Vanquishing the Literary Male Gaze

| Friday, May 10, 2013

Today's Tune: Short Skirt, Long Jacket


This is a post I've tried to write on and off several times, but I keep holding back because I know posts like this one occasionally garner some backlash. But tonight I decided I was going to go for it. I'll just include this disclaimer: if you read this and feel that it doesn't apply to you, than it doesn't apply to you. This isn't a blanket statement, and there are people for whom it won't apply. I know that, you know that. This is general commentary, not personalized attack. So let's just keep that in mind, cool? Cool!

Anyway, let's talk about the male gaze in fiction. Particularly fiction aimed at young women.

What do I mean when I talk about the "male gaze?" I mean the inherent tendency to view lady characters as sexual vessels, collections of body parts, or generally focusing on visuals of female bodies and beauty standards, particularly with an aim toward sexual objectification. We've all seen this sort of thing in novels.

"His eyes started at her crimson toenails, perfectly peeking through her strappy velvet sandals. Her legs were lean, smooth, fit; her hips ample and perfect for resting hands on. Plump breasts strained against the silk of her dress, her milky white bosom spilling over the top, begging to be nuzzled. And those lips. Full, slick, red. He could imagine that mouth on his, that tongue on his neck, his chest, his..."

You get the idea.

That was a blatant (but sadly not unimaginable) example. It assumes that anyone reading this novel is interested in the male protagonist's thoughts only and will immediately sexualize any stereotypically desirable female character until she's reduced to the parts that can be used for sexual pleasure. Her thoughts are often unimportant, her desires and goals non-existent, unless that desire and goal is to give the protagonist the most awesomest of awesome pleasure. You can imagine reading this in a real crime novel, or a noir, or an action thriller.

But much like the general public's view of Sexism with a capital "S" and Racism with a capital "R," it's only real or a problem if it's this blatant. This is easily recognizable, easy to pick at and call out as an example of "doing it wrong."

Here's the problem: this sort of dehumanizing male gaze is still present in novels where lady characters are fleshed out and interesting people. It's still present in novels where a woman or girl is the viewpoint character. I like to joke that I can almost always tell when a female character has been written by a man because of how he describes her, or how she describes other women or herself if she's the POV character. Which is not to say some men don't write incredible and realistic female characters -- they do it all the time. But there are a few indicators that always make me shake my head and go, "A dude clearly wrote this."

What are those indicators? The male gaze is there. Female characters are described in a way that draws attention to their body parts; their lips, or breasts, or legs. There's less attention paid to their dialogue or personality, or even the clothing they wear and their signature habits. Excuses are made to slip in nipple tweaks, butt grabs, or other touches, with consent or not. The narrative assumes that the reader is more interested in the sexual availability and attractiveness of the ladies than anything else about them.

This is especially jarring and obvious when the viewpoint character is a girl or woman. They'll look at themselves in the mirror and lovingly describe their perfect lips, their round breasts, their ample thighs (or, alternatively, lament how these parts aren't good enough). There's no connection between the body and the mind. It's not about how they use and live with these parts, what this body means to them and the history of growing into it. It's just about what everything looks like and if it would be suitably attractive to someone who wants to have sex with them.

They do this to other women in the narrative, as well. Their best friend isn't described in terms of memories or relationships, but in height and measurements. A canonically heterosexual girl or woman will notice other women's sexualized figures, or the way their neck curves in the light, or the desirability of their mouth. It's not unheard of for women to notice the bodies of other women (that happens all the time), but not like this.

But what of queer women? I can hear people asking. Don't women who are attracted to women think like that? I can't speak for those women, but in my experience with having lady friends who are into ladies, that's not really the way it works. Yes, they absolutely do think of women sexually and notice bodies in a sexual light. But it's not just about parts and how they can best enjoy sex with those parts. Women can relate to being attached to their body, to seeing the person inside the body. They know what it feels like for your body to be viewed as something that isn't yours. Every lady knows that feeling. It's a different mindset.

(Obviously there are instances in which this is untrue and a woman could objectify another woman. But knowing the multitude of ladies in my life, this is generally speaking not the way we function. If we do, it's often due to internalized patriarchy and beauty standards.)

Well, what about all those YA novels where the guys are just hot pieces of ass? I hear from the back. And to this point, I say read it again. Sure, there are novels where male love interests are described in terms of abs and rugged jawlines, which is more patriarchy at work dictating what "real men" should look like, by the way. However, those men are rarely (if ever) inactive in the narrative, or their thoughts and opinions dismissed or given less "screentime." Their bodies may be lovingly described, but so are their words and minds. Because in the eyes of women AND men, men are complete people, not collections of body parts for sexing up their lady. Stereotypically (racist) Latino Pool Boy Toys aside (why racist? Because rich white ladies are using young brown men in their employ and it's treated as a joke, that's why).

