The Last Airbender: fail fail and more fail

I just returned from viewing the shitfest that is The Last Airbender, and my quick reaction  to it is as follows: this movie seems to be done with such lack of care and detail that it views like Mr. Shyamalan heard about the popular cartoon show from a friend, and decided to make a movie based on a second-hand description.  "Oh, so the brother and sister find this kid frozen in ice, and then they go to some temples, and some Earth Kingdom villages, and then the North Pole?  Oh, yeah, let's throw in that flying buffalo thing...and the lemur too, I guess."

Okay, now to the longer complaints.  First, the racebending, which, if you haven't heard, is the most obnoxious fucking thing about this horrible movie.  What we have is an entirely Asian world.  What  Shyamalan has given us was a cast of white people in leading (good) roles and brown people as side characters and bad guys.  One of the arguments that racist defenders of this casting will cite is that perhaps the white actors that got the parts did better than the other people who auditioned (like Asian kids!).  Yeah, except that the casting call for the part of Aang called for a "caucasion" male.  After having viewed the movie myself, I find it hard to believe that there is not one Asian actor who can out-act any of those awful white kids.  Noah Ringer was somewhat passable--I mean, I'll give these kids some slack--the dialog just sucked big time, but nonetheless it wasn't as if any of these kids brought anything unique to their roles.  Seriously, white Sokka didn't even need to be in this movie.  He was just some white dude hanging around that occasionally felt the need to protect some ladies.

Shyamalan has responded to some of this legitimate criticism to his casting fail.  This one's my favorite:

Here’s the irony of the conversation: The Last Airbender is the most culturally diverse movie series of all time. I’m not talking about maybe one Jedi, maybe one person of a different color – no one’s even close. That’s a great pride to me. The irony of this statement enrages me to the point of … not even the accusation, but the misplacement of it. You’re coming at me, the one Asian filmmaker who has the right to cast anybody I want, and I’m casting this entire movie in this color blind way where everyone is represented. I even had one section of the Earth kingdom as African American, which obviously isn’t in the show, but I wanted to represent them, too!

And I fought like crazy to have the pronunciation of the names to go back to the Asian pronunciation. So you say “Ahng” instead of “Aaang” because it’s correct. It’s not “I-rack,” it’s “ee-Rock.” I’m literally fighting for all this. And who’s getting blamed? ME! This is incredible. And so it’s infuriating, this stigmatization, that the first word about the most culturally-diverse movie of all time is this accusation. And here’s the irony of it, this has nothing to do with the studio system. I had complete say in casting. So if you need to point the racist finger, point it at me, and if it doesn’t stick, then be quiet.

So...pronouncing names the correct Asian way makes up for those names belonging to characters portrayed by white actors?  And you're not racist because you're Asian and you're so aware of diversity that EVERYONE gets to play Asian dress-up?  Yeah, not buying it.  Shyamalan's sense of diversity doesn't even make sense: white kids as Inuits alongside brown Inuits in an isolated part of the (Asian) globe.  Um.  What?

I'm sure there are those who would have defended Shyamalan's utter race fail had this movie had even the tiniest entertainment value.  But, lucky for us, there is none!  I went into the theater tonight really hoping that the movie would at least feed my inner fandom.  But, as I stated at the beginning of this post, it really seemed like Shyamalan never even saw the show.  There were just so many beloved elements missing in this movie.  I was aware going in that nothing good could really come of a movie cramming 20 episodes worth of events into an hour and a half long movie (which is quite short for movies of this type, but nonetheless felt like an eternity.)

It's hard not to compare this movie to the cartoon, but it's especially sad when the movie doesn't even do the cartoon an ounce of justice.  All the movie characters are loosely based on the cartoon ones because Shyamalan exchanged important things like plot and character development for special effects.  In the cartoon, Aang is an almost typical 12-year-old boy, who has to constantly do grown-up things.  He's fun-loving and adorable, but when he's angry or grieving and falls into the Avatar state, we are angry and grieving with him.  The Aang in the movie was a 12-year-old boy whose eyes glowed occasionally when he did some really serious martial arts moves.  Katara in the cartoon is fearless, her love and protectiveness for Aang is endearing, and her skill as a waterbender is underscored by her ambition.  She believes in Aang, but she also believes in herself.  The Katara in the movie does magic with water sometimes, inexplicably follows Aang around, and is overall pretty dull.  I mean, in the cartoon the reason she's excited to meet Aang in the first place is because she's never met another bender before, and they go to the North Pole so she can learn waterbending from a Master--yes, she likes Aang, but with his flying bison (which was horribly underused in the movie--"We haven't seen Appa in awhile, let's throw him in this scene for no reason") she has the ability to go across the world.  As for Sokka...well, he was essentially a prop.  The only reason we even knew he was Sokka was because people were calling him "Sokka."  Where's the sarcasm?  Where's the leadership?  Oh who cares?  Look, special effects!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Zuko was similarly horrifically disappointing.  I really did like the idea of Dev Patel playing him, but with an already horrible script without significant character development, I didn't really care about him like I was made to in the cartoon series.  My favorite part of Zuko in the show, and his uncle Iroh by extension, was how sympathetically he was portrayed.  In most of the series, he's simultaneously the bad guy and a good guy.  We understand him.  We understand his ambitions and the motivation for those ambitions (or, rather, obsessions).  Zuko and Iroh both lost something they cherished, both sticking together in their banishment, both having lost their honor in some way, and both wanting to reclaim it: Zuko by presenting his father with the Avatar, and Iroh by accepting the blessings in life, even if they aren't what he thought they should once have been.  In the movie, we know how Zuko was scarred, we know Iroh lost a son, but it's not developed enough to make the viewer really feel for these characters.  For mere seconds Zuko and Iroh do something "good," but that's not enough.  Shyamalan did a great disservice to the cartoon by creating this movie, where plot and characterizations are just mashed together into something that takes a backseat to the special effects. Special effects, while visually stunning (when done right, and trust me, the ones in this movie were not done right) are no substitute for the audience being able to empathize with the characters, even the bad ones as the series intended.

Here are a few other complaints:

