I’ll admit some of my reasons for writing this post are rather selfish. Parks & Recreation has quickly become my new favorite comedy (I’m sorry Community. I still love you), and I want others to understand its awesomeness (or at least give it a fair shot). Regardless, the show has a lot of good traits that I think are worth talking about. So here I give a few thoughts on what makes this show so fantastic.

Leslie Knope is Awesome!

I am not the first to fall in love with the charming, good-hearted, optimistic Deputy Parks Director. I could tell you what makes her so amazing, but others have said it so much better. Sady, over at Feministe.com, wrote a list of why she loves Leslie and it included things such as “You invented Galentine’s Day” (an annual celebration during which Leslie tells all the women in her life how much she loves and appreciates them), “you love your job without shame or reservation,” “you have a best friend, and she’s a GIRL!” and “you care.” Sady expands on all these ideas in her post, and she also takes some time to explore the differences between Leslie Knope and Liz Lemon.

Liz Lemon, the oft-discussed lead on 30 Rock has been the subject of much debate. Is she a feminist icon or not? What do we do with her? Sady suggests Leslie Knope may be a less frustrating alternative to serve as fictional feminist role model, and she offers a lot of convincing support. I recommend you read it if you haven’t. But then I recommend you read an article written by Kate Dailey on Newsweek.com. She echoes a lot of the same sentiments Sady expresses and offers some her own reasons for admiring Leslie. Dailey points out that Leslie is competent, and admired and supported by her colleagues. Leslie is also concerned with more than weddings and babies and the relationships she has are mature and genuine and they end just because they’re not right for each other, not because either party is crazy or neurotic. Many of these things are brought up specifically because they are the opposite of what we see from Liz Lemon, so Dailey takes things a step further and asks the question, “So what would Leslie Knope think about Liz Lemon?” and I think her answer is awesome;

That’s the best part, and the most telling: Leslie would be proud of Liz’s accomplishments. She would respect her desire for a husband and baby, and admire her career achievements. She’d encourage her efforts to get more respect as a female executive, while encouraging Lemon to reach out to the other women in her office. Leslie Knope understands that women’s advancement is about the advancement of all women, and that women need support from one another just as much—in fact, much more—than they need approval and access from the men that surround them. She might get frustrated with Liz; they may butt heads or disagree on certain points. But at the end of the day, Leslie realizes that she doesn’t need to compete with “Liz Lemonism,” and she’s not interested in besting Liz, shaming Liz, or proving Liz wrong. Instead, Leslie wants for Liz exactly what Liz wants for Liz: the freedom and confidence [to] make choices, the ability to command respect, and the opportunity to achieve all her goals.

Because Leslie Knope, overambitious dreamer that she is, believes that all women deserve those same advantages.

The other characters rock too

Leslie’s boss, Ron Swanson doesn’t care at all about his job, but he supports Leslie. He gives her a Woman of the Year award that an organization gave to him as a media stunt because Leslie was more deserving. In the finale he even refuses to let some budget slashers fire her, because despite his love for cutting budgets, he knows that Leslie needs this job, and more importantly Pawnee needs Leslie.

Tom Haverford wants to be the kind of guy that could grace the cover of GQ and as a result is a smarmy womanizer who is (not surprisingly) quite bad at actually appealing to the ladies. At first glance he seems like an obnoxious pig, but the more you see him the more you see of his heart. He’s a little lost puppy who keeps trying to pretend to be a purebred because he’s sure no one would have any interest in a mutt.

Ann Perkins, although occasionally cynical and frustrated with small town government, is a great friend to Leslie. And Mark Brandanowicz (who won’t be returning as a regular next season) encouraged and defended Leslie every chance he got, realizing how capable and well-meaning she is. April is a cynical, apathetic teenager whose cold demeanor is warming the more time she spends with her zany coworkers and as begins to fall for big-hearted Andy, Ann’s formerly selfish, lazy boyfriend who throughout the second season has seamlessly evolved into a character whose intentions are so sweet and naive you can’t help but forgive his unintentionally rude or offensive remarks.

When it gets down to it, all the characters are so fleshed out and so real that I understand their faults, and I’m excited to see them change and stumble into new situations, and I’m more than happy to welcome them into my home every week.

