The Feminist Fangirl Has Moved!!!

I've moved to Tumblr because it's format makes it easier for me to post more frequently. I've transferred all my old content. Same blog, new location! 


http://thefeministfangirl.tumblr.com/

Sexism from Both Sides

I've been a devoted reader of The New Yorker since middle school, and I’ve been happy to note that the magazine has been riding a fantastic trend of articles focusing on women in the media.  But I’ve never been a fan of their film critics, who have a tendency to veer off subject.  In the magazine’s March 26^th issue, critic David Denby veered off in the wrong direction. He scored double points in sexism for making stereotypical assumptions about “feminine” interests, then went on to inexplicably suggest women who are being barred from expressing their (totally un-ladylike) interests should be grateful for that glass ceiling. Because those interests actually suck! Allow my letter to the editor to explain:

In his critical review of John Carter, (link behind a paywall, grrr), the science fiction film, directed by Andrew Stanton, David Denby unwisely resorts to gender stereotyping in an apparent effort to compliment the tastes of women filmmakers.  Denby identifies Stanton’s childhood enjoyment of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ Barsoom novels as representing a “male affliction,” adding “most women directors became obsessed with different books when they were little girls.”

The many women who love science fiction, action and fantasy, myself included, are tired of having to constantly declare our existence before the mainstream film industry.  It’s almost as fatiguing as having to defend our interests against accusations of pointless juvenility, a practice in which Mr. Denby also chooses to engage. I find it particularly troubling when Denby adds “Even if they [women directors] loved action and fantasy they don’t have enough clout to attract large sums, which may be just as well.”

I suppose Mr. Denby thinks women should consider themselves lucky that entrenched inequality in filmmaking is keeping them from making the movies he doesn’t find enjoyable, regardless of whether or not they want to make them. Perhaps he should consider the possibility that adding more women directors to the mix could strengthen the quality of the science fiction, fantasy, and action genres. I am no particular fan of Burroughs, and I believe John Carter is probably a bore, but I don’t believe Mr. Denby needs to resort to belittling my interests and stereotyping my gender in order to successfully review a film.

Ironically, I was already prepared to dislike John Carter because of some sexist things the director said wayback in November.  John Carter is based on A Princess of Mars, the first novel in Edgar Rice Burroughs’ turn of the century science fiction series. Explaining why he changed the title, Andrew Stanton explained, “I’d already changed it from A Princess of Mars to John Carter of Mars. I don’t like to get fixated on it, but I changed Princess of Mars…because not a single boy would go. And then the other truth is no girl would go to see John Carter of Mars. ”

Yeah, you see, I’m a girl. I also like science fiction, especially Space Opera. Burroughs’ novels were some of the first examples of the Space Opera genre. So I was interested in seeing John Carter. Until Andrew Stanton told me I wasn’t. Because I’m a girl. It’s revealing that David Denby engaged in identical sexism while trashing the movie Stanton directed. Turns out it these guys can agree on one thing; stereotyping the interests of women is the way to go.

Happy Easter!

I wish I had come up with this, but I merely found it via Her Universe. I threw together a few solid colored eggs at 10pm last night. But one year I made Labyrinth Bowie eggs with my friends! That surely counts for something?

Baby Dragons!

More specifically, Game of Thrones!! I am too excited for this weekend’s season two premiere. Seriously, it’s unhealthy.  The gender issues at play in George R.R. Martin’s novels, and the fantastic HBO adaptation, are super complex and deserve a very well thought out post or two. Or ten. I'm on it! Until then, let’s just bask in the awesomeness that is Daenerys Targaryen. And baby dragons.  