• Who the fuck gave the okay on this script?  Doesn't anyone know how to get these flat characters to interact with one another?  Oh, guess not.  See why character development is so damn important?  It helps you figure out how the dialog should go.  At least the series had the dialog right.  There were some episodes that left me with chills, and with others I was so moved I was crying.  That's how you fucking do it.  
• Shyamalan apparently also has no concept of distance: Zhao was able to travel back and forth to talk to Fire Lord Ozai in what seemed like short amount of time.  Does Shyamalan realize it takes quite some time to travel by ship?  I'm guessing no.  I'm also guessing that Zhao didn't have messengers or something.
• The earthbenders were disappointingly underused.  In the series, their fighting style was always my favorite, and it was such a disappointment to only see them for one short scene.  I know I know.  This was Book One, which is Water,  but still!  And, again, Shyamalan clearly does not understand the series at all, because that scene depicted the earthbenders being imprisoned, not on a metal ship away from land, but in a compound full of (you guessed it) earth!  That just doesn't work in that sense.  In the series, the earthbenders despair because they have lost the means to bend.  They do not fight because they are in a hopeless environment.  In the movie, they're all "Oh, the firebenders got us.  We're done..."  THEY ARE SURROUNDED BY EARTH.  The plausibility of their giving up just doesn't work here.  
• The female agency was totally removed.  Central to Katara's characterization in the series is her desire to act.  She's the one who initially releases the iceberg containing Aang.  In the movie, it's Sokka just hitting the ice.  And (back with the earthbenders) in the movie it's Aang who gives a speech to boost the spirits of the earthbenders, and they eventually start bending.  In the series, it's Katara on the ship without Sokka or Aang.  She tries to speak to the earthbenders, they are in despair.  They do not fight.  So Katara, with the help of Sokka and Aang, give the earthbenders not only the hope required to act, but also the means.  They're not just sad and surrounded by earth.  In the series, it actually illustrates how the earthbenders need Katara.  
• I know this one seems like a stretch, especially for someone who doesn't already understand characterization in humans, but Appa and Momo are also characters in the series.  Significant ones.  Not just CG animal props you can trot out every couple of scenes cuz OMG THE EFFECTS.  Fuck.
• I'm sorry, but Aasif Mandvi just wasn't badass enough to pull off a good Zhao.  I mean, he has the whole douchebag thing down, but was lacking in believable ruthlessness.  
• This was Zuko's scar?  Really?  Come on.
• It really didn't seem like Shyamalan understood the Avatar's world.  Firebenders can bend fire without their being a fire nearby.  Zuko demonstrates this by melting the ice underwater.  Yet everyone shits themselves when Iroh makes "fire from nothing!"  That's what a firebender is.  Watching five minutes of the show would tell you that.  There's no doubting that Iroh is a powerful firebender, but this was just lazy.  And while I'm complaining about that inconsistency, when Katara is fighting Zuko, why didn't she just put out the fires?  Because firebenders (apparently) can't firebend without it, and Zuko set fires prior to the fight which he (apparently) needed.  Except firebenders don't need to do that.  
• SPOILER ALERT:  If you want to see an amazing climactic battle at the North Pole, I recommend watching the two episodes at the end of Book One, because the battle in the series was much more dramatic, engaging, and...well, good.  The movie version?  Well, I'll tell you: Aang's eyes get all glowy.  He waterbends a huge ass wave.  But then makes it go away again after a painfully long build-up.  The Fire Nation ships high-tail it out of there.  Because waves that don't do anything are scary as shit.  Battle over.  I think I screamed "WHAT?" in the theater at this point, annoying some of my fellow audience members.  But seriously.  WHAT????  In the series, Aang, angry at the invasion, angry at the murdering of the moon spirit, loses control and enters the Avater state, becoming a giant water monster spirit thing and DESTROYS THE FIRE NATION INVADERS.  All of them.  Ships too.  Oh, and meanwhile, Zuko and Zhao have an awesome fight that was omitted in the movie.  Their fight is interrupted by the moonspirit seizing Zhao, and Zuko attempts to save him, but Zhao refuses to take Zuko's hand.  So he dies.  Not by a bunch of waterbenders, as in the horrible movie.

Basically Shyamalan took a lot of liberties with this movie.  If there's going to be a trade-off in which certain things are exchanged and events are altered, those alterations should at least be good.  And consistent.  Like the reason Aang ran away from the air temple in the first place: in the movie it was because he didn't want to not have a family; in the series it was because he would have been taken from Monk Gyatsu, who was like a father to Aang, and would have been sent away to train as Avatar, so he ran away because he couldn't deal with losing Gyatsu and having a responsibility he never wanted.  This is a much more heartfelt explanation: fear of losing a loved one rather than being denied potential loved ones.  A 12-year-old kid doesn't think of the family that could never be when he has one in the present.  

If I missed anything important, please let me know in the comments.  Meanwhile, I'll be re-watching the series in an attempt to forget the swill that Shyamalan dared call The Last Airbender.

Presentation of gender in Toy Story 3

I have previously written about Pixar's lack of developed female characters (here, here, and here).  Before I dive into any sort of analysis of Toy Story 3, I am going to state what I usually do when I analyze anything people are going to get defensive about: I loved this movie; nonetheless it is still subject to criticism.  My discussion of the film is not a reflection of my dislike of it, but is rather an attempt to discuss why this movie is not perfect.

As with the other Pixar films, the presentation of gender was rather disappointing.  We're quickly presented with "this is what girls play with / this is what boys play with."  Ken is consistently shamed on being a "girl's toy."  It's played for laughs that he loves clothing, or wears Barbie's scarf.  In one scene he's tortured by having to watch his clothes be ripped apart, until he finally caves.

Once again, there's a significant lack of female characters.  According to this trivia page there are 302 characters in the movie.  A glance through the cast list shows that a little over 30 are voiced (i.e. considered major characters).  22 (not including Spanish Buzz) are male.  12 are female.  And we all know that Woody and Buzz are the main characters.  Yeah, there's Jessie, but she's not in charge, and she often defers to Buzz or Woody to tell her what to do since it's understood that as Andy's favorites, they're the leaders.

Perhaps the most obnoxious bit of sexism came from how other characters treated Mrs. Potato Head.  Voiced by the famously naggy Estelle Harris, Mrs. Potato Head yaps.  A lot.  In fact, she is the lead in the promo at the beginning of the movie advising the audience to STFU during the film.  Basically, she's talking during the movie, her phone rings, she's yapping.  Finally, Mr. Potato Head removes her mouth.  The movie is enjoyable now.

This happens a few times in the movie as well.  She's mouthing off to her captors (which I do not believe is unreasonable, since the other characters were similarly protesting their situation), and her mouth is removed.  This is a manifestation of the male desire (and apparent right) to shut up nagging women.  Her mouth is always removed by a male, either her husband, or one of the male adversaries.  And it's supposed to be funny each time!  I mean, I know she's a Potato Head, and all the parts are removable and all, but not once does Mr. Potato Head lose his mouth privileges.  But a female character who dares interrupt men doing Important Things is silenced.  Oh the hilarity!!!

But before I am accused of being an oversensitive "you're looking too much into it" feminist, I'll share a few of my likes of the film.  One of the most touching scenes in the whole movie was of the little girl, Bonnie, playing with an assortment of toys.  She is wildly imaginative: a tea party transforms into a fight against a witch, and the only option is to escape in a spaceship.   SPOILER ALERT: the scene with Andy and Bonnie playing together was also really cute.  I was tearing up watching the two of them play.  Bonnie was really shy at first, but once Andy presented what was left of his childhood toys to her, she opened up.  I loved how the focus was on her and the toys.  And it didn't matter that all of those toys previously belonged to a boy, or that she was a girl playing with what is understood to be "boy toys."


And despite Ken being shamed for it, and despite it being played for laughs, I did still enjoy a male character with an unapologetic love of fashion.  


And Jessie is still pretty badass.  Bonus points for her being voiced by Joan Cusack..  


I also liked the scenes with the toddlers.  From the point of view of the toys, it was quite frightening, yet simultaneously funny because the kids are like monsters to them.  I mean, they're just kids, and that's how really little kids play.  But I can see how it could be doom for toys.  The audience sees a toy's perspective, following the anxieties of toys.  And now I feel really guilty about donating those boxes of toys last month...

Dear PlayStation--women gamers exist!! kthnx

I'm sure some of you are wondering what I've been occupying my time with since my last serious post (especially  given my seemingly sudden absence).  Well, a lot of that time I have spent playing video games.  One of those happens to be God of War III (I've already beaten it, by the way, and am playing through it again).  With that in mind, I wonder if any of you can tell me what I might find offensive about the latest douchebag PS3 commercial:

Transcript: 

Woman: Dear PlayStation--I know in God of War III, you're this Kratos-guy seeking vengence against the gods.  But since my boyfriend got it, he's been totally ignoring me (whimpers).  

Dude: (fighting Leviathan boss in God of War III): Okay, aw!  Okay, hold on.  

Cut to Kratos ripping jaw off leviathan.  

Woman: Um...hello?

Dude: Thanks for coming.

Woman: (in disbelief)  Ugh!

In this short commercial we learn:

• Women are attention-seeking whiny bitches, who cannot stand when their boyfriends pay attention to anything else, least of all a video game.
• Women do not play video games.  They do not understand the appeal of video games.  They have no idea who big name characters are because the realm of video games is incomprehensible to limited lady-brains.
• Men choose women over video games.  Every time.  I wasn't even aware that there was a women vs. video games thing happening.  Oh well.
• PlayStation is still pretending that female gamers do not exist.

This commercial is particularly rage-inducing to me, as I, a woman, have not only heard of Kratos, but has played as him, and has already beaten the game in question.  This commercial says that women don't play video games, and still are not even considered part of the gaming demographic.

Perhaps it's just confusing to some people, since the God of War series is as far from a traditionally feminine game as possible.  Kratos is essentially raw testosterone, committing all sorts of atrocities in his quest for vengeance.  It's difficult to imagine that women can find enjoyment in disemboweling centaurs, ripping enemies in half, or smashing a man's face against stone until his face is unrecognizable.  But I assure you, dear readers--it is possible.  It would be nice if gaming industries could remember that from time to time.

