the "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement" have refused to release the content of their proposed bill to the public.
So what is the "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement?" This video on YouTube sums it up:
Unite Against ACTA - To Arms!
Think the video's being a little scare-tacticky? Think again. The passage of the ACTA will:
- Make ISP providers accountable for the behavior of their customers. They will be required to monitor their customers' movements and block websites that they decide are unsuitable - including BitTorrent, one of the best sites available for easy sharing of freeware.
- Give copyright holders the legal right to search and seize the property of anyone they suspect of copyright violation. (And what makes you a suspect? Here's a hint: age, race, and sex will be bigger factors than criminal history or downloading habits. Black kids with iPods, watch out.)
- Enable copyright holders to demand compensation for stolen property - at rates that far exceed actual loss. A precedent lawsuit, waged by the RIAA, demanded damages at the rate of $150,000 per song. (Source: http://www.zeropaid.com/news/8175/riaa_sues_allofmp3_for_165_trillion/)
- Operate independently of the World Trade Organization, World Intellectual Property Organization, and United Nations.
- Require that all media files be DRM-protected, essentially placing an expiration date on everything you download.
- Restrict the transportation of generic medical drugs between countries, keeping needed treatments out of the hands of people who can't afford the big-business versions.
- Allow copyright holders to demand damages from people who had no idea they were infringing copyright in the first place.
Read more about it at http://www.anti-acta.com. Seriously, do. The government officials behind this heap of shit want to sign it into effectiveness no later than next month. We're almost out of time, people.
(If this seems a little excessive, check out the Wikipedia page.)
Here is a draft of the text, released back in April.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
FTM, daughter
Here are a few statements that fairly well sum up my experience with being transgendered. The only reason I post this is to provide an alternative to the stereotypical "I'm a man/woman who is trapped in a woman/man's body."
I'm a guy in a gender-neutral body. I had girl parts installed in my formative stages, which borked up my body with feminine traits, but that can be repaired.
Nature did not intend me to be a boy. Nature intended me to be a girl. It fucked up royally. I am done listening to nature.
I was a girl until I was about four years old, when I started turning into a boy. I'll never know why that happened, but that doesn't mean it didn't.
I have a female side, and I'm not afraid of it. But I end up having to hide it, because...
Some people believe that having a female side makes me female by default. This is not because they're right. This is because they do not understand what it feels like to be transgendered.
I'm a guy trapped in a woman's life.
If you told me when I was eight years old that I might be a boy, I would have laughed at you. I did not know such a thing was possible.
I'd rather be a man married to a woman than a woman married to a man. And I really like men.
I'm a guy in a gender-neutral body. I had girl parts installed in my formative stages, which borked up my body with feminine traits, but that can be repaired.
Nature did not intend me to be a boy. Nature intended me to be a girl. It fucked up royally. I am done listening to nature.
I was a girl until I was about four years old, when I started turning into a boy. I'll never know why that happened, but that doesn't mean it didn't.
I have a female side, and I'm not afraid of it. But I end up having to hide it, because...
Some people believe that having a female side makes me female by default. This is not because they're right. This is because they do not understand what it feels like to be transgendered.
I'm a guy trapped in a woman's life.
If you told me when I was eight years old that I might be a boy, I would have laughed at you. I did not know such a thing was possible.
I'd rather be a man married to a woman than a woman married to a man. And I really like men.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Brush that hair!
I've been reading about hair lately. Mainly black hair (and other types of curly hair), and the ways which white society declares it to be inferior to straighter hair because it cannot be "tamed" (read: made to lie flat). Some good posts on this subject include Nappy Hair in the Jolie-Pitt World at Womanist Musings (focuses on black hair) and Hair Stories Redux at Justine Larbalestier (a broader look at "other" hair in general). Anyway, it got me thinking about what I've been through with my own hair.
I don't have black hair, or even curly hair, so I can't say whether or not any of my experiences are comparable to people with other kinds of hair - though I can say with certainty that some of them aren't. But here goes.
As far as hair goes, I actually scored pretty high in the hierarchy. My hair is long, wavy, and golden-blonde. From the time I was three years old I heard nothing but good things from my mother about how beautiful my hair was, even prettier than my sister's because it had "body." Mother was incredibly protective of my hair (both mine and my sister's, actually). Most of the time it was locked into a braid, protected from the hair-mussing activities of a couple of young kids. Once a week she would let it down and brush it out.
Before I go on, I need to explain one thing about my mother: she is incredibly ignorant, clueless, and self-centered. She cannot comprehend the existence of any experience that is not basically identical to what she has gone through, and she thinks that she can fix anyone's problems by giving them the solution that worked for her. Have I mentioned my mother is pink-skinned?