The show represents a shift in television comedy

Lately I’ve been considering some of the shows that are on now and the way they collectively show a shift in American comedic sensibilities that I think is also reflective of the general way people approach each other. In other words, we’re going from snark, irony and cynicism coated with absurdity to a much more positive, lighthearted acceptance of everyone’s weird quirks. Seinfeld was near the beginning of snark curve, but you see it in other shows including The Office. The humor comes from the audience or one of the characters being above someone else. We laugh because the close-talker is so awkward and so unaware. We laugh at Michael Scott because he’s so ignorant and embarrassing. The humor comes from us being better than other people. Not that that makes these bad shows…

But now we’re starting to see sitcoms that are much more positive, where no one really has the upper hand, or at least that’s not where the humor comes from. Community, another great show on NBC (which has unfortunately replaced Parks and Rec reruns for the rest of the summer) is a great example because the entire premise is based on it. Everybody is weird and neurotic, but they all recognize the role each plays in their little community, and the one character that thinks he has the upper hand is often forced to re-evaluate his life or rely on these other people he thinks he’s so much better than.

Parks and Recreation continues this trend. All of the characters have their own brand of crazy, but their most obnoxious (yet ultimately harmless) qualities are overlooked and they’re recognized instead for what they have to offer to everyone else. Due to the changes in the show after the first season you can practically see the shift in comedic sensibility from laughing at to laughing with just by watching the show from the beginning. It can be seen in the slightly awkward characterization of Leslie and in the softening of some of the more negative and cynical characters. Some of the people behind the show say part of the reason for the shift in Parks and Rec was because they realized how much more fun it is to watch Amy Poehler smile than to watch her squirm. As Chris Pratt (Andy) said in an interview, “Maybe it’s not that funny to watch her be uncomfortable the way it is with Steve Carell, but it’s so goddamned endearing when she smiles. And you see her and when she’s enjoying herself, so is the audience.” He’s totally right, but I wonder how much of it is Amy, and how much of it is America getting sick of laughing at everybody else.

I feel it necessary to acknowledge that Parks and Rec isn’t perfect, although my only real complaint is that I wish they’d lay off the Jerry-bashing. At least it was acknowledged in one episode that he’s more or less okay with it, but it still makes me sad whenever someone laughs at his expense. Other than that, though, I love it.

While watching the show I’m constantly reminded of something one of the people behind the The Office (and now Parks and Rec) said in a Q&A I attended a few years back (I think it was Ken Kwapis, but it might have been Greg Daniels). He said the tone of the office was “vaguely depressing.” That was what they were going for, and I think that’s what they’ve nailed. But now I keep trying to come up with a similar phrase that captures the tone of Parks and Rec. The best I can think of now is “pleasantly optimistic.” The creative minds behind the show have crafted a ridiculous, hilarious little world in which a kind-hearted, well-meaning group of people have ample room to participate in all sorts of crazy humor-filled shenanigans for years to come. I just hope NBC lets them.

Sad stuff in the headlines yesterday – the idea that preventing bullying is coddling select groups is ridiculous.  Every person – every child – is entitled to safety in public, at school, and at work.  No name calling.  Talk to Jesus about it or something.

Focus on the Family attacks anti-bullying efforts as part of the “gay agenda” [feministing]

For these groups to use “what’s good for the children” as a guise to promote their intolerance only puts kids further at risk of serious harm — and we’re not just talking about hurt feelings; children are dying because of it. So if saving children from killing themselves over hatred that Focus on the Family is trying to protect is a “gay agenda,” then yeah, that’s exactly what this country needs.

The Pro-Bullying Lobby [yes means yes]

Their answer is tactically obvious: they have to try to encourage more homophobia at younger ages. They have to prevent young people from coming out in their early teens, forming their own peer groups and being seen to be happy. They need to use the social structures of teen life to enforce conformity to a heterosexist hegemon. They need to shut up the antibullying activists, and get those bullies back to beating up the queeny boys, the dykey girls, the gender nonconformists; marginalizing them by brutal force in the great public school tradition while the administration looks the other way.