Admittedly, it may be a little creepy that I cackle maliciously as the action slows on a particularly gruesome battle, but that's another issue entirely.

crossposted.

But I don't want to be sexy!!!

It's nearly Halloween, and as every woman knows, that means we only have one option when it comes to costume choices: sexy.

But I don't want to be sexy.

My fiance suggested that we could dress up as Batman and Robin, which I thought would be fun.  But I told him I wanted to be Batman.  Which of course started a heavily gendered discussion.

First, a disclaimer: my fiance is wonderfully supportive.  As I'm reading up on the ways in which privilege works, and discussing it with him, he's even been noticing it and pointing it out.  He's also gotten really good at noticing gender roles and presentations, sexism, racism, etc. in shows, movies, and commercials.  Sometimes I like to play a game, where I see a new ad on tv and after it's over, I look at him and ask, "Why do you think I'm angry about that?"  He gets it right.  And I know it's not easy recognizing privilege.  I've been there.  I'm still there.  Because in recognizing the ways privilege works means that I have to give up that privilege, and there are times where it's like I'm having an internal battle.  So I know that for a straight white cisgender man this is also difficult, because there's a lot of unpacking to do there.  But it's all necessary.

That being said, me saying I wanted to be Batman still challenged some notions of gender that had yet to be discussed.  So he suggested that I could be Batgirl.  Or this abomination:

First off, NO.  Second, how many times do I have to point out that high heels are not practical crime-fighting footwear?  Third, FUCK NO.  No way in hell am I wearing that.  Ever.  I wouldn't even risk losing a bet if I know that is my punishment.  Note: the above image is labeled as a plus-size.  Really.

I really really really hate that the woman version of anything has to be sexy.  If I want to be Robin, why can't I just be Robin.  Robin doesn't wear a skirt, or heels (though honestly I wouldn't complain if he did), so if I'm going to dress as the character, I'm going to dress the way he dresses without sexifying it.

Oh, and what the fucking hell is this:

A sexy school girl witch?  Are you fucking kidding me?  So, what?  Now we're just mashing our heterosexual male fantasies together?  Maybe I'll dress as a slave princess kitten pirate.  With wings.

So anyway, my fiance and I were at the mall yesterday looking at costumes to kill time.  After having my fill of the above, and similar ilk, I moved on to the men's side.  That's when I saw the Edward Scissorhands costume, and I immediately got all excited and said that's what I wanted to be.  My fiance's response: that's weird.

In a way I guess it would be (though after being together for nearly 5 years, you'd think he'd be used to my "weirdness").  And for several gendered reasons.  One, it's a man's costume.  There isn't even a sexy lady version of that one (which hadn't escaped my notice).  Two, given that most if not all costumes marketed and made available to women are sexual, my choice in being not sexual is breaking from (a disturbing) norm.  While I don't care if other women choose to freely express themselves on Halloween, the one day where we're actually expected to be sexual (well, we are anyway, but we're not supposed to like it, cuz then we're sluts, or something), it's not for me.  Because, three, all costumes made available to women are all about playing up male fantasies.  If I choose not to engage in this, I'm shirking the expectation of engaging in the male fantasy.  My rejection of this effectively called out my fiance's privilege (see, the above disclaimer was relevant!).  He, as a man, can be whatever he desires to be for Halloween.  Me, as a woman, can be whatever a straight man desires me to be.  My fiance has a privilege to express himself in any manner he chooses on Halloween.  My options as a woman mean I can only express myself in a sexual manner within the confines of male fantasy.

And it gets disturbingly worse, because now us ladies can sexualize our doggies too:

Isn’t that cute? The dog looks like it’s filming a (more) pornographic version of the “Hit Me Baby One More Time” video! Seriously, dude, have the porn and entertainment industries so thoroughly brainwashed the American female into believing that her life ought to revolve around eliciting boners that we’ve now moved on to dogs?
[...]
I don’t dislike dogs. Dogs are cute and often very entertaining (though they stink a little more than I’d like them to), and I don’t mind seeing them around and even petting one occasionally. I won’t blame dogs for this abomination and affront to human decency and self-respect. I won’t blame the victim, as it were. Dogs don’t read blogs or dress themselves, so I’ll leave them out of it. Female pet owners and Halloween costume-wearers, on the other hand, I’d like to ask a question: Don’t you think it’s kind of insulting that when you have just one chance a year to be whatever you want, you’re still expected to be a sex object? Can’t we have one day of rest in 365? Men get to pretend to be any fanciful character their psyches can devise on Halloween. The don’t often come up with anything all that interesting, but still, they get to be whatever they want. And we’re supposed to also be whatever they want? That’s a pretty shitty deal.
The fuckability mandate sucks. Why foist it upon your poor dog?

This shit seriously needs to stop.  Halloween is my favorite time of year, and this is ruining it for me.  And whatever I dress up as (if I do dress up at all--money constraints and whatnot) you can bet it's not going to be some version of some male fantasy.

I'm thinking I might start planning for next year.  Since I'm an avid seamstress, I think I'll just make my own damn costume.  It sucks that the types of things I'd be willing to dress as just aren't available for me as a woman, and me making my own costume will only solve my problem.  Hmm....maybe I'll start my own costume business: Feminist Costumes for Feminists.

**UPDATE**  There is a non-sexy Robin after all.  Who knew?

crossposted

Filthy movie reviews: 9

[SPOILER ALERT]

I saw 9 a few days ago, and meant to do at least a quick write-up of it.  So here you go.  (Yeah, I'm going the lazy route because I'm, well...lazy). 

The Good
The artwork.  OMFG the artwork!  If ever there was animated eye-candy, the visuals in this movie was it. The whole movie was like one moving painting.  The ragdolls themselves were so richly designed in such detail and texture that they seemed real.  I think my favorite was in the opening credits where the scientist was assembling 9, stitching him together; one of my favorite hobbies is sewing, so I really appreciated the scene.  There's something poetic in using sewing as a metaphor for creation.  

The voice of Elijah Wood.  Need I say more?  Yeah, I do: Sarah Connelly as the voice of 7.  Totally awesome.

The machines were made of organic and inorganic materials--I loved this.  I love the combination of metal and bone, the combination of nature and machine.

7 is the token badass lady ragdoll.  She is even more interesting when it's revealed that all of the ragdolls were created by the scientist who we saw creating 9, and all of them are made of pieces of his soul (he died right after he put the last bit of his soul into 9).  Apparently that dude had at least a little badass lady in him after all.  I sort of also read 3 and 4 to be gendered feminine, but I wonder if other people thought this too?  Something about their adorable librarian nerdiness made me think "ladies."  Maybe because I can totally relate.  My fiance said he thought they were male (he used the word "default."  We'll be having a discussion about that later--ha!). It's sort of anyone's guess, I suppose, since 3 and 4 didn't speak, and all the ragdolls look about the same (the real gender-cue for 7 being her voice, and also that she wore earrings--but she does run around with a bird skull as a helmet!).  Thankfully the makers of the movie didn't do that stupid thing where female characters are gendered by the fact that they have eyelashes--(uh, like men don't?)--since all their eyes are like binocular pieces. 



The Bad
The plot--or lack of.  "OMG the humans created machines, and they can't control them.  Oh, they're all dead now.  Oops.  Should've known better, I guess."  Seriously though, aren't we sick of this plot-line?  The whole time I was hoping for more development.  I mean, I can suspend my belief for a lot of things, but the over-used plot of rogue machinery, is well, played out. It was quite predictable by the end.

It felt very...rushed.  The opening credits shows us 9's creation, then he's awake, and suddenly he's bent on saving 2, then inexplicably puts the medallion thingy in a slot and wakes up the really bad machine that makes other machines, and then he has to destroy that...it goes on--but not for very long.  It felt like only a day and a half passed for 9 since his awakening, to the end of the movie when the machine is destroyed.  To me, that didn't feel like adequate time had passed to give 9 the believable amount of motivation.  And it certainly didn't seem like enough time had passed for there to be as strong a bond between 9 and 7 as what was in the movie.  Oh look they just met, and they're like in ragdoll love now, or something...  It seemed 9 was going through the motions because, well, someone had to.  And 7 is tough, but not tough enough, I guess, since everything was reliant on 9's actions / deductions.  I think it also bothered me since 9 is essentially the youngest ragdoll, the others being in existence before all the humans were dead, and yet it was 9 that had the most motivation to do, well, anything..