This is something I always notice because I can't not notice it. This is something that has happened to me in real life since I was maybe 11 or 12 years old. Certainly after I grew breasts at 13. It's one more thing that stands out to me in the way men, even well-meaning men, misinterpret what it means to be female. That the way we view the world is inherently different, not because of VENUS and MARS or anything, but because we live in a world that disconnects us from our body parts and sexual selves for the benefit of someone else. And when this is what's being written for young women, they'll just get that much more reinforcement that this is the way the world works.

When male characters look at female characters and see lips but not words, breasts but not hearts, and sex organs but not brains, it reflects what women go through every day. It reminds us that we are ultimately sex objects, that our goals and desires are always second to the men in our lives. And sometimes it takes someone calling it out for what it is to make a guy step back and go, "Shit, I didn't even realize I was doing that. I didn't even think about it."

And I am not in any way saying that people should avoid describing physicality or sexual attraction. You can say that your characters look pretty! Your characters can have sexy thoughts about the way someone's mouth moves! That's cool! The uncool part comes in when the focus is on the mouth alone. When desiring someone sexually becomes only about you and never about them.

As always, research and speaking to the people you're trying to represent is key. Don't just assume you understand how other people think and roll with it. Really try to understand they way they view the world.

Also, please never again use terms like "heaving breasts" or "supple buttocks" unless you're writing erotica, okay?

These are my thoughts. What are yours?

Geek Girls Exist. We Always Have.

| Friday, May 3, 2013

Today's Tune: Crazy In Love (Gatsby cover)


For context, allow me to direct you to the image that inspired this tweet, which is a quote from one of the new Trek reboot's writers.

Honestly, I really for real do not understand how anyone who's not being intentionally obtuse could still believe that women are not in the Star Trek fandom. Not in the age of the Internet. I mean, it's bad enough that people completely ignore the history of the original Star Trek fans, many of whom were women who forged and attended the first conventions in bulk (more women attended than men! MORE WOMEN THAN MEN!) and campaigned (successfully) to keep the show on the air.

But ON TOP of that, people (the writers of the damn reboot!) are still acting like there's no way to get women to watch science fiction unless they throw a birth scene in at the beginning? When they have access to fan fiction and fan sites and Tumblr? No excuses. None.

You show them, Uhura.
This is sadly not remotely unusual. I've written before about how the marketers behind the science fiction channel have tried to distance themselves from their "geek" image by renaming the SciFi Channel the "SyFy" Channel instead. In this instance, it was because they thought people who deemed themselves cool would refuse to watch science fiction on principle, even though the genre is varied enough to include everything from The Fifth Element to Star Wars to Back to the Future to Eureka.

Likewise, the myth that science fiction is "boy stuff" persists. Science is for boys, politics is for boys, space is for boys, adventure is for boys. STAR TREK IS FOR BOYS. And you'll always find the dudes who hold up a handful of women as representative of their entire gender -- "Well, my girlfriend HATED Battlestar Galactica." It's not at all possible that women are individuals with different tastes, no. The only way a lady could possibly be interested in this stuff is if her boyfriend made her, or she's pretending she likes it to please him.

Sounds remarkably like the persistence of the fake geek girl myth. You know, girls can't be into "nerdy" things because nerdy things are about science and strategy and action, which are inherently male, which means if ladies act like we like those things, we're only doing it for attention. And apparently to seduce innocent nerdboy virgins so we can use their blood as a balm for our overblown egos? Or something?

In the rare instance that people do begrudgingly admit that lady nerds do actually exist, it's almost always in media representations that paint us as unattractive weirdos, displaying overtly masculine-coded traits, or pathetic little gnats. Because nerd ladies are abominations, see? They couldn't possibly allow anyone to believe women are individual people with as much variety to their personalities and preferences as, GASP, men! Never do that!

I can think of ONE geek girl regularly in the popular media that is portrayed in a (mostly) positive light: Felicia Day. One. And even some of her roles are negligible.

This isn't even about science fiction. Not really. It's about territory. Even though women are well established as a significant and involved part of the SFF community, and even though dudes have a very extensive history with being all about flowery emotional literature, people still build these moats. Girls stay over THERE with Fifty Shades and Twilight! Boys stay over HERE with Frodo and Han Solo!

Because admitting that it's possible for women to be individuals rather than a seething mass of frivolity and makeup is a bad idea. We do that, and they might start getting ideas that like, THEY can be the hero! That we're not that special! That maybe they're here because they enjoy the media, not to rub up on us!