Anti-Bullying Measures Are A Gay Plot, Says Gay-Bullying Org [jezebel]

In an interview with The Denver Post, Candi Cushman of Focus On The Family said, “We feel more and more that activists are being deceptive in using anti-bullying rhetoric to introduce their viewpoints, while the viewpoint of Christian students and parents are increasingly belittled.”

There have been quite a few ongoing dialogues lately regarding feminist relationships, marriage, and name changing – and these are great (and important) conversations for us to be having.

I think that the ultimate thing to keep in mind as feminists is that feminism is about choice.  It’s about every person having the right, ability, and power to decide for themselves.  We often think of choice only in terms of reproductive health (or more specifically abortion), but choice is imperative to every aspect of feminism, including fashion, work, marriage, and yes, name changing.  But here’s the thing that’s been bothering me lately *steps up on soapbox*:

A lot of acquaintances of mine have been getting married lately.  Mostly I am aware of this via Facebook since I moved more than 1,000 miles away from my hometown.  Sometimes I get that lovey-dovey little relationship status update – Mindy Morris is married to Joe Joseph – but most of the time I find out because there is suddenly a name I don’t recognize in my feed.  Then I click on my mystery acquaintance only to discover that it was the girl that sat behind me in AP History or the woman who lived across the hall in the dorms.

Now, I recognize that if these were my close friends rather than just acquaintances I would (hopefully) be in the loop enough to know that a marriage was impending and my ladyfriend was potentially changing her name, so I suppose you could argue that it’s none of my business that people that I’m not close to are becoming unrecognizable to me by their titles. But this is only a problem when it comes to the women that I used to know.  The dudes that I knew in high school are also getting married, and I have no problem recognizing them.  They’re still Chad Chadwick and Mike Michelson or whatever.

So what’s been bugging me is that a woman who gets married and changes her name is in some ways erased from the record.  If my good friend Carly M. from college, who eschewed Facebook and never joined (to my knowledge) has married her long-term boyfriend Dan whose last name I can’t remember, I can’t look her up.  Nor could I look her up if I returned to our college town and hit the phone book.  Because Carly M. could well be Carly XYZ now, and that makes her much more difficult to find.  But if my friend Charles H. in the same town got married, he’s just as easy to find as ever.  And that freaks me out.

Just like the Miss/Mrs/Ms vs. Mr situation, women are managed by their marital status while men are men are misters, no name changes, no identification by title.  This is not equitable.  So while it remains a woman’s choice whether or not to change her name, there is something going on in the system that is not right.

What if things could be different?  I mean, why is it that a woman changes her name anyway?  To match her spouse, to be united in some way, to share a name with future offspring?  Sounds great, but why is it the woman who must change her name (lets just skip over the whole historical exchange of property thing and the fact that most men have to pay exorbitant fees to attempt to change their last names while it’s pretty much a freebie for women)?

Check this out: at that folks festival last week I met the most amazing couple.  They had just gotten married and were honeymooning at the festival.  I saw the license plate on their minivan and had to take a picture it was so awesome – “HERLAND.”  I asked why they had chosen that license plate (being an avid fan of Charlotte Perkins Gilman and her Utopian story of Herland) and one of the women informed me that that was their last name, and that they had chosen it themselves.  They had combined their two last names to create a new one and both had their names changed.  Which is not only an awesome way to thumb your nose at a system that says married women must change their names in a state that will refuse to acknowledge this couples (same sex) marriage, but is really a much more beautiful tradition in my opinion.  This name belongs to both of them and will carry so much meaning when it is passed on.

Back in high school I occasionally watched the first couple of seasons of Everwood on the WB. I found it enjoyable but when I moved away to college my tepid devotion to the show got lost in the transition. Due to a summer without work or school I’ve recently rediscovered the series, and I’ve found particular enjoyment in watching the relationship between bumbling but well-intentioned womanizer Bright Abbott and sweet, unassuming book worm Hannah Rogers. And lately with all the talk of body image on the site, I thought it would be interesting to take a closer look at an episode that deals specifically with that topic; the season 4 episode “Getting to Know You.”