After a while she stopped braiding, and my hair would get tangled rather worse. Well, okay, no biggie. It was harder to brush and yadda, but she was oh-so-careful and tried to be as gentle as possible, so if either my sister or I complained, then we were obviously overreacting. She couldn't seem to comprehend that the results of her actions might be different from her intent - but then, she never was good at being "gentle." (There's another post in that.) She'd sink the brush into a tangle and pull down, and most of the pressure would go straight to my scalp. As soon as I complained I'd be reassured that "it's not that bad," which she obviously knew because I was the one being brushed.
Anyway.
Later on she turned hair care over to me, and that's when the problems started. See, my mother's a flat-head. Her hair is straight and lies down perfectly, so she thinks that all straight hair should do that and if it doesn't then it's a failure on the owner's part. Well, my hair is poofy (the aforementioned "body"). When it's properly clean, it floats around my head and will not lie flat unless I really put the effort (read: abuse and/or water) into it. Which I don't want to do, because my fluffy hair has personality, and I like it that way. But my mother is convinced that it denotes a lack of hygiene, and unless it's perfectly flat, she accuses me of not brushing my hair.
The only way I can get it to do what she wants is to let a day or so of oil build up in it, and then it's time for a shower, you scumbag. (She has something of a hygiene obsession, which could make another post.)
The flip side of the coin is that when you have "perfect" hair (luscious, full, wavy, blonde hair - see also mine), you're expected to love it. You should count it as one of your assets, and treat it like your most prized possession. You should brush it obsessively, condition it, put pretty things in it, and otherwise make it into a showpiece for everyone else because it's just so nice to look at. Obviously this isn't on the same level as telling someone they should hate/change their hair because it's "bad," but it's damaging in its own right - especially for a FTM who couldn't care less if he has traditionally attractive female locks.
I don't have black hair, or even curly hair, so I can't say whether or not any of my experiences are comparable to people with other kinds of hair - though I can say with certainty that some of them aren't. But here goes.
As far as hair goes, I actually scored pretty high in the hierarchy. My hair is long, wavy, and golden-blonde. From the time I was three years old I heard nothing but good things from my mother about how beautiful my hair was, even prettier than my sister's because it had "body." Mother was incredibly protective of my hair (both mine and my sister's, actually). Most of the time it was locked into a braid, protected from the hair-mussing activities of a couple of young kids. Once a week she would let it down and brush it out.
Before I go on, I need to explain one thing about my mother: she is incredibly ignorant, clueless, and self-centered. She cannot comprehend the existence of any experience that is not basically identical to what she has gone through, and she thinks that she can fix anyone's problems by giving them the solution that worked for her. Have I mentioned my mother is pink-skinned?
After a while she stopped braiding, and my hair would get tangled rather worse. Well, okay, no biggie. It was harder to brush and yadda, but she was oh-so-careful and tried to be as gentle as possible, so if either my sister or I complained, then we were obviously overreacting. She couldn't seem to comprehend that the results of her actions might be different from her intent - but then, she never was good at being "gentle." (There's another post in that.) She'd sink the brush into a tangle and pull down, and most of the pressure would go straight to my scalp. As soon as I complained I'd be reassured that "it's not that bad," which she obviously knew because I was the one being brushed.
Anyway.
Later on she turned hair care over to me, and that's when the problems started. See, my mother's a flat-head. Her hair is straight and lies down perfectly, so she thinks that all straight hair should do that and if it doesn't then it's a failure on the owner's part. Well, my hair is poofy (the aforementioned "body"). When it's properly clean, it floats around my head and will not lie flat unless I really put the effort (read: abuse and/or water) into it. Which I don't want to do, because my fluffy hair has personality, and I like it that way. But my mother is convinced that it denotes a lack of hygiene, and unless it's perfectly flat, she accuses me of not brushing my hair.
The only way I can get it to do what she wants is to let a day or so of oil build up in it, and then it's time for a shower, you scumbag. (She has something of a hygiene obsession, which could make another post.)
The flip side of the coin is that when you have "perfect" hair (luscious, full, wavy, blonde hair - see also mine), you're expected to love it. You should count it as one of your assets, and treat it like your most prized possession. You should brush it obsessively, condition it, put pretty things in it, and otherwise make it into a showpiece for everyone else because it's just so nice to look at. Obviously this isn't on the same level as telling someone they should hate/change their hair because it's "bad," but it's damaging in its own right - especially for a FTM who couldn't care less if he has traditionally attractive female locks.
Okay...
I don't feel like explaining what that was all about. Suffice it to say I had some personal problems. I'm leaving the posts up because... well, they happened and I don't want to ignore that. But that's it.
We now return you to your (semi-regular) programming.
We now return you to your (semi-regular) programming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)