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.

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 am not ultra-ultra-conservative on every issue. I actually support gay marriage. I think the gay marriage thing would definitely surprise people. I mean, for some people, it will surprise them to the point that they won’t want to hear it. ‘No, that can’t be, I really want to have this sort of idea of her in my head,’ so I sort of rain on their parade there. I am a person that does believe that life begins at conception, but I also don’t believe that the government should tell women what to do with their bodies. So I’m torn there in terms of supporting laws [for or against abortion].”

-  Elisabeth Hasselbeck

Um… yeah. Huh?  From fancast via jezebel.

Megan Fox is pretty controversial among feminist blogs.  Sometimes she says (and does) really stupid, stereotyped, sexpot things, and to say the least that is often perceived as taking the easy way out.  I mean, I’m sure that it’s really hard to fight the good fight in Hollywood, and Megan is gorgeous – she usually seems to be taking the course of least resistance in posing provocatively for lad-mags, taking non-progressive roles in non-progressive films, and saying bimbo stuff that women are apparently supposed to say for/in these roles.

But then she turns around and does some really cool stuff.  Like Jennifer’s Body – like it or not, Jennifer’s Body was a really different type of horror/comedy film.  Not to mention how awesome working with Diablo Cody must have been (haters gonna hate).  Well, now she’s done it again.  Which is to say, she’s done something really icky and paired it up with something really cool.

Megan Fox is starring (alongside LOST’s Charlie) in Eminem’s new music video.  The one with the song featuring Rihanna.  The one about an abusive relationship.  Yeah, that’s uncomfortable.  She plays Charlie’s lover (good one Charlie, guess Drive Shaft is making a comeback), then they fight, then they do it again – or so I’ve heard.  Anyway, the song sounds like a desperate attempt at stirring up more controversy and leaking misogyny into the mainstream in some sort of “ironic” way or something, what with the incorporation of Rihanna and all (tasteful, right?).  And Eminem has a history of that sort of thing.

So how in the world could Megan Fox miraculously turn anything in this situation into something remotely admirable?  She donated the money that she made from appearing in the video to Sojourn, a L.A. shelter for battered women and their families.

Wait… What?

So, appear in a video about a dysfunctional relationship for a song about an abusive relationship with an out-and-proud misogynist capitalizing on the public’s awareness of the violence perpetrated against a young star… And give the money to an organization aimed at fighting all of the above.  It’s kind of like pouring gasoline on a fire, then donating your paycheck from the gas station to the fire department.  Hmm…  So what do you think: is this something to applaud and be excited about, or not nearly a big enough move to cancel out every other factor in the situation?

From E! via Jezebel.

My introduction to Felicia Day came when one of my favorite geeks, Wil Wheaton, posted the trailer for Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog on his website and told me to watch it. I did. I even waited up with anticipation waiting for the final installment.

The Trailer:

It was (and is) easy to love Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog. It’s a well-written, well-acted, well-produced 45 minutes of entertainment. It was also rather groundbreaking in the fact that it was independently produced by highly-respected professionals and proved that you don’t necessarily need the big studios to make something good or profitable.

Dr. Horrible also spawned a lot of discussion, most of it surrounding the character of Penny (played by Ms. Day), and the role she plays in the story.

(If you haven’t seen all three parts of Dr. Horrible yet, you should be warned: there will be spoilers.)

Penny is first introduced as the girl Dr. Horrible is in love with. She quickly begins being pursued by Horrible’s nemesis Captain Hammer, and after the two of them fight over her for a while, she ends up being accidentally killed as a result. While she’s not the only female in the web show, she is the only one in a starring role, credited alongside the two men, and throughout the story we learn very little about her: she’s charitable, kind, idealistic, and she always sees the best in people. She can also seem somewhat naive (a more negative way of reading her idealism) and a little shallow in her romantic relationships (she never seems all that into Captain Hammer). The men’s stories are much more fleshed out. Because of this disparity, when Penny is shot dead, her death is not so much mourned in and of itself, rather it’s mourned for the way it affects Dr. Horrible. The audience isn’t necessarily pained at the loss of Penny as they are pained at the loss being felt by the protagonist they’ve been taught to care about.