I don't know. It's times like these that make me want to go curl up with my cats because I feel like the tides will never turn when people are willfully ignoring the facts in favor of the sexist rhetoric they've been spoon-fed. When you could go on any website and see men and women alike roleplaying, fan vidding, dissecting theories. When ladies are literally the reason Star Trek conventions happened. And it either doesn't register, or you pretend it doesn't exist.

I'm so exhausted from remaining stagnant. Why do we still fight so hard to maintain the status quo when everything about our population is telling us "no, no, no, you do not get to define who I am anymore" in increasingly louder voices due to our growing technology?

When will I get to go to a Star Trek movie and feel good because I know they view me as part of the fandom and not a disgruntled shrew who had to be tricked into it?

Sigh. Thoughts, readers?

Fandoms, Evolution, and Creative Collaboration

| Friday, April 26, 2013



Today's Tune: Graveyard's Full

I've been thinking about fandoms.

I've written about fandoms a lot in the past, but today I've been thinking about collaboration and art. I'm one of those sort of writers who feels like we have a responsibility over what we write as far as telling a good story and doing it responsibly and taking the heat for our own mistakes and missteps, but I also feel that once you release your story into the public, it's not 100% yours anymore.

That doesn't mean I believe in plagiarism or anything. It means that I think literature is malleable and that readers can pull different things from it, and authors who insist on telling people they're reading a story wrong and stating blow-by-blow that you HAVE TO READ IT THIS WAY are being... kind of dickish. I mean, if someone reads a subcontext of you blessing a secret society of lizard people to take over planet Earth and enslave humanity when you were mostly writing about people being cool to one another, that's weird and unfortunate. However, the human experience is varied, and people might see things in your writing that you never intended, but has meaning for them.

This can be a good thing, in the sense that they found a profound connection to your work. It can also be hard, like when they point out your blind spots and indicate that you're upholding a stereotype you never meant to convey. But that doesn't make them wrong.

This is where the collaboration of fandom comes in, and why I'm personally not opposed to fanfiction and fan communities. Because when a work resonates with an extensive community of people, it becomes a living thing. Those people add to it, breathe life into it, and make it so much more than it could ever be in the hands of one person alone.

Fandoms explore the strengths of the things they love, adding new insight to relationships and worldbuilding that a single author could likely never imagine alone. Likewise, they discuss the shortcomings at length and even create alternate universes where those shortcomings are explored and developed into something so much more. The collective fandom creates elaborate discourse about the economics of Harry Potter or the geography of The Hunger Games' Panem. They fill in gaps, elaborate on character motivation, and tell the backstory that didn't fit into the primary narrative. And that's pretty dang cool.

When an author creates a story that resonates with people for whatever reason, their creation becomes separate from them. It twines its way into the minds of readers and continues to grow. As in the real world, it has its strengths and its pitfalls, and people discuss both at length. The story continues to grow and change as the world does.

I think that's nothing short of amazing.

It's one more indicator that art and literature are ever-changing and evolving. One person may plant the seed of an incredible new world and begin to build it, but it doesn't end with them. More people take up the mantle and help it grow. Into new eras, new frames of thought, new universes. How incredible is that?

Unsanctioned collaboration, perhaps, but collaboration nonetheless. I'd be branded a liar if I didn't admit that some of the deepest and most insightful commentary about some of my favorite fandoms came not from the author, but from the readers who reacted to the story.

Stories are organic. They grow, and age, and change. And it's cool to be cool with that.

How do you guys think fandoms affect original work? For good or bad?

The Same Old Thing About the Importance of Empathy in Literature

| Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Today's Tune: I Was A Fool


I'm not generally super big on telling people how novels should be written, other than the obvious "you might want to brush up on basic grammar rules and story structure so you can convey your thoughts appropriately" advice. Generally speaking, though, I think that everyone's method for creating, writing, and structuring a story is largely dependent on how they work as a person. If it works for you, then it's what you should be doing.

That said, there are things I think everyone should at least consider while they write. Caring about how you portray your characters, and who you decide your characters are, is one of those things.

In YA, there's a lot of discussion about inclusion and representation. We have people who are passionate about calling out cover whitewashing, as well they should. Others actually sift through the data to discover what the real numbers are when it comes to diverse representation on YA covers. There are people who make points that they want to publish more diverse books, but people have to commit to buy them. We have long lists of GLBT YA fiction, and we're always pushing for more, because the current numbers aren't nearly representative enough.