We’re in the Money

So, this past weekend, an action movie with a non-sexualized female lead broke a few box-office records. I may be the only feminist fangirl who hasn’t read The Hunger Games, and at this point I’m in that weird position where, even though the books look good, I’m turned off by the idea of coming late to the party. My loss, I assume. But I am incredibly pleased that the film adaptation became the highest grossing non-sequel and non-summer release of all time, with a weekend take of $155 Million.  I’m usually skeptical about the to-do over box office records. Adjusted for inflation, people still bought more tickets for Gone with the Wind. But studio execs don’t care about inflation, they care about how much money is made. So I’ll take these “record breaking” numbers if only on the chance they might smack some sense into people who think female driven films can’t strike gold.

Of course, female audiences were 61% of the people who bought those tickets, which will maybe help studios start respecting the tastes of women,[1] when fishing for blockbusters. I also would like to point out that men, 40% of the audience, were apparently interested in a story about a woman. Gasp! How can it be?! It can.

So yeah, this is great. I look forward to seeing if it leads to any real change. Though, it would have been nice if The Hunger Games had been directed by a woman. Just sayin’.

---

[1] “Tastes of women” does not equal “romantic comedies.”

Gender and Television 101: Why I Love Community

NBC’s Community is my favorite show. I’m not a huge television fan, so the shows that make it into my regular routine really have to earn it. And Community surely has.  It’s a rare combination of highly layered post-modernism and fantastic satire with genuinely lovable and nuanced characters. Even in the midst of its one thousand and one spoofs, it manages to keep us emotionally involved with its stories. So, yes I was one of the 4.9 million fans who I hope had something to do with the show’s stellar ratings during its return last week, contributing to a higher chance that it might hang on for a little longer (#sixseasonsandamovie!!!). SO, what do I, die-hard feminist, think of Community’s female characters?

I think they work well as superheroes. But I digress.

Community is a very complex show, its unique tone and refusal to bow to mainstream sensibilities makes it difficult to assess its feminism via the same standards I would use for another show. Community is not like Parks and Recreation, which I also enjoy. Parks and Rec is funny, but it is rarely biting. It is warm and fuzzy, the Pam and Jim of TV shows.[1] Parks and Rec is unabashedly feminist, but in a way that doesn’t really challenge or confront us. It sits comfortably, and only sparks strong reactions from the occasional misogynist idiot.  Don’t get me wrong, I love Parks and Rec, and its consciously feminist stance is a necessary voice in the current television landscape.[2]

Don't worry Leslie, I recognize your contribution to the fight.

 

But Community is a more challenging show. It’s not afraid of alienating a more mainstream audience with its high concept episodes and story arcs. It rejects and ridicules storytelling cliches and character stereotypes, but it also intentionally includes them from time to time. By lamp-shading these devices, Community asks us think critically about them and why they appear so frequently in other narratives.

Therefore, Britta is both a genuine feminist character and a spoof of “activist” characters. Yet even as aspects of her personality exist as parody, she is herself a complete character, not a spoof. While most of her other activist positions are portrayed with satire in mind, her feminist critiques of situations are usually legitimate, funny, and taken seriously by the show.[3] Furthermore, it is so refreshing to have a female character on television who is sexually liberated, but never subjected to slut shaming in any form. Even though Jeff and Britta continue to sleep together after their “will they or won’t they” plot line is over and done, the show makes very little to do about it.

Annie is a more complicated case. She is ultra-feminine, a controlling perfectionist, and emotionally immature, but she also has wonderful bursts of confidence, humor and control which are all the more wonderful because they are unexpected. There has been a lot of criticism of Annie being sexualized. The two most prominent examples in my mind are in the naming of Troy’s pet monkey “Annie’s Boobs,” a choice which, while reflective of Troy’s immaturity, is not particularly well-explained. Then there is the “Boop-be-doop-be-doop Sex” song from Season Three’s Christmas episode. When I first saw the song, I screamed with laughter and exclaimed “Thank you!” The satire was so apparent as to be obviously critical of infantilizing sexualization.  Specifically, as the remainder of the episode was a spoof of Glee, I saw the song as specifically targeting the sort of sexualization that supposedly progressive show often subjects its underage female characters to.  That instance is the perfect example of how Community’s approach to feminism, or any issue, differs from a softer show like Parks and Rec. Community moves beyond the “Yeah, women are totally equal!” attitude and shoves issues that we often overlook into our faces.