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If nothing else, it's certainly a beautiful artistic movie, though elements of it were sadly lacking.  While searching for images, I stumbled upon the short film that inspired the movie via this site, and thought I'd share it.  It's only about 9 minutes (ha), but one can easily see the elements that appeared in the feature-length film.

9 Nine Shane Acker Short Animation
by FrFKmeron

When gender is enforced

Not only was Caster Semenya subjected to gender testing, now she's had a makeover.

Because people find a strong athletic woman somehow threatening if she's somehow too masculine, an 18-year-old woman has been subjected to testing to prove her gender (the idea of which I can't get my head around, since gender is an identity), and has just had a makeover done in an attempt to perform the femininity she's been accused of lacking.  Question: how the fuck does this woman wearing lipstick and jewelry affect her running?

As Ariel says on Feministing:

Athleticism is stereotyped as a strictly male trait. The public's discomfort with female masculinity led to the expectation that as a woman, Semenya must compensate for her threatening athleticism with femininity.

[...]

"You" magazine simply changed Semenya to fit the dichotomy. And at the end of the day, women must express femininity as seen on a magazine cover to gain true acceptance.

Ugh.  I just can't believe we're subjecting a young woman to this.  It's fucking ridiculous.

Gender, sexuality, and objectification in Lil Wayne's 2009 performance of "Lollipop"

This post examines the live performance of "Lollipop" from the 2009 "America's Most Wanted" tour. I think it's safe to say that the above video and this post are NSFW. The lyrics are explicit.

Please note that yes, I identify as a feminist, and as such will not tolerate "you can't be feminist and like rap music," for two reasons: 1). my feminism is not negated by my support or patronage of a genre of music in which I have no control, and 2). sexism and misogyny are not exclusive to the rap genre (I notice when I say I like rock music, no one says "omg but you're a feminist!" to which I can't help but think there's a touch of racism in there, which is also not to be tolerated). That said, enjoy the post.

I wrote a post yesterday discussing the Lil Wayne concert I went to Wednesday night, and in it I briefly touch on Lil Wayne's use of women in the show, and I wanted to delve further into presentations of gender in the performance, specifically in the performance of the hit "Lollipop."

Before I get to it though, you should all know that I love love love this song. I love how the words sound, I love the beat--and in this performance especially with the electric guitars. It's a wonderful work. I start this out with praise only because oftentimes people mistake my discussion of gender presentations as negative criticism, rather than what it is: pointing out what is right in front of you.

What's interesting about this song, is that it tends to objectify both men and women. In the beginning of the song, we hear "I say he so sweet make her wanna lick the rapper. So I let her lick the rapper." This makes him the passive object, one which is sexually desired by women. Yet he's still the one in control. The men (the band members, DJ 45, and Lil Wayne) embody the aggressive masculine objects--dressed in tight-fitting tanks, the men display their bodies as masculine objects for the women (both onstage and offstage), and also for the homosocial gaze as a display for other males (onstage and offstage). The men exude typical rock-hard hypermasculinity, which tends to go hand in hand in regards to rap and hip-hop.

But the women serve as typical feminine objects throughout, both in the performance and in the lyrics. A couple lines focus on parts of the women's bodies, such as "ass" and "pussy." In several instances we have "bring that ass back," and of course there's mention of her "lovely lady lumps," which pretty much covers all bases. The lyrics of lollipop reduce women to their parts, and this is even evident in the performance of the song. True enough, the women are, not surprisingly, dressed in tight-fitting, revealing clothing, accentuating the typical lady assets: legs, breasts, and ass. In one song of the concert, Nicki Minaj was fully clothed, but in a skin-tight leather outfit that appeared painted on.

And then we have the lyrics and the performance simultaneously objectifying the women, where Lil Wayne sings "I'ma hit it hit it like I can't miss," while thrusting against Shanell from behind. In the background, we see the pole-dancers (all women, as this is understood to be a feminine sexual dance), which add to the whole rapper sex party image. A number of times during the concert, women dancers would come on stage to grope Lil Wayne, sometimes kneeling on either side of him to pull on his belt in a suggestive manner. The lesson? Lil Wayne has droves of sexy women at his disposal, illustrating his masculinity through the command of female bodies.

While the women's expression of sexuality is their own business, it is still evident that it is not a personal expression, but rather an expression that is for the heterosexual male gaze, uplifting Lil Wayne's own expression of masculinity in such a way that it completely overshadows the women's obvious talent as singers and dancers beyond the scope of their sexual parts.

crossposted

oh man it was so fucking awesome!

So, my fiance and I went to a Lil Wayne concert last night. I saw him in Detroit last xmas, and I must say, this one was even more awesome. Lil Wayne is a great live performer, and once again, he didn't disappoint. I did feel bad, though, having to cheer for Milwaukee. I sort of felt like a traitor--ha.

I decided at the previous Wayne concert that I much preferred the environment of rap concerts to rock concerts. I've come out of rock concerts bruised and pissed. I used to go to rock shows simply to enjoy the music and support the bands I loved, but I would spend the entire time dodging drunk assholes punching each other, moshing in a frenzy of intentional violence.

There's little diversity at rock shows. Generally speaking, the crowds are comprised primarily of white people. Who don't dance. At all. And I enjoy dancing to live music. But when you're in the minority of white girl dancing to rock music, men and other women look at you like you're the rock show slut, even if you're dressed in jeans and the band's t-shirt (not that slut-shaming is okay in any sense).

That said, I love rap shows because everyone is dancing. Even my fiance in his no-rhythm dance which only can be described as a "wiggle" (don't worry; we're going to fix that before the wedding, I swear). The crowd is diverse, everyone has gathered to have an awesome time, and everyone is dancing and having fun and cheering and loving the music.

As much as I adore Lil Wayne's shows (after all, they are entertaining--the music, the lighting, the pyrotechnics), I still find the objectification of women cringe-worthy. The women were certainly beautiful and talented singers and dancers, and I do not judge them for their participation in the show, but I find their use in the show was only to further Wayne's image as a highly sexualized man. The women were sexual in every aspect of the performance, the performance being a strip-tease of sorts, complete with pole-dancing.

"Lollipop" was the worst in terms of female objectification. At the risk of sounding prudish, one part of the song featured Wayne thrusting against Shanell from behind, flames roaring up in time with each thrust. It sort of diminished Shanell's obvious talent, being used as nothing more than a sexual object for Lil Wayne to act upon.

So I have a love / hate sort of relationship with Lil Wayne and his music. "Lollipop" is one of my favorite songs in terms of the beat, and the sounds of words, but the performance of it is a soft-core porn of sorts (which wasn't surprising, given that the lyrics are pretty explicit). My biggest problem was how the women's talent was overshadowed by their sexual performances, and how their bodies were objectified.

All in all though, it was a good night out.

Update: I have a follow-up post here. The video that was included here has been moved to the follow-up post, since it directly relates to the discussion.

How do I love thee, genitalia?

To kick off my posting at SexGenderBody, I've decided to share my sonnets, which some people have already seen. I wrote them both in fun, but I think it's a good way to begin a conversation about our private areas. I often take for granted the level of comfort I have with my own body, and would like other people to achieve comfort with their own bodies. I don't feel that subjects regarding our bodies should be taboo, and that includes activities involving our bodies (yeah, I'm talking about sex and masturbation people!).

Anyway, these sonnets (check the meter and rhyme scheme if you want--they're sonnets!) are written specifically to a penis and vagina, respectively. You can view their original postings here and here.


"There never was a member so defined..."