By this point in the series high school senior Hannah and 20 year-old community college freshman Bright have been dating for a few months. Their relationship began after a year of the two developing a friendship. Hannah spent much of that year pining after Bright and suffering through some awkward dates with her first boyfriend, and Bright spent most of that year sleeping with every eligible woman in Everwood and getting fired twice for sexual harassment. They were certainly not the most obvious match, but that’s part of what makes it so interesting.

“Getting to Know You” begins with Hannah helping Bright study for a psych exam in a restaurant where she watches him check out a waitress. We learn later that this stresses Hannah out, and she explains her feelings to Bright (you can watch this scene and Bright’s later reaction to it here);

Look, I know I’m not as pretty as the girls you used to date…. I’m okay with how I look. You know, to be honest I never really thought about it much before. I figure there’s no point in getting upset about it since it’s not like I can do anything to change it…. I’m not beautiful, and it’s okay, because I’ve got other stuff, and, and eventually I will remember what that stuff is and, and why it’s more important. It’s just taking longer than I thought.

The intent of Hannah’s monologue is to explain why she’d rather not go to a party hosted by one of Bright’s female classmates whom Hannah is sure she’ll feel inadequate next to, and Bright, seeing the discomfort Hannah is feeling agrees to forego the gathering. But he also wants to do something to help her improve her self-esteem and body image. After reading Our Bodies, Ourselves and learning about the impossibly high physical expectations established by Barbie dolls, Bright takes action.

When Hannah comes to his place to go out for dinner, Bright locks her in his bathroom; ”Don’t worry. It’s clean in there. I spent all afternoon scrubbing stuff. I’d like you to pay close attention to how clean that mirror is. You’re about to use it.” He then begins explaining to Hannah just how beautiful she is. He makes a distinction between girls like the one at the restaurant (and likely many that he’s dated) and Hannah, calling the others “typical” and pointing out, “Yes, I used to go for that kind of thing. But you know what a girl like that looks like at 3 in the morning? Craptastic. Requires way too much maintenance. You on the other hand, you have all this other stuff that is so important.” He continues to explain what makes Hannah special; “You are truly beautiful. You know what I think about when I’m kissing you. I think about your skin. I think about your eyelashes, how long they are when they’re, like, touching my face. I think about the dimples you get when you’re laughing. I think about how cool it is that, like, I might be the only person out there who knows how hot your body is. And I bet you at 3 in the morning, I bet you you look amazing.” He then insists she give herself a good look in the mirror. “You need to see what I see when I look at you. So, go, look into that mirror right now. Just keep looking until you face the truth that you are truly beautiful. Do it.”
The scene takes a strange turn of events after that considering what we know of the characters. Hannah stares into the mirror for a few moments before starting the shower, stripping off her clothes and asking Bright to join her saying, “If I’m going to see me the way you see me, I want you here with me.”

The whole thing is adorable to watch. As someone who has felt the way Hannah’s feeling it was nice to see her explain her feelings and the conflict that exists when you know in your head that there are more important things than the way you look but your heart aches when you see the world doesn’t always operate under the same understanding. And Bright’s earnestness, both in his desire to help and in his choice of words is the kind of thing designed to make viewers swoon.

As sweet as it might be to watch, however, if you’re like me, you feel like crap afterward. You remember that these are fake characters that exist in a totally constructed world. The actors are cast, dressed, styled, and made up to appear as a hot jock and self-conscious wallflower, respectively. In reality, even the “ugly” characters are played by the same people we judge ourselves against. The next time you leave the house you look around you and are reminded that in reality the Brights of the world don’t associate with the Hannahs, and now that truth somehow seems more severe because TV showed you how sweet and adorable it would be if it were possible.

What’s interesting about this Everwood example is the distinction that Bright brings up. He doesn’t say that Hannah is better looking than the girl in the restaurant, he says that the girl in the restaurant is constructed. He points out that she puts a lot of energy into looking like that, whereas Hannah just goes along being Hannah, occasionally putting a little more effort into her hair, or donning a little lip gloss. That doesn’t make Hannah more genuine than the girl in the restaurant, but rather suggests that the two women put emphasis on different aspects of themselves. It’s a twist you don’t always hear, but it’s something that’s important to remember. Each of us could probably look like those people in the magazines, if we spent as much time working out, deprived ourselves of all our favorite foods, had stylists primping us and photo artists airbrushing our imperfections. Conversely, those same faces in the magazines would blend in with ours on the street if they didn’t spend an hour and a half in make-up or have wardrobe people tailoring clothes to their specific shape.