I’ve learned since seeing Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog that this killing of characters to create an emotional response from the hero is so common it’s been given a name by some fans: “Stuffed into the Fridge,” or “fridging.”

I don’t know that I had any negative reaction to the portrayal of Penny as I watched. I really liked heroptimism and her kindness. I hoped Dr. Horrible’s attraction to her might lead to his own conversion away from evil. Instead it had the opposite effect, driving him further into the fold and giving him the pain, bitterness and anger to fuel his future evil exploits. Before he was doing it for show, now he’s doing it for real.

That’s the thing with fridging, though. For it to work, the character needs to matter. They need to be someone important, and Penny was important even if all we really know about her is that she cares about the homeless and really likes frozen yogurt.

Of course, if the story continues there’s not really much hope Penny would return, seeing as how she’s dead and all. Then again, that just opens the story up for the introduction of new female characters who, hopefully, will not suffer the same questionable demise.

And we’ll just have to get our Felicia Day fix somewhere else, like The Guild which Ms. Wizzle will be talking about soon.

Readers, what were your thoughts on Penny? Did you see her as disposable or was she more developed than I’m giving credit for? Share your thoughts.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I won’t pay to see Eclipse so we’re going to have to wait awhile before I review the most recent installment in the Twilight saga.  However, that doesn’t mean I haven’t been reading about it.  Check out these discussions of the problematic themes of the third film:

Racism in Twilight? [random babble]

All throughout the series we are bombarded w/ an image of beauty as white.  As pale, flawless, sparkling alabaster skin as the image of perfection.  Smeyer’s vampires are all various shades of white, and this is part of their perfect beauty, pallid, nigh transparently pale skin.  It glitters in the sun like diamonds.  It is the epitome of perfect beauty.

Being Native in the Twilight Saga and The Importance of Being Sam and Emily… [random babble]

And knowing the stats of Native women and domestic violence, and knowing that they are shockingly higher than other minority women living in the U.S., devastatingly higher than White women, I wonder how anyone could possibly make this allusion in a book and not see the racist undertones that they had created. How they could not see the triggered memories that they might invoke in some people? Emily’s unquestioning acceptance of Sam’s treatment of her…how it is all OK because he really, really loves her… and how anyone could read this and then accuse me of digging for racist undertones to get upset about.

Twilight, tweens, and abstinence [feministing]

Stephanie Meyer wrote a very thinly disguised book about Mormon dating from a fundamentalist pro-abstinence perspective. Her books normalize gendered violence, present their young female protagonist as unable to think, defend herself, or even be a whole person without a man, and hammer home an abstinence message. And don’t even get me started on the anti-abortion, pro-sexual violence, pro-pedophilia mess that is Breaking Dawn.

I love this stuff.  I hate the films, but I love that they have given us the opportunities to have these discussions.  However, it seems like the Twihards and anti-Twihards are always having separate conversations.  It would be nice to find a way to talk about the problematic themes without simply alienating fans of the film and sending them into defensive mode.  Hmm…

The following is a cross post from Electric Emily over at Jukebox Heroines – be sure to check out all the other great music-based info she’s got at her blog!  If you are interested in cross posting or guest posting at feministhemes.com, please send your ideas to ms.wizzle@feministhemes.com.

Lady Gaga was on Larry King on June 1st, 2010. I just watched it, and once again, female artists have to defend themselves for their art, presentation, and politics.

Larry King asked if Gaga was a feminist, she said:

“Yes. Yes I am. I am a feminist. Does this settle the ongoing debate once and for all?”

Why is it so hard for people to believe that Gaga is a feminist? I have a few thoughts on the matter.

Is it because she is a pop-star, and somehow we have obscured pop music/stardom with instant sell-out status, misogyny, and manufactured faux empowerment?