There never was a member so defined
By manliness manifested by so great a spear,
Which enraptures all, and weakens minds
In its skill and evocation of fear.
So great it is, both in length and power
That one falls prey to its thrust;
And what can it be called short of "spectacular,"
But one finds there are no words so just.
So praise unto this wonderful cock,
Which elicits pleasure and desire;
Where others can pityingly mock,
This magnificent one never tires.
So masculine, Herculean, and hard,
It is luscious, lavish, and unmarred.


In the above sonnet, I purposely use archetypal masculine imagery to epitomize traditional ideas of maleness. In a way, I've chosen to mock the idea of the source of manliness being the penis. I also wanted to sort of reclaim a form of poetry dominated primarily by men--and to also get to the source of the "carpe diem" poetry (mainly the ones whose morals are as follows: life is short, so have sex now). I wrote the sonnet a year before I posted it on my blog, in response to Renee's post at Womanist Musings about being a dickist. Smart ass that I am, I simply couldn't resist.

I thought it only fair to similarly honor my lady parts. Again, this is meant to be funny, and, again, I deliberately use archetypal language describing my vagina. I also acknowledge that my referencing a famous white American artist holds connotations of it's own, but please realize that her paintings are well-known for their vagina imagery.


"Soft pillows of flesh tucked unseen..."

Soft pillows of flesh tucked unseen
Blossoming petals, blooms uncurl
From a center of pleasure wrapped between
Minora, majora, a delicate pearl.
A brilliant structure, support of lattice,
Of Nature, reflecting the natural,
An arch, an arbor--a trellis,
Echoing the seasons, it epitomizes cycle.
Flourished paint strokes, slick with color
It arouses inspiration and greatness
In artists mimicking the gossamer,
And in others, simply faintness.
So superb a chalice, and rose motif
Is exemplified best by Georgia O'Keefe.

In both of these sonnets I've purposely used gendered language that reflects traditional ideas of how gender is tied to these perceived sources of masculinity and femininity. I also like to play with the sounds of words to affect overall perception--the first having harsher consonant sounds, the second relying heavily on softer ones.

Our bodies are beautiful, and are deserving of praise, even the parts we keep hidden.

crossposted

But men aren't pretty!

The above was uttered to me earlier today by a co-worker during a conversation where a group of us were listing off bands and musicians, and talking about who we loved and who we wished would stop making music. My boss mentioned loving Jared Leto, to which I could not help but unthinkingly exclaim, "Oh, I love him! He's so pretty!"

This prompted my male co-worker to inform me that "men aren't pretty."

I don't think he meant this maliciously, since he was smiling and shaking his head in that way that people do when they think I've said something funny, even if I hadn't meant to be funny. I really think Jared Leto is pretty, and didn't even have to think before I uttered that.

And it could have been worse. I once had a woman get very upset with me when I said her male puppy was pretty. I knew it was male (because she'd just told me his male name), but I still thought it was a pretty puppy, and I said so. She jerked her dog away from me and stated "He is handsome."

And in these situations I mean it as a sincere compliment. I don't think I say it necessarily because I find something feminine in these males I deem "pretty." There's just something about them that I find aesthetically appealing where no other word will do in my description and praise of them.

I'll admit I'm partially conscious of how I use language to challenge gender barriers, and most of the time I use traditionally feminine descriptors when talking about men. Going back through stories I've written shows that I apply this to male characters as well. But I forget that not everyone is as comfortable challenging gender as I am, and it's in everyday conversations that I'm reminded of this. Not only do we identify with gender and perform gender, but we adhere to strict rules regarding the language of gender. I used an adjective that did not fit the prescribed gender of the noun, and this confused my listener.

Nonetheless, I stand by my assertion that men can be pretty.

Record-breaking runner must undergo "gender testing"--whatever the fuck that means

So I just found this. It's another one of those moments that makes me want to smash my head into something. Or just smash something. I'm gonna find something to smash.

And can anyone blame me? Especially when you read this:

Facing questions about her gender, South African teenager Caster Semenya easily won the 800-meter gold medal Wednesday at the world championships.

Her dominating run came on the same day track and field’s ruling body said she was undergoing a gender test because of concerns she does not meet requirements to compete as a woman.

[...]About three weeks ago, the international federation asked South African track and field authorities to conduct the verification test. Semenya had burst onto the scene by posting a world-leading time of 1:56.72 at the African junior championships in Maruitius.

Her dramatic improvement in times, muscular build and deep voice sparked speculation about her gender. Ideally, any dispute surrounding an athlete is dealt with before a major competition. But Semenya’s stunning rise from unknown teenage runner to the favorite in the 800 happened almost overnight. That meant the gender test—which takes several weeks—could not be completed in time.

Before the race, IAAF spokesman Nick Davies stressed this is a “medical issue, not an issue of cheating.” He said the “extremely complex” testing has begun. The process requires a physical medical evaluation and includes reports from a gynecologist, endocrinologist, psychologist, internal medicine specialist and gender expert.(emphasis mine)

First, I'd like to point out the obvious fail in language: the speculation shouldn't be regarding her gender--I think they mean "sex." You know, that whole biology thing. Gender has nothing to do with sex, since gender is how one presents oneself.

Second, what the hell sort of criteria are we going by here?? Are they going to demand a picture of her genitals?

And third--deep voice? Muscles? Omg, it's as if women can't possibly have these things! May I present exhibit A:



(Had to go with Bea Arthur--I miss her so).

And B:


So yeah...these "speculations" are sexist--they're saying a woman couldn't possibly be breaking these records, or be so muscly. This all plays into the "she must be a man" insult (suggestive of calling cisgender women "trannies," which is insulting to cisgender women, as well as transgender women since it implies that transgender women aren't beautiful), saying a woman is masculine or resembles a man.

Again: gender is how one identifies, and how they present themselves. It is not indicative or dependent upon genitalia.

It is not clear in the article how exactly Semenya identifies, as she did not speak about this as of yet. I would like to point out, however, that whatever Ms. Semenya has between her legs is irrelevant.

I feel like more could be said about this, but I acknowledge that I'm not the one to say it. Thoughts?

------------------------------------------------------------------

Update: Monica over at Transgriot has weighed in on this:

But this plays into a larger meme of ignorance and preconceived notions about what is and isn't feminine. The fact that Black women have historically been saddled with the baggage of being considered less than female vis a vis the vanilla flavored beauty standard only adds to this drama.

Add archaic and stereotypical notions about what athletic feats a woman is capable of producing, throw in a little borderline racism and you have a recipe for negative behavior and judgmental commentary to come out of people's mouths.

If it coincides with what the 'experts' consider as 'too rapid' athletic performance for a woman, she may find herself being subjected to a battery of embarrassing and invasive tests just to prove to cynical skeptics that she's 'woman enough' to compete in elite sports with other women.

Rape of the Heroine: examining rape as a tool in Sara Douglass' fantasy novels

SPOILER ALERT: This post will examine parallels in Sara Douglass' various fantasy series, including The Wayfarer Redemption, The Troy Game, and DarkGlass Mountain. Though I do not give a plot summary of any of them, I discuss events in the novels that can be considered spoilers. I will try to maintain "the author is dead" examination since I know nothing of Douglass' personal convictions; thus I will only discuss the "facts" as presented in the novels--any topics I challenge or take issue with will not reflect an opinion on the author.

I've been a fan of Douglass' work for some time now, having read all six books of Wayfarer, the first three of Troy, and two of DarkGlass (note that the third has not been released yet).

What all of these series have in common is rape and violence against women. It makes me uncomfortable each time I pick up a novel because each one in the series involves rape and violence. Granted, the novels describe epic battles, and fantastic wars against such enemies as demons, wraiths, and even beings with no real "life," as in the pyramid in DarkGlass, or the labyrinth in Troy. These enemies commit horrific atrocities against the characters (of course, because they're enemies), but we also have characters on the same side hurting one another.

Think of how Axis beat Azhure when he thought she might betray him, nearly killing her. Think how Axis used Faraday for his own gains, which ultimately cost her her life.

Think of how Brutus raped Cornelia, an act that made her his wife.