There's a reason for this. It's because we're writing for young people, and we know that if we want to see real change in the world, we need to help the younger generation not only see themselves reflected in their media, but inspire those who are already incredibly well represented to empathize with people who aren't like them. How many times have we heard that white kids can't relate to brown kids on book covers? That boys can't possibly be expected to read "girl books?" That two boys kissing on a cover will upset straight kids, and they shouldn't have to see that?

Well, why not?

Why are we so insistent that people who refuse to even try to relate to someone who isn't just like them be catered to? I'm hardly the first person to point out that members of privileged classes tend to view any attempt at inclusion as an infringement on space they belong in. We saw a shining example of this recently in young white women who think being rejected from their first choice college means their "rightful spot" was given to a person of color because of Affirmative Action, because that's the obvious conclusion to jump to.

It's not news that women have been required out of necessity to "relate" to male characters over the years. It shouldn't be a surprise that people of color have had no other option but to "relate" to white characters. Members of the QUILTBAG community have had a smorgasbord of straight characters to "relate" to, and they've done so. So why is it that we keep upholding this idea that a character needs to look, act, and be just like you* in order to be relateable?

* "You" only applying if you're white, straight, abled, and/or male, of course.

This is why there's such a push in the YA community for inclusion. Because we need to start somewhere, and starting with brilliant and capable youth is a perfect place to begin. We know, science knows, everybody should know that reading books inspires empathy. This is important. This means the things we read stick with us and shape our minds and our perception of the world. This is where we start teaching people that they can see through another person's eyes, walk in their skin, and gain a glimmer of understanding of what it's like to be someone else for a little while.

This is why "reverse oppression" novels are usually so crass. Because instead of writing about the actual people who are currently struggling with oppression, some writers feel like they have to take the privileged class and put them in a distorted position of oppression in order to illicit that empathy. This is what happens when we keep nodding our heads and letting people get away with pretending it's impossible to relate to someone who isn't just like them. And doing that inspires the kind of myopic and self-centered vision that perpetuates all of these issues. When you are excessively represented in every media outlet you could possibly imagine, you can benefit from listening to someone else's story for a little while.

And this is why it's so important to think about who we're including in our novels, how they act, and what they do. Because novels can change minds. Literature can make us see what we couldn't before. And representation matters. Seeing other people matters. When you're a kid who feels like kids like you don't get to have grand adventures, it can mean the world to see yourself reflected in the pages, and reflected well. Not with the same stereotypes hurled at you on a daily basis, but with nuance and realism.

That stuff means everything.

Some Links for Sexual Assault Awareness Month

| Friday, April 12, 2013

Today's Tune: Young Volcanos (I had a link to the video, but they redid it and it ended up being super inappropriate for this post, so I removed the link)

Ugh, you guys, I feel like this blog is getting seriously neglected! I'm sorry! I've been working on a new project, and between that and work, I've been pretty burnt out as far as coming up with new blog-ish type stuff. I'm hoping to get back to updating at least once a week.

In the meantime, you can catch me over on Tumblr a lot, which requires much less length and thought process to update (most of the time). I have a YA Tumblr and a personal one, which you probably already know if you follow me on le Twitter because I update almost daily.

Also, April is Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month, which is kind of a big deal to me. So here are some links.

Here is a post I wrote two years ago about how rape is not a plot point.

Here's a post Maggie Stiefvater recently wrote in which she also discusses literary rape.

Laurie Halse Anderson partnered with RAINN this month to create the #Speak4RAINN campaign. You can give any amount. Every $10 will help a survivor through the national hotline, and if you donate $75, you'll get a signed copy of Speak.

With all of the hugely national press lately about some truly horrendous rape cases and the rape culture that encourages them, this is still such an important issue. Our society needs to be able to have a dialogue about sexual violence and consent without it devolving into unbearably heinous displays of patriarchy and rape culture. We need to empower and educate our youth, ALL of our youth, about the role they can play in destroying rape culture.

It starts with us. Let's make sure it ends with them.

(I'll aim for a substantial post next week. Happy Friday!)

Liking David Foster Wallace Does Not Make You Smart

| Friday, March 29, 2013

Today's Tune: Please Don't Go

I am RANTY today.

So I have A LOT OF FEELINGS about people who use their love of very particular kinds of literature to sort of “one up” people who like other kinds of fiction. Who dictate that if you like Book A instead of Book B, you are a plebeian sheep with a grade-school education. Or something.

A little background about myself, if you will allow me.

I have an English degree with a Creative Writing emphasis. My degree doesn’t mean much, but I did what I really enjoyed. Except for the part where I could never get into any of the fiction classes, so I did poetry and non-fiction (autobiography, in particular) instead.

And oh my gracious, that autobiography class, you guys. Talk about an exercise in navel-gazing. Anyway.