In terms of what the song represented for Annie’s character,[4] Annie grows significantly throughout the series, and while she comes into moments of confidence and leadership, she is also still reeling from her emotionally  fragile starting point.[5]  And before I hear that making a female character a little messed up is sexist, I feel I need to remind peeps that a story’s female characters need not be perfect in order for that story to be feminist. All the characters on Community have problems, it’s really the point. By the time the “Boop-be-doop-be-doop Sex” song rolls around it’s clear that Annie has already begun exploring her sexuality for the first time in her life. That said expression would come out so awkward and misguided is both entirely in keeping with her character AND a perfect means through which to critique infantilizing sexualization.

Of course, any situation in which an attractive female character prances about in a mini dress is at risk of being hijacked by certain fans that miss the point. Another option is fans who get the point, but don’t care, and instead turn a shot of Annie’s shimmying cleavage into a popular online gif. Satire that critiques through example is always a tricky form of comedy, because there is always a risk that it will be misused by the group it is in fact challenging. Personally, I’m glad Community went for it. Any viewer engaging with the show on the level it asks of us got the point. As for those gifs? Well, even a fantastic show like Community can’t be idiot-proof.

Shirley is unique as a fully realized female character who is primarily defined by the duality of her sweetness and her suppressed rage. Rage as a defining emotion is incredibly rare for women on television, specifically as it differs from their usually allotted “sass.” While Shirley’s depiction may not seem particularly feminist at first glance, I’d advise you take a second look. Are you noticing how you never thought of her as “the third woman,” the “black woman” or the “fat woman” before? It’s because she’s not. She’s Shirley. That’s how the show depicts her, and that’s how we see her.

So yes, as a feminist, I’m happy with how Community constructs its female characters. But why listen to me, when you can hear all about it from the women of Community themselves. Please read this interview with Allison Brie, Yyvette Nicole Brown, Gillian Jacobs, and Megan Ganz, one of the show’s writers, because it’s awesome.

---

[1] Except, it’s not boring and nausea inducing.

[2] Also, kudos for the character of Ron Swanson, who, unlike all those pseudo “personal liberties” conservatives out there, doesn’t compromise his values in order to oppress women.

[3] Exception being her rant against cosmetics companies in Season One’s Football, Feminism and You

[4] Community, unlike Glee, never asks its character’s to behave in a manner contrary to their personality in order to serve a plot point.

[5] Let’s not forget she was in rehab.

Movie Trailer Joy Part 2

I know, I know. I just shared a trailer with y’all yesterday. And trailer freak-outs aren't usually my thing. HOWEVER, the trailer for the upcoming Snow White and the Huntsman is just too amazing! You have to watch this. I have no real investment in fairy tale adaptations,[1]  but the direction in which this film is taking the story looks awesome. To make Snow White’s threat to the queen be based on her being destined to kill said queen, as opposed to her looks, is a fantastic move. And the visuals!!! I could even move past my Twilight related resentment of K Stewart for this. My one problem: the title. It’s another example of clumsily adding a male presence in order to avoid frightening off male audiences.  From completely gender neutralizing titles (i.e. Rapunzel becomes Tangled, The Snow Queen becomes Frozen) or just removing any trace of femininity, in the case of John Carter, this title thing is becoming an unfortunate trend. Is this just the price we have to pay for more female-centric narratives? I hope not. The film industry establishment is consistently certain that while women will watch stories about men and women, men will only engage with stories about men. Hence these shifty, embarrassed titles. I am pretty certain the male movie-going population is not so stupid and narrow minded. But marketing execs have never been known to look for the best in people. Sigh.

---

[1] I love fairy tales, but most non-Disney adaptations veer towards crap.