How many times is rape used to advance the story? Quite a bit, actually. It seems that the heroines in these novels are doomed to experience sexual assault. Cornelia is repeatedly raped by Brutus, her "husband." Faraday is raped by Borneheld (well, she doesn't seem all that willing even though it's her "fate"). Zephyr is raped by WolfStar; WolfStar by the Timekeeper demons; Salome by every man and beast with a dick in Coroleas as punishment; Inardle is raped, given as a prize to a soldier; SummerStar is raped by a wraith (Skraeling).

These rapes all serve a purpose: advance the story so the hero can do his thing. Sadly, even the heroes committing the rapes are portrayed in a sympathetic way, as if saying, "Yeah, he's a rapist, but that's just his flaw." Like Brutus--the conquering hero, rapist of his wife. He's ambitious. Later, he learns that he loves Cornelia, after he's lost her. Oh, and he's lost her (this is me discussing Book Three of Troy) to another abuser of hers, Weyland. Inardle lets herself get raped so she can be rescued by Axis, and thus gain his confidence (nothing turns on a man more than being allowed to play the hero, rescuing the wounded woman in an act of uber-manliness). Inardle is powerful, capable of enchantments that can heal herself; she acknowledges that she could have saved herself, in an admission that she allowed the rape to happen.

What's extremely troubling in all these instances of rape is that the majority of the time the victim eventually comes to love her rapist or abuser. Zephyr loves WolfStar; Cornelia loves Brutus and Weyland, respectively; Azhure loves Axis. For Zephyr and Cornelia, relationships didn't come first--what was first in these interactions was either rape or other physical abuse, and love grew. It reads as if rape is okay, because the women don't seem so affected by it. Certainly, after it has happened, the women carry on almost as nothing happened.

While the victims falling in love with their abusers may be realistic, it is problematic in the novels. The reader is perched on the shoulder of the woman. WE experience her fear, abuse, and humiliation, and so it follows that we experience her eventual love of her abuser. We sympathize with the abuser, recognizing his deep emotional pain that caused him to rape or beat the woman (in the case of Cornelia and Weyland, the cause is the heartbreak of betrayal by another woman). Even Brutus, whose rape of Cornelia mirrors his conquest of the Troy Game, is sympathetic.

I remember my own emotional response when reading these novels. I was disgusted with the rapes and abuse, and nearly stopped reading. But as the woman's emotions changed from fear to love, mine did too. I remember rooting for Cornelia to love Weyland--afterall, his was a sad story and he just needed to be loved--she had to love him to change him. And the Cornelia-Brutus relationship (I use this word loosely) was equally depressing--why couldn't they both love each other?

These were my thoughts (which I didn't challenge or confront for a long time, so oblivious to the rape culture I was (am) in) despite the crimes of Brutus and Weyland. Weyland especially, since he also raped and beat Genvissa in one body, then came to her as the Minotaur and offered kindness until she no longer realized that the two bodies were the same person. In another life cycle (The Troy Game takes place over several time periods, where the main players are reborn) Weyland rapes Genvissa the first time before she's a teenager, then sells her body to other men. And still I actually wanted Cornelia to love him.

This all reads as rape apologism. These men are portrayed in such a way that their abusive tendencies are just their "flaws"; flaws in heros serve as a grounding, something that makes them more human. In this case, what makes these heros more human is they participate in the rape and abuse of women. In the case of the victims in these novels, rape is inevitable, and the only thing they can do is accept their task to "fix" their rapists by loving them.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

There are other issues I have with Douglass' novels. I'll try to be brief:

• The Icarii are male-centric, so much so that the very births of them are dependent on the father, or should I say the life of the woman giving birth is dependent on the father of her child. If the father is not present to sing to the baby as it's born, then the mother will die in childbirth.
• Though the women are powerful, the stories are often hinged on that one male hero: Axis (Starman); Maxel (Lord of Elcho Falling); DragonStar; Brutus; etc. Axis couldn't have won his battle against Gorgrael without Azhure, yet he's still the hero.
• The heros are not just conflicted with their tasks: they also have lady troubles. Axis is torn between Azhure and Faraday; Maxel between Ravenna and Ishbel; Brutus with Genvissa and Cornelia. The man uses both women for his gains, casts one off, loves only one. There's also a clear virgin/whore dichotomy in them, the "good" one being the one the hero keeps (though Azhure and Faraday are both sort of good, so that doesn't really work here--but it's understood that Faraday is expendable in the first half of Wayfarer). However, Genvissa and Ravenna are the more "treacherous" women, using their sexuality for their own gains.
• In The Twisted Citadel, the One represents perfection incarnate, and is gendered male.
• The Lealfast are a race created by the Icarii mating with Skraelings, but this is pinned to one father and one mother; one "mating" created an entire race. This "mating" is really the brutal rape of SummerStar, who then bears more than 200 Lealfast before dying from exhaustion.
  
• Events often depend on taking or not taking a woman to bed (as in the case of Maxel and Ishbel). Trusting women and sleeping with them is risky because they could be the hero's downfall.
• Unrelated to gender, the irritating word "literally" appears 12 obnoxious times in Citadel. I'm not sure if it's in the other novels, since it's been some time since my reading of them, but due to the prevalence of the word in Citadel, I'm sure it's there too. I think this has something to do with why I hate that word so much.
  

Sara Douglass' novels are riveting stories. The reader is made to experience what the characters experience. However, the portrayal of women and the rape and abuse of women to progress the stories is a damaging sort of apologism--nothing more than a tool for the stories. The uplifting of abusive heros is equally damaging.

Links to this post: Racialicious

iCarly: teenage sexuality and gender roles

Go ahead and make fun. I've certainly earned the ridicule. I mean, I rush home from work and see what's up with the Fairly Odd Parents (although it got really stupid after they had the fairy baby--ugh); I watch Spongebob Squarepants in my jammies on Saturday mornings; hell, I even have every single episode of Invader Zim on DVD. I grew up with Nickelodeon, and though I sometimes get angry at what it produces, I won't grow out of it.

So it may come as no surprise to see a post about an episode of iCarly that aired an hour ago.

I watch iCarly for a number of reasons. 1). Carly's brother, played by the talented Jerry Trainor, is totally funny, and totally hot. I love that he plays an aspiring artist, making found sculptures out of junk. I dig it. 2). Though some of the more gimicky episodes are bad, overall the show is cute and clever, reminiscent of Drake and Josh (okay, shut up). 3). Stuff randomly catches fire. Nuff said. 4). It stars two girls and their dude friend. One girl is decidedly ungirly, and the dude friend has an overbearing mother. Awesome.

The show often features Carly (or Sam) falling for a boy, and it shows some kisses. When I was younger, the only time I saw "teens" kissing was in movies where the "teens" were actually twenty-somethings pretending to be teens. iCarly actually features teens.

The kiss between Sam and Freddie was also awesome, where we have two young kids who are embarrassed by never having kissed anyone before, and so the episode ends with them kissing each other (just to get it over with, of course--note, I didn't get my first kiss till I was 16), and ended up being a really adorable expression of friendship (between two people who frequently pester one another).

What I love is that the show explores that forbidden zone. You know the one. Teenage girl sexuality. That's right. Teenage girls are curious too, yet we often shame them. I remember when my step-dad discovered a hickey I had carelessly left uncovered, and the utter embarrassment of my parents sitting down with me and my then-boyfriend to lecture us on "waiting" and all that noise. You know what my younger brother got? "That's my boy--oh, but uh, use a condom." We praise boys for getting girls, yet warn girls about the predatory nature of boys "only wanting one thing" which we cultivate! What the hell?

This double-standard is still used, where we praise young boys at being studs, for getting a lot of girls, but when this is reversed, the girl is a slut and a whore who doesn't know how to keep her legs closed. Well, that boy didn't get to be a stud by some girl keeping her damn legs closed!

I find iCarly refreshing in that it illustrates how young girls explore intimate relationships. In the episode tonight, Carly even initiated the kissing--go Carly!!