My point is that I read all of the Good Stuff. Ye Olde British Literature, Romantic Poets, Shakespeare, Everything Old White Dudes Wrote Ever, Super Special Lady Fiction, Postmodern Indecipherable Bonkers Lit, Kurt Vonnegut Is Awesome, the whole shebang. I read (and even enjoyed) everything from Beowulf to Joyce. If you want to talk about how fractured language reflects schizophrenia in Paul Auster’s New York Trilogy or gender fluidity and how it relates to Irish Catholic sexuality in the Circe chapter of Ulysses, I will stand toe-to-toe with you.

But here is the thing: it does not make me Smarter Than You.

And frankly, I cannot abide by people who sneer down their noses at what other people read and act like their intelligence is superior because they read something they’ve arbitrarily decided is “real” literature.
Because you know what? I also read science fiction. And fantasy. And contemporary. And humor, and graphic novels, and non-fiction.

AND SO MANY YA NOVELS. BECAUSE I LOVE THEM.

I know this is a difficult concept to grasp, but people can have more than one interest. People can like completely mundane things and also be incredibly intelligent in a multitude of ways.They can acknowledge that something can be different and not to some preset standard, yet valuable all the same.

I’m not going to pretend I’ve never read something that I put down because the writing, characterization, world-building, or general structure just didn’t function to my standards. I absolutely have. But here’s the thing about my standards: they are mine. Acting as though everything to come out of a category is pure gold is folly, but so is hand-waving it all away as useless fodder for the brainless.

Whether you only read super high-brow literary Pulitzer Prize-winning fiction or you read pulp fiction genre fluff or you read everything, it has nothing to do with your value or your intelligence.

A wise person once said: you know who cares about what other people read? ASSHOLES.

I’ve read all the literature you’ve read. I like it. I STILL READ AND WRITE AND LOVE KIDLIT. Because it is valuable, because it is “real” literature, because it speaks to me on a variety of levels. Do not presume you are superior because you’ve taken some English courses and can have Deep Discussions About Literature. One of the concepts I currently have on my plotting backburner is a YA novel loosely based on Virginia Woolf’s The Waves. I used to write highly literary (and published) poetry about being abducted by aliens. I also write short stories about making out with hot Italian boys in the rain. I CONTAIN MULTITUDES. DO NOT FRONT TO ME.

Here is my point: if you feel the need to shit on other people because of what they do or don’t read, it says more about your insecurities than theirs. If you need to prove your intelligence by regurgitating the same tired lines people have been repeating for centuries, you are showing your ass.

Like what you like. Read what you read. Do not presume it makes you a genius among fools.

Sneering at teenagers and their fiction does not make you brilliant. It makes you Every English Snob With A Gin-and-Tonic. Enjoy.

The Case of the 30-Year-Old Teenager: Teen Representation in Media & Unattainable Standards

| Friday, March 22, 2013

Today's Tune: José


The other day I saw a few people on Twitter discuss the recent casting choice of Four in the Divergent film adaptation. The selected actor is 28 years old and will supposedly be playing 18-year-old Four. It's unclear whether they'll be aging him up or leaving his age ambiguous, but as Tris is supposed to be 16, it's an interesting (and a little confusing) choice.

This is far from the first time significantly older actors have played teenage characters. In the television show Glee, several of the characters were in their mid-to-late 20's while playing sophomores in high school. Some of the actors were younger -- actor Chris Colfer is widely regarded as one of the babies of the group, having started filming at around 19 years old -- but most of the actors were comfortably in their 20's. Even Dawson's Creek, one of the forerunning teen dramas, had actors ranging from 17-23 playing 15-year-olds.

There is a sensible reason for this, of course. Actors who are over 18 aren't subject to the multitude of laws surrounding child actors, which include limited filming times and required schooling stipulations. Even so, it seems odd to skew as old as a nearly 30-year-old actor playing a high schooler, particularly one who doesn't look especially young (Bianca Lawson notwithstanding because that woman does not age). But clearly there's a precedent.

It always catches my eye. I understand why under-18s aren't generally cast for major teen roles (see limited filming hours again), but even so, it has to be kind of a trip for teenagers to watch representations of "themselves" on screen who are not only Hollywood polished, but past the most awkward stages of teenagerhood. Crystal-clear skin, flawless makeup, impeccable fashion sense and unlimited wardrobe (even when the character is supposedly dirt poor), perfect smile with no braces (only creepy nerd characters have those), wry humor without a trace of awkwardness... that's got to be disconcerting for your typical teen. How do you live up to that standard?