It’s interesting how much attention and emphasis is put on one of the most dynamic and changeable aspects of a person. I mean, just look at the unemployed, couch potato turned shoe-shiner Andy Dwyer on Parks and Recreation to see how different Bright can look just three years later. Everyone changes, and many of those people we’re constantly comparing ourselves to simply spend more time invested in their looks. It doesn’t make them better people (nor does it make them worse–and it’s important, but sad, to remember that many of them have the same feelings of inadequacy and negative body image we do). The problem is it’s really hard to remind ourselves that living up to societal understandings of physical attractiveness isn’t the most important thing in the world when the only people who seem to be aware of this fact are a few fictional characters on random episodes of television shows produced by the same people that are constantly feeding us their skewed definitions of beauty.

But, as always, I would love to hear some other opinions. Are there any other Brannah fans out there? If so, how do you feel about the way Hannah’s body image issues were addressed? If you never got into this particular show, what are other examples of TV shows or episodes (good or bad) that deal with similar issues? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

I have been really into Tegan & Sara lately (in particular their fifth album, The Con), and I have always had a soft spot for Hayley Williams (Paramore).  So when I stumbled across this interview over at autostraddle it was a match made in heaven (there is also a fascinating bit about Lady Gaga at the link, which I’m sure I’ll address sooner or later).  Enjoy!

I think it’s about time for another round of body image links.  It’s always helpful to know that I’m not the only one struggling with self/body acceptance, so I thought I’d pass these along.

Image linked at gimme some feminism!

Struggling With Body Image [fbomb]

I’m not happy with the way I look. I may tell you that I am, but I’m not. I constantly worry if I’m too fat to wear certain clothes, too fat to be desirable, too fat to be beautiful. Who should I turn to for support? My friends? My family?  They feel exactly the same way. All of them, every single person I know says the same thing, that thinness is interchangeable with beauty, that skinny=good and “fat” = bad.

Power and Beauty [feministe]

Because it must be granted that women who fit a certain standard of appearance can sometimes get perks from that. It may be easier for them to find romantic partners. It made the news a while ago that women who were considered attractive tended to earn higher wages. Even if they might be too pretty to work in a bank or a traditionally male, blue collar workplace, you know, worse things could happen to a person than being born into a conventionally attractive female body.

I stumbled across this lovely website yesterday:

To be fair, there are also husband, pet, and (my favorite) kid varieties to choose from.  But this one really made my day:

Make your own damn sandwich, bucko, and while you’re at it why don’t you kick your shoes off and try conceiving a child.

The kid and pet photos are fairly hilarious in their exasperation.  The husband and wife ones are just stereotypical, aggressive, and depressing.

Lynn Hill may not be a large name in the world of feminism. However, she is an absolute superstar in the world of rock climbing. Few climbing “celebrities” are even on par with her on magnitude of fans and being recognized for the leaps and bounds she made.

Now-a-days, the rock climbing world is still predominately male, their muscles, and their “Just power through it” attitudes. There are many great female climbers in the world currently. However, back in Lynn Hill’s day, it was far more male, far more meaty muscles, and your self-worth was based on how many pull-ups you could do. Lynn Hill shattered as many realities as she could shake a stick at.

Lynn was well aware of sexism in the sport of climbing, and was frustrated by this. However, her records speak for themselves. She’s been long known as the top female climber in the world, and often times recognized in the top 10 or even top 5 climbers overall. This is major. This is ball-stomping goodness. But wait. It gets even better.

Even before she had turned 18, Lynn had figured out what had eluded so many muscle-headed men for so long. Climbing isn’t about strength all the time. It’s more about movement. Before she was even 20 years old, she had the FFA (First Female Ascent, a tribute to climbing’s sexism) on a wall in Telluride, Colorado. This set her in the “Who’s Who of Badassery in the 1970’s.”