That isn’t to say that there is some of that in music, and that pop music, like every other music genre has issues with gender, race, class, looks, etc, but presuming this of pop music limits one from experiencing some amazing talent. Just because you can dance to is, and it is accessible to the majority of people don’t make it lesser than. Pop music has a long-standing tradition of being seen as feminine, and as “of the body,” which is seen as less artistically sound and worthy than the masculine, “of the mind” rock or indie music scenes.

Is it because Lady Gaga is an attractive woman and hence, could never be a feminist, because you know, feminists are ugly, fat, hairy, bra-burners!

Ha, you know that one. All the myths associated with feminism, I’ve heard them all before! They never seem to go away. Let’s run them down: feminists are only women, they are not attractive (ugly), hate men (perhaps because their ugliness denies them a suitable mate), hate children, are lesbians, angry, don’t wear make-up, witches, choose career over family, cock-blockers, want to rule over men….did I get them all?  These myths serve in separating women from each other, and deter women from joining a movement that is about social, political and economic equality for not just women, but all.There is nothing wrong with that, except that it challenges a system of inequality in our culture that continues to keep women in a second class status. Challenging that is dangerous. Therefore these myths exist to maintain the status quo and silence any opposition.  And why would a beautiful woman want to get involved with any of that? She apparently has everything right? Oh, how wrong that assumption is, and Lady Gaga isn’t fooled by those myths. She smashes them with a sequined, flame-engulfed hammer.

You could say Gaga even makes fun of the whole bra-burner myth via her fabulous spark-bra.

Is it because young feminists often have different approaches toward fighting for equality that often to not mesh with previous generations’ views and ideas of how to accomplish those goals?

I think in some cases this is true. Much has been written about the second-wave/third-wave generational divide among feminists where the 2nd wave thinks that the 3rd wave has forgotten what their mothers fought for and take it for granted, while 3rd wavers think that the 2nd wave’s politics are irrelevant to current needs and narrow on interdisciplinary issues. I agree there may be some conflict here, but most of it is just a fabrication to further divide women. It assumes this weird Freudian oppositional relationship between mothers/daughters, old/young activists that cannot be reconciled, and is just inevitable. It also has this quite snobby tone that young women are ungrateful, foolish, self-absorbed, and older women are judgmental cronies, which isn’t exactly a very feminist assumption to make now is it? There are all types of activists fighting for equality, and many, many ways to do this. Just because the current generation’s ways may not look like the previous’ doesn’t mean young women have been duped by the patriarchy. Assuming young women do not have agency and intelligence, and previous generations are ignorant just furthers it.

Is it because she is a woman claiming feminism at a time when it has been deemed irrelevant?

I think this is it. It is assumed that we don’t need feminism anymore because everything is just peachy now right?  Mission accomplished, men and women are equal! ? Nope. Sorry.

As much as this would be a feminist best thing ever moment, we are not yet there. Women are still oppressed in the US and across the globe. Women still make 77 cents to every dollar a man makes, eating disorders run rampant, 1 in 3 women will be raped and/or sexually assaulted within her lifetime, lesbian couples cannot marry and are denied visitation rights to their partners, pregnancy/menstruation/menopause are seen as “problems” that need fixed with drugs and invasive medical procedures, pharmacists can refuse to fill your birth control prescriptions and medical professionals can deny abortion services, AIDS is the fastest growing STI among women especially women of color, women make up over half of the population but are barely visible in ”representative” governments, we still have sexual harassment in the workplace, sexism in hiring and promoting with the glass ceiling, childcare and motherhood are still devalued and not considered “real” work, and of course, women in the music industry are still seen as tits and asses to sell products, not as actual creative people who can produce and sell music based on talent.

Lady Gaga is an amazing musician, activist for the gay/lesbian community, homeless youth, patron against AIDS, advocate for safe sex, speaking up for female artists, and for the next generation of feminism.

Lady Gaga is a feminist. I am a feminist. Many women, of all shapes, sizes, ages, and colors are feminists, men are feminists. You can be a feminist too. All you have to do is admit that we have a problem, and that we need to do something about it. Lady Gaga is, I am, what are you doing to end injustice?