This is why I used to love watching Dawson's Creek as a teen. Sure, the actors were all gorgeous in their own way, but they weren't so highly polished and on-the-ball. They were flawed, and awkward, and confused. They were pretty, but not unattainably pretty. Every once in a while, there was a zit that didn't quite get covered with makeup.Even Buffy the Vampire Slayer, with its super-cool heroine and incredible adventures, still maintained that sense of being young and occasionally having no idea what you were doing.

I know I'm teetering dangerously close to nostalgia for my beloved turn-of-the-century shows, but today's teen shows aren't all bad. Glee tried to capture that feeling. It tries to be inclusive of many different types of teenagers, but unfortunately it doesn't hit the mark for me. It feels like one of those shows that had good intentions, but went horribly awry in the execution. The positive messages get muddled in twee and contradictory storylines that undo months of character development.

There are a variety of people who come through the show, but I have a very tenuous relationship with the way they're treated. They're still very highly polished, and although the show includes many different kinds of people, it also tends to favor the societal "norm." Skinny, pretty, white, able-bodied, and straight. Characters who deviate often find themselves the butt of oppressive jokes, which I like to think of as "hipsterisms." You know what I mean... "I can joke about your fatness/Blackness/queerness/disability because I don't REALLY mean it, duh! We're friends sometimes! I told you that you were pretty once!"


I've actually grown to love Teen Wolf because it incorporates a lot of that teenage awkwardness back into the show. Again, the cast is VERY pretty and VERY polished, but they don't always know what to do. They stumble, they're awkward, they don't always have a barb at the tip of their tongue.

Sometimes I kind of yearn for another Freaks and Geeks, not gonna lie.

I think it's desperately important for young people to see themselves in their media. The super-polished, fantasy versions are okay, and sometimes you need that escape from reality. But it's even more important, in my opinion, to see a reflection of who you really are, warts and all. This of course also extends to the constant lack of diversity in both teen television and YA literature, which is something that's being slowly chipped away at and I hope continues to improve.

When you see someone who's supposed to be your age, but they're really ten years older, well past puberty, and polished to a high shine, how does that make you feel about yourself? Like you can't measure up? Like something must be wrong with you because you don't look and sound like THAT? It's definite food for thought.

What do you think, dudes? What sort of representations do you like to see in youth media? What do you hope to see?

In Defense of TaySwift, KStew, and Young Women

| Monday, March 11, 2013


Photo from Just Jared Jr.
So, this post isn't really going to be new or revolutionary. It's something that a lot of people have already discussed at length, especially since the Academy Awards aired this year. Really, the thing that spurred me to write this post was that someone sent me an ask on my Tumblr regarding my opinion about Tina Fey/Amy Poehler saying a thing about Taylor Swift and then Taylor Swift alluding that they should go to hell. I had to Google the thing to know what they were referring to, but once I found the articles, I was sadly unsurprised.

This is something that I feel like I see a lot of when it comes to not only young starlets, but young women in general. Whether people are ragging on Kristen Stewart for being boring/ungrateful/awkward, or snarking about Taylor Swift's relationship status, or hating Anne Hathaway for being... a goodie-two shoes or something? It seems like it never ends. And of course, there have been a veritable avalanche of articles responding to the treatment of Quvenzhané Wallis, who is not even ten years old. Many of which I think you should read: here and here are good places to start. This one too.

I asked myself why it was that people are so quick to lavish praise and pump up Jennifer Lawrence while simultaneously shutting down so many of her contemporaries. I think there's a lot of interesting discussion to be had about accessibility and an aura of "one of the people," but I also think it's more than that. I think it has to do with the idea that she portrays this sort of "cool girl" vibe of "I don't really care about makeup or Hollywood vapidity, I just want to have some pizza and beer." Which is an attitude we see a lot. And I'm not hating on JLaw for that! I get the distinct impression that that's her personality, and more power to her. She's also appears to be reasonably friendly/friends with many of her fellow actresses, which helps.

But I do find it interesting that being irreverent and not caring who made her gown and constantly talking about how much she loves food is seen as cooler, more real, or more genuine than other actresses. Other actresses who play the game, pose, answer questions, don't smile on cue, openly take their career seriously, date around, or whatever else. Is it because women are expected to be amicable, friendly, and always fun? Is it that we expect celebrity women to shut up about their career, their beauty regimen, and their diet despite the fact that the public demands they're polished, professional, and slender?

I couldn't help but be on Taylor Swift's side when she commented that Fey and Poehler made a jab at her expense. I don't exactly approve of her making a general statement that women must always lift up other women (women are most certainly allowed to be critical of other women when they're upholding crappy or oppressive behavior), but I feel her on the media's constant need to take pot shots at her dating life; to invent new "boyfriends" for her every time she's photographed in the same vicinity of a guy.