Years later, Lynn decided that she had not stomped enough balls yet. With over 30 competition titles, she didn’t feel as though she had enough respect as a climber, not just a female climber. So, in order to prove to the world that any woman can climb as well as a man, she competed on male courses at the World Cup in France (in 1989). I like to imagine that she climbed an encore route after this, which formed a big middle finger to the rest of the world.

Sadly, that isn’t Lynn’s way. She’s nice. She’s kind. She’s patient with people. She’s loving. She doesn’t get bull-headed and charge at people. But that doesn’t mean she isn’t badass.

To even further her desire for equality in the sport of climbing, she did something few people believed. She free soloed (no rope) The Nose of El Capitan in 1993. Let me rephrase that. She was the first PERSON, not just female, first human being to free climb The Nose. Now, the world had a tremendous respect for her, and the sexism in climbing was changing drastically. The next year, she came back and did the exact same climb in less than 24 hours. This was unheard of, and unthinkable.

You know what else is unheard of? ANYBODY ELSE free climbing The Nose. That’s right. In almost 20 years, nobody has repeated this. Nobody. Not male. Not female. Is it for lack of trying? No. Though, I would like to think that the world was so shocked by this feat, that everyone has such respect for it to the point that they don’t even consider trying.

So, what’s the climbing world like now because of work like Lynn Hill’s? Well, now we have incredible female climbers like Alex Puccio, Alli Rainey, Angie Payne, and Steph Davis. This is just to name a few. Watching the way these women move on the wall is like watching something so beautiful that you start crying, just so your eyes can’t view it in its full glory (you’d probably go blind if you tried). Is the rock climbing world still sexist? For the most part, no. There are still gender separations, such as FFA’s and different competition routes for men and women. There is even the opposite, where people are acknowledging that men can’t climb as well as women (climbing courses specifically for men called things like “Climb Like a Girl,” or “How to Be a Female Climber in a Male’s Body”). I think a person would struggle really finding men that believe women can’t climb as well as men out there. If so, these men are probably not climbers, or probably don’t climb very well. After all, if they do say that women can’t climb as well as men, just remind them of Lynn Hill…and the fact that she can do 5.14’s, the hardest climbs there are in the world.

“I think I am a feminist in a way. It’s not something I consciously decided I was going to be; perhaps it’s because I grew up in a singing group with other women, and that was so helpful to me. It kept me out of so much trouble and out of bad relationships. My friendships with my girls are just so much a part of me that there are things I am never going to do that would upset that bond. I never want to betray that friendship because I love being a woman and I love being a friend to other women… I think we learn a lot from our female friends – female friendship is very, very important.”

- Beyonce

From Daily Mail.

Also, if you haven’t seen the Why Don’t You Love Me video, I recommend you check it out.  Discussion is welcome.

Eminem and Rihanna have stirred up quite the controversy with the video for “Love the Way You Lie.”  I happen to be of the opinion that Eminem’s track record of homicidal misogyny prohibits him from ever doing anything that will redeem him or be seen as feminist in some sort of “edgy” way, but others out there have made an argument for the song portraying mutual abuse in a negative light, thereby being a statement against violent relationships.  You be the judge.

Love the Way You Lie (Feministing Group Chat) [feministing]

I think that you’re right to point out that there is nuance to a violent relationship – and that a depiction of a complicated DV situation shouldn’t be criticized out of hand.  That said, I don’t think this particular video does a good job depicting that complexity, and I worry given the intended audience of the video, that it will be taken at face value.

Love “The Way You Lie”? Maybe [amplify]

Many can’t get past the fact that the song is by Eminem, known for violent and homophobic lyrics… [Y]ou can hardly blame those who aren’t ready to forgive a guy who has threatened in song to murder his ex-wife AND his mother  - why is THIS threat to murder a woman somehow different?

I HATE I Love The Way You Lie [tiger beatdown]

I can’t even believe I have to say this, but a music video about Intimate Partner Violence shouldn’t be sexy. Which this video is, in places. This video is so very close to PROMOTING the thing it is supposed to be preventing. We have Eminem, who is singing about his relationship with his ex-wife. And we have Rihanna, whose only lines seem to be about STAYING in an abusive relationship, not getting the f*** out.