However, tonight's episode disheartened me, since it just showed the same tired gender roles being reinforced. SPOILER ALERT. When Carly discovers that her "bad boy" boyfriend collects PeeWee Babies (ha) he's suddenly not so "bad" (read: emasculated). So, to badass him back up she buys him an electric drill. And then hints at him buying more power tools, and suddenly the conversation hints at the steamy...but the "bad boy" isn't giving up his hobby for her, and they break up. They even hint at his hobby being a "girl thing," as when Carly slips up and says (something to the effect of) lots of girls having the toys, then corrects herself and says boy. And later when Carly asks Freddie if it's weird for someone to collect PeeWee Babies, Freddie says, "Well, it depends how old she is," and suddenly there's this big to-do over the pronoun "she."

We're still defining what is appropriate behavior for boys and girls, and what is not appropriate. While I enjoy the direction that children and teen shows are heading in, I feel like it's not enough. At the moment that Freddie realizes the "bad boy" is emasculated, he becomes the man again, because, while he is not "bad," at least he doesn't collect fluffy stuffed animals. I loved that the episode showed Carly expressing her teenage attraction to a cute boy and rebelling against her brother's intervention, but was pissed by the end where Carly broke up with him for having an endearing hobby. So what if it sort of shatters the bad-boy image? What the hell is a "bad-boy" anyway? Apparently it's someone that steals motorcycles, smashes walls, and uses power tools, and certainly does not collect PeeWee Babies. Is she upset he wasn't a douchebag? And if so, this makes me want to punch a wall since all it does is tell girls what qualities really matter in a man, and then we have this stupid cycle of "omg what a dumb bitch going for a guy that hits her." Okay, that may be a stretch, but still. It starts somewhere...

At any rate, my advice to Nickelodeon and Dan Schneider is to depict teenage curiosity, but stop reinforcing typical gender norms (this may be the first of several discussions of iCarly, since I have a lot to work, but not a lot of time right now).

On a side note, I was thrilled when Carly told her brother Spencer that she's not a little girl any more, and only two weeks ago she sent him to the pharmacy to presumably get feminine products. So yay! Discussion of periods (sort of) on a teen show! I love it!

This is exactly what I'm talking about

So some of you may know I was out of town for my cousin's wedding (which was awesome, and gave me some fun ideas for my own). Well, after a six hour drive home, this is the comment I see in my inbox in response to my Coraline post:

i loved coraline, (i saw it yesterday when it just came out, but i live in England and it takes ages to get over here) and i have to say i didnt notice wybies race at all, seeing as to me he just looked slightly tanned with wild curly hair (seeing as coraline has blue hair, i just thought it was the idea for eccentric hairstyles)(p.s i had those 3d glasses on so i everyone seemed too have the same skin tone.)i also dont see why it matters about the other mother being white and silencing the darker skinned kid. she would have done it to anybody no matter what, and it doesnt matter what his skin tone is, and isnt being racist. coraline probably just wants her mum to cook because her dad is rubbish at cooking. Also, this is a CHILDRENS film( even if it is dark and disturbing), so dont look too much into it. i think the ppl who made the film didnt want an all white cast.

Okay. I'll give it to you that you that the 3-D glasses may have interfered with the skin tones. I did not have the fun of the glasses (thanks to my cheap ass local theater), however it still astounds me that there are numbers of people still commenting on my analysis of the movie to point out that they didn't think he is black. What still gets to me is that people just thought he was a white kid with a tan.

What comments like this, and the similar comments on the thread (go ahead, scroll through) illustrate is an astounding resistance to in-depth thought. Rather than question presentations of race and gender (yes, even in children's movies), these commenters would rather accuse me of over-sensitivity, or the oh-so-familiar "looking too much into it."

It is very easy to hold onto racist or sexist thoughts because it requires absolutely no effort. Confronting our prejudices requires deep thinking, and sometimes we don't always like what we find there. But ignoring it achieves absolutely nothing. Change does not happen without effort.

As for the above comment, I will address the following:

• Children's films are not exempt from presentations of gender or race. This point is especially important since they're predominantly viewed by children who are learning about the workings of society and the world. Seeing a non-white character silenced or portrayed as the perpetual bad guy still affects them and their development.
  
• It matters that a white mother silenced a black character. Why? Because there's a history of white people silencing black people. It doesn't matter that she would have silenced him even if he was presented as a different race. What does matter is that she is white and he is black and the connotations attached to that relationship.
• INTENT DOES NOT MATTER. Just because someone intends something to be taken one way will not guarantee that it will be received in the intended manner. In a perfect not-sexist post-racial world, I can accept that maybe Coraline's dad is a terrible cook and Wybie annoys her, so she asks Mom to cook, and the Other Mother shuts Wybie up--AWESOME! But looking at these very same instances, you have the daughter enforcing gender roles and a white woman silencing a black kid. Intent is inconsequential.
  

In one of the comments, someone assumed that I was non-white, and I can't help but wonder if others assumed the same, and if that is what is attributed to the astounding number of people calling me "sensitive." Fine. I AM A WHITE WOMAN. This does not mean that I cannot analyze a movie's presentation of race. Perhaps other white people get defensive about this movie because they think an "other" is attacking them. Even if I weren't white, I don't see how my opinion is any less valid, or how my whiteness suddenly merits criticism of whiteness. It's very frustrating trying to engage in a thoughtful conversation when all I get is resistance and ignorant accusations.

Go ahead. Tell me I'm a "disgrace to my race" or I'm too sensitive.

The Legacy of Poe: Return to the House of Usher

Note: As with all my literary analysis, there is a heavy SPOILER ALERT. While I do not give any explicit plot summaries, many of the things I discuss may reveal the plots, so if this happens to be a book sitting on your shelf you've been meaning to read, please read it first and come back. I'd hate to ruin it for you.

Return to the House of Usher by Robert Poe was given to me by the professors of the English Department at my college, chosen by the professor which I was fortunate enough to do a one on one study of The Flowers of Evil. Fitting, since Baudelaire was a fan of Poe's, this new novel being a sort of sequel written by E. A.'s descendant. The events of the novel take place in little over a week, during a hurricane that, at first, is assumed to not come so far inland. The worsening weather provides a climactic backdrop for the story leading up to the second destruction of the famous house, now a Sanatorium founded by the new Roderick and Madeleine (who are twins).

This was a captivating novel, in that there was a drunk main character (and narrator), his best friend whose sanity slips because he is haunted by Edgar Allan Poe's story involving his ancestors, and both are involved in a sort of mystery involving a few awful secrets.

As usual, I interpreted this novel through my feminist lens.

Gender

I certainly hope it was intended that I hate the main character, though as many of you know intent does not always equal the result. As I have not met Mr. Robert Poe, nor have I read anything else by him (and I admit I don't even know if he has written anything else, though I could easily check), I do not assume that these ideas are indicative of him as a body existing outside the novel--as I safely assume the sexism of David Eddings based on the fact that I've read just about everything he's written, and the same sexist attitudes are present IN ALL OF THEM.

That being said, I hated the main character.

John Charles is a worthless drunk. He is a writer for the small newspaper in the fictional town of Crowley Creek. He has unresolved issues with his father--at some points he gets drunk and wallows in self-pity as he reflects on his poor relationship with his father, who is dead. He treats women poorly, and is guilty of the insulting objectification of them, and also of comparing cars to women.

With the three women characters provided,* we are presented with three versions of womanness.

Marilyn
In the first mention of Marilyn, we learn that she is "the town's sexiest woman" (31). She works as a hairstylist, and John Charles provides us with a colorful description of her:

Marilyn herself was a small, curvaceous blonde, whose ornate mop of curls would have made Dolly Parton stand up and take notice. I had always assumed her hair was a kind of professional advertisement. It had a sort of bedroom look that gave a man ideas (37).

Marilyn is presented as a woman whose main concern is her appearance, and she measures her looks off of other women. She's highly aware that she's beautiful, and finds that it is her duty to be as beautiful as she can so that men find her attractive:

Only one thing disappointed her: the hairstyles of the other women. "I don't know who they think they're kidding, John Charles," she told me as the waiter poured our wine, "but there's not a woman in the world who doesn't look better with big hair. Now look at the gal over there," she pointed to a plain-looking blonde in a black dress, dining with an older gentleman at a far table. "She's got a big rock on her wedding ring finger, so they can't be hurting for bucks, but she's done herself up dull as a dishwasher. With her money, she could have some decent highlights, get a little sex appeal, know what I mean? That guys she's with's been givin' me the eye for the last half hour. She's prob'ly boring him to death" (122).