 Here's the thing about comedy and satire: social commentary and satire are entertaining because they uncover injustices and nonsense in established systems. They cleverly point out the way in which an accepted social order is corrupt or just plain ridiculous. They lift the marginalized and mock the powerful. Why? Because the powerful walk away unscathed. They may have a bruised ego, but they are still on top. But when you mock the less powerful or the powerless, you're maintaining the status quo. When you make fun of a young woman for dating freely, you're upholding the idea that young ladies don't get to date around, lest they be viewed as fickle or - gasp - slutty.

And I can't help but feel for Kristen Stewart every time someone chides her for looking "bored," for not smiling, for slouching, for whatever. It stings me, because it speaks to a very real issue I dealt with growing up: having other people dictate how I was allowed to express my emotions, and being called a "bitch" when I didn't conform. I'm not a super smiley person. I'm also rather shy and reserved. I like being around people, but I'm not usually that bubbly person chatting everyone up. Even when I'm happy, I'm not constantly beaming everywhere. All my life, people have DEMANDED that I smile. They have seen me sitting quietly, listening, and assumed I was bored or snobby when really I just like to absorb the world around me.

This is what the public does. It polices young women's behavior every second of every day. It tells people that we're allowed to dictate how other women interact with the world, how they act, how they express their emotions. If we don't like it, we can sneer at them and presume that they're a "bitch." It's not just with reserved ladies. It's with ladies who are "too loud," or "too serious," or "too ditzy," or "too full of themselves." We read these behaviors not only into celebrities, but into every woman around us.

Now, I don't know any of these women. They could be great, they could be horrible. I don't know. But that's the thing: I DON'T KNOW.

None of these ideas are new or groundbreaking, I know. But they are things I think about. I can barely watch awards shows or interviews with actresses anymore without cringing at the inevitable onslaught of people picking at how she sits, how she speaks, how she smiles, who she dates, whether or not she's "annoying."

Anyway. I'm not here to tell anyone they shouldn't participate in celebrity gossip or that they can't dislike certain actresses. I just can't help but feel a certain level of protectiveness when I see a young star criticized not for her actions or her art, but for simply existing as a woman in Hollywood. So yeah.

I HAVE THOUGHTS. Do you have thoughts?

HIMYM: Why I'm Over Barney and Robin. And Ted.

| Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Today's Tune: Ships in the Night

OMG A POST! I had some thoughts, and I wanted to record them while they were still relevant. So here we go!

I've discussed my complicated relationship with How I Met Your Mother before. Lately, I've found myself really displeased with recent developments on the show. Allow me to elaborate. (Also, this should go without saying, but BIG HIMYM SEASON 8 SPOILERS AHEAD).


I have become increasingly jaded with several of the show's major characters. Primarily Barney and Ted, and additionally Robin. Which sucks, because they've had some really great characterization and moving storylines over the seasons. Lately, though, I've been feeling like a lot of that has been undone by purely repetitive themes, reverting to previous behavior and undoing "good" development, and just general... SHITTINESS. They've become people that I once found entertaining and endearing, and now find repulsive, selfish, and frustrating.

Lily and Marshall are seriously the major lifeline I have left for this show, and I'm pretty sure a large part of that is because of my attachment to the actors themselves. IT'S WILLOW AND NICK. I HAVE TO LOVE THEM ON PRINCIPLE OKAY.

Anyway. Allow me to discuss why the recent engagement and impending marriage of Barney and Robin is leaving me totally cold. It's not supposed to. I'm sure I'm supposed to be rooting for these two bigtime. But I am not.

They've both been steadily moving toward these sort of unlikeable shells of their former selves. Barney's always been questionable for me, saved only by NPH's comedic timing and what little characterization he had, but has lately become very unlikeable. Robin has become MEAN. Not like, "Oh my gawd girls are so catty and awful." No, like not a nice person.

I feel like I was supposed to be very moved by the whole "Last Page" episode, but I was not. Having Robin lampshade the fact that Barney created an elaborate scheme WITH WHICH TO LIE AND MANIPULATE HER EMOTIONS does not make the fact forgivable. I'm supposed to root for these two now? No. Does everyone comprehend how horrible this was? Instead of acting like 30+ year old adult people, they did all this ridiculous screwing around with other relationships they were only half into and using a genuinely nice person as a means to an end and trying to play on one another's weaknesses and I'm supposed to think this is sweet?

NOPE.

And poor Patrice. My darling Patrice. Did Robin ever even thank her for the part she played? Did Barney? Of course not. Because Patrice exists to be the butt of the joke, the saccharine-sweet punching bag for Robin to yell at for a laugh. Why? She's TOO ENTHUSIASTIC and likes Robin TOO MUCH. Besides, everyone knows Barney doesn't date FATTIES! Turns out there was no change of heart for him. The idea that he'd actually stop being a pig and appreciate inner beauty (in addition to non-stereotypical beauty) is laughable. And Patrice genuinely thinks Robin is her friend and agrees to this nonsensical scheme because she wants to make Robin happy.

This is just another tick-mark on the (very short) list of recurring PoC characters on this show that were stomped on, run over, and left in the dust to pave the way for the RoBarney Express. This is a point I don't feel entirely qualified to comment on, being a SUPER WHITE LADY, but it did not escape my notice that Nora (British-Iranian) and Kevin (Indian-American), in addition to Patrice (Filipino-American) all were roundly used during the show's great quest to give Robin and Barney a twisted fairy tale ending. If someone else wants to elaborate on this, please do. I will link you like wow!

BACK TO BARNEY. So, Barney made this big show about "The Last Play He'd Ever Run" and shit, but he kept the freaking Playbook, lied to Robin about it, and continued thinking about WAYS TO SCREW OTHER WOMEN. When Robin gets rightfully pissed the fuck off about this (So, our engagement was a sham ON TOP of a sham. How romantic!), Barney tells her TO HER FACE that he is using misdirection tactics to make her not mad at him anymore as he literally does magic tricks to distract her/make her smile. He barely apologizes, admits that he is and always will be a liar, but somehow she can trust that when he says he loves her, he's telling the truth. And she apparently buys this. YAH OK.

This is some Pick-Up Artist bullshit. Also, let me give a hearty round of sarcastic golfclaps for completely undoing the iota of positive characterization displayed when Barney supposedly symbolically burned the Playbook the first time. Nothing's changed at all, hurray! If I was supposed to be impressed that he let CRAAAAZY JEANETTE blow it up, than that ploy faceplanted pretty hard. He probably has eight more stashed somewhere. Over it.

Anyway, let's move on to TED FUCKING MOSBY. Am I really supposed to continue giving a shit about this character and his endless quest to find the mother of his children? Every woman he's dated has become a subsequent joke, a punchline on his punchcard toward finding his "real" love. Jeanette, his most recent ex, literally only serves the purpose of acting SO WACKY AND CRAZY that he finally realizes (really for real this time, guys!) that he wants to find a proper, nice, marriageable girl. Her role is literally "the last woman I dated before I met your mother." She's a stepping stone. A comedic placeholder.

Just like every other woman he's dated - either a LIFE-RUINING BITCH or a SO CRAY-CRAY EX or A JOKE. Even Robin, who we're supposed to LIKE, has crushed poor Ted's heart. Aw. Poor baby. I'd love to see a spinoff show of all the women he's dated, illustrating all the ways in which they're PERFECTLY NORMAL and he was the one being awful. You know, like the "Slutty Pumpkin" episode (ugh) in which Katie Holmes' character reveals that while Ted thought she was being super clingy, she thought HE was being the weird, clingy one and was trying not to hurt his feelings.

Whereas some of the previous relationships were treated like missed opportunities -- wrong place, wrong time, wrong person -- his relationships have steadily become "which wacky joke-slut will Ted date next, only to be leave them for Robin and/or his own insecurity?" Is the only thing that makes a Ted Mosby conquest relevant becoming The Mother? Not even The Wife or The Partner. The Mother. I just can't. This is our protagonist, everybody. Hey, Ted. MAYBE THE COMMON DENOMINATOR IN THESE HORRIBLE RELATIONSHIPS IS YOU. THIS STOPPED BEING CUTE 3-4 SEASONS AGO.

Why, How I Met Your Mother? Why are you doing me like this? I miss the show that was about friendship, and love, and support, and being a 20-30-something, and yelling comically at your roommate for not buying new milk. I don't like this snickering child that's just passing the time with ranchy sex jokes and introducing more CRAY-CRAY lady characters until they finally reach the long-belabored climax.

Sigh. I'm still holding on for the few little bright flashes. And for Marshall and Lily. And Patrice. I think Patrice deserves a parade, personally.

And boy, when we finally meet the woman who exists purely on the outskirts of this story that was supposed to be about HER, I hope she's treated as a real person instead of a doll for Ted to fill with babies. But I'm not really holding my breath.

Do you guys watch? What do you think?

Hiatus

| Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Hello my lovely readers! It's that time again... time for me to disappear down my writer hidey-hole for a little while until I crank out some significant work on a manuscript project (or two). Probably a few weeks. I may post intermittently, just not on my regular schedule. But I shall return! Until then, I bid you adieu!

 
 

Copyright © 2010 maybe genius