Marilyn blames the man getting the "wandering eye" on the other woman's lack of superficial effort. Basically, if a woman isn't pretty enough, it's her fault her man fucks someone else.

But John Charles is one of those simple-minded menz:

She wore glittery blue stuff on her eyelids, which gave her brown eyes a sparkle, and a dark-red dress cut so low in front that I found it hard to concentrate on what she was saying whenever she leaned over to reach for the breadbasket. No question of my getting bored (123).

She probably wasn't saying anything important anyways.

Edith
We are introduced to Edith in the same scene we meet Marilyn. Her description sharply contrasts that of Marilyn, effectively creating two converse images of femininity:

An elegant-looking woman of an indeterminate age, her face seemed drawn and sad. She was looking into the mirror with an expression that seemed to suggest that whatever she saw there was not going to be sufficient to solve her current problems (37-8).

When John Charles speaks of Marilyn, age is never discussed--she's just attractive. With Edith, there's always a mention of her being older than he is. The word "elegant" also connotes a certain image associated with age, leading us to assume that Edith is not "young."

But Edith is not just some older woman that finds herself involved in a mystery surrounding the Usher place, aiding John Charles to figure out why Mayor Winsome, Mrs. Boynton, and Mr. Prynne are after the property. She's an intelligent woman, and also a motherly figure. Where Marilyn is single-minded and pretty, Edith is deep and nurturing. Her husband has just left her for his (supposedly younger and prettier) secretary (38), leaving her to care for their two teenage boys. Not only is this sudden situation difficult for her, but her ex has been telling the boys it's all her fault he's not around any more, turning them against her. She's constantly worrying about her children, since the man is known to have a temper (144-5, 232).

Mrs. Boynton
Completing the women and age spectrum, is the editor of the Crowley Sentinel. John Charles describes her as

a stout woman in her middle sixties, the epitome of a certain kind of Southern womanhood. Tough as nails, she ruled her domain with an iron hand and brooked no resistance from anyone. But underneath, she couldn't resist a little flattery and she had a vast and cynical understanding of human nature, which could always be appealed to in a pinch (61).

Boynton is also in on the deal to procure Usher's property, part of the bullying scheme to sell the land and house for less than it's worth. Basically, the impression we get of Boynton is that of a greedy old bitch. Which works, since this underscores the image of her being an old shrew.

John Charles
The entire novel is told from John Charles' point of view, and as such the women are filtered through his manly biases. His attitudes toward women are somewhat frustrating, when he tells the reader such things as "loud women's voices assailed my ears" (37) and "Sometime I'd like to be a fly on the wall when two women are talking. I've always wondered how they can go on for hours and hours and never once touch on anything important, like, say, cars, hunting or sports" (164); basically, typical manly things.

John Charles is particularly lovable when he helps his co-worker get his car out of the mud:

Back, sweet as a caress on a lady's soft skin, then put her in gear so gently and just slide her out of that sucking pothole[...]and she shot out like a greased pig. Damn, it felt good! (135-6).

Interesting how driving a car is synonymous with fucking a woman.

Chapter Seven is perhaps the best example of John Charles' despicability. He visits the town bar for (yet another) drink, and Marilyn joins him. How he treats her in this scene illustrates how he thinks of her as disposable:

I hadn't asked her to join me. I just wanted to get quietly drunk all by myself[...]
Marilyn looked at me. "I think maybe you should ease off a bit, John Charles. You have to drive home in the storm and I wouldn't want anything to happen to you."
It was none of her business[...]
I had forgotten she was there. I felt annoyed. Couldn't she see I was trying to concentrate. "I need to concentrate," I said to her.
"Well, thanks a lot!" she said.
I could see she was upset. One bad thing about women. They don't understand when a man needs to concentrate[...]
"Well, let me tell you one thing, Mr. Poe. I've had it up to here with hard-drinking men and I don't intend to have any more of 'em. You can't handle the whiskey, you can't handle me, you get my drift?"[...]
She got up and I watched her good-looking ass, in those tight jeans, sashay out of there. Quite a few other men watched it too. It's unfair, the way women do that. They always get the last word even when they don't say anything (184-7).

Revoltingly peppered throughout John Charles' sexism, is his insistence of his own Nice Guy-ness:

Why had she married him in the first place? I never get why smart, pretty women seem to go for the wild, irresponsible guys--the losers. The nicest guys I know seem to have no luck at all with women (144).

So nice of John Charles to pity Edith, while simultaneously engaging in victim-blaming.
He also admits:

It kind of makes my blood boil when a man takes off on a woman like that, after she's raised his kids and all. And it was not as if Edith Dunn had let herself go. For her age, she was a truly fine-looking woman (39).

Before he really gets to know her, he already has made assumptions about her regarding her roles as mother and wife--the first being that he assumes as a mother she is nurturing, and as a wife, she's a trophy (for her age).

As for John Charles and his being a man, there's an interesting scene in the novel that reeks of a masculinity struggle, between John Charles, and the New York mobster, Aldo Marco, who comes to Crowley Creek to get the Usher property. The hurricane reaches the town, and causes flood damage. As a result, a large crack appears from the foundation of the Usher house, splitting one wing of the house open. The two men exchange threats, John Charles telling Marco to back off and stop bullying the already unstable Roderick, and Marco hinting at causing harm to Edith if John Charles prevents Usher from selling the land (213-15).

So, to be clear, to John Charles, women are supposed to keep him interested, so they must be beautiful; they talk about nonsensical things; and even the "smartest" women are stupid because they fall for losers. Got it.

Oh, and he's also racist. The only black character in the entire novel doesn't even have a name (23). Here, a standard has been created in the novel, because the only time the race of a person is mentioned is with the black man, the "other." The rest of the characters have assumed whiteness.

Symbolism
Within the novel there is great use of metaphor and symbolism, which I'm sure was intended to echo the original story by Edgar Allan Poe. The storm itself is a symbol of destruction, its worsening effects foreshadowing the inevitable destruction of the House of Usher. Certainly it is not mere coincidence that the eye of the storm passes over the House of Usher when Edith and John Charles find Roderick after he'd been missing three days.

Similarly, the two peach trees mirror the illicit relationship between Roderick Usher and his twin sister, Madeleine, the "female" tree being the one that was ripped up in the storm, taking the entwined branches of the "male" tree with it (236), like Madeleine's threat to leave, and her death, did to Rod (258-59).

Conclusion

John Charles is an interesting character to read, since he's a self-centered sexist racist drunk. I think if I ever reread this novel I will take note of each time he drinks some whiskey--at least twice a chapter, I think. The final chapter is quite indicative about what really matters to John Charles in what he doesn't mention. For instance, what happened to Buzz, Aldo Marco's cousin who worked with John Charles at the Crowley Sentinel? After John Charles gets his car out of the mud, we don't see him again; we don't know if he survived the storm.

Similarly, we don't know what happened to the "ghosts," people supposed to be dead that Usher keeps locked in a room, hiding them from the state (and is thus the leverage that Marco uses to blackmail Usher into considering his property deal). But at the end, when John Charles is reflecting on everything that happened to Rod, Edith, the Mayor, Prynne, and Boynton, there is no mention of the old people--they're really alive, so where did they go? Who's caring for them now that they've been exposed to be alive? Clearly, these poor people are not worth an extra thought from John Charles. In the last chapter, he tells about the scars on his hands, mourns the loss of "the most beautiful trees," casualties of the storm (279), and even tells of how the tarn on the Usher property has polluted the land, condemning it. But nothing of the people that Rod Usher hid away and treated like prisoners.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*I chose not to include Madeleine in this analysis, since she's only alive for a few pages. She is certainly gendered. We first see her gathering daisies, and even her "ghost" carries a basket of dried daisies--certainly there is gendering involved when Roderick dresses up as her, haunting the grounds: everyone is fooled into thinking it's really Madeleine's ghost.


Works Cited
Poe, Robert. Return to the House of Usher. New York: Forge, 1996.