Lady Gaga on her Feminism via FashionGearLive:

“I am a feminist. I reject wholeheartedly the way we are taught to perceive women. The beauty of women, how a woman should act or behave. Women are strong and fragile. Women are beautiful and ugly. We are soft spoken and loud, all at once. There is something mind-controlling about the way we’re taught to view women. My work, both visually and musically, is a rejection of all those things. And most importantly a quest. It’s exciting because all of the avant-garde clothing, and musical style and lyrics that at one time was considered shocking or unacceptable are now trendy. Perhaps we can make women’s rights trendy. Strength, feminism, security, the wisdom of the woman. Let’ make that trendy.”

I caved and watched the second installment of the Twilight series this weekend.  I thought I hated the first one, but my inner adolescent still compelled me to watch it twice.  New Moon, on the other hand, I could barely stomach just the once.  Because from what I can tell, the Twilight series is entirely about construing relationship violence, control, manipulation, and disempowering women as “romantic.”  Which, to me, means that Stephanie Meyer either has a much sadder background than we know about, or that she has been so privileged and pampered (and brainwashed?) that this kind of thing is the stuff of her fantasies.  And she thinks that we should pass this on to our youth.

Anyone who is reading this probably already knows the plot (and probably has stumbled upon this in a search for more fanaticism about their favorite Robert Pattinson and the Glory of Twilight), but in case you don’t here it is:

Edward’s family throws a B-day party for Bella, who gets the mother of all paper cuts while opening her presents (for serious, who has ever paper cut herself so seriously on WRAPPING PAPER that BLOOD DROPS ON THE CARPET?).  The youngest vampire in their little friendly foster family goes wild and Edward throws Bella into a glass table.  Resulting in more blood.  So Edward dumps Bella the next day under the pretenses that she’ll be safer if they go on as if they’d never met.  Which is a nice way of saying “my family wants to eat you so we (a family of vampires) are moving to Florida.”  Also, “I am a boy and I’m hurting you because I love you so much and I know so much better about your own welfare than you do.”  But not “sorry I threw you across the room into a glass table last night.”

So Bella sits in her room for like four months in a pit of depression.  She has night terrors and screams violently in her sleep.  She is even more zombie-like than usual.  Because without her manipulative, condescending boss of a boyfriend around, she doesn’t know what to do with herself.  After months of this (MONTHS) her dad finally says something to the effect of “I don’t know what to do with you, weirdo daughter, so why don’t you go stay with your mom for a while?  Must be lady-problems.”  So Bella lies and tells him everything’s fine and she’s going out with a girlfriend the next night.  Who she bails on to ride a motorcycle with a random cat-calling creep.  Because when she puts her own life in danger, Edward appears to her in visions to tell her what to do.  Just like the good old days!

Now that she knows that self-destructive behavior brings her closer to Edward, Bella decides she’s going to start riding motorcycles.  So she drops by her old buddy Jacob’s to make him fix her bike (Jacob’s kind of into her so she can play him in the effective way that Edward demonstrated in the first film – also she’s a girl so she clearly couldn’t have done this herself).  Bella starts kind of thinking about giving Jacob a chance, but then he gets all violent and weird.  Which, according to Bella’s relationship history, should seal the deal.  It does, in fact, and suddenly Bella is obsessively calling Jacob and going over to his house when she’s been asked to stay away.

Jacob has turned into a werewolf and protects Bella from his werewolf buddies when she picks a fight with them.  Then they introduce her to one of the werewolf buddies’ fiance, who has Big Scary Scars on her face from a time that she upset her werewolf fiance.  But he Couldn’t Help It!  And she loves him anyway!  ROMANTIC!!!!XOXOMGLUV!!!!

*Side Note: Stephanie Meyer has pulled the same crap with werewolf mythology in the second installment that she did with vampire mythology in the first one.  Which is to say, she came up with entirely new rules for pretty well established monsters of yore.  Whereas traditional werewolves are only wolves by the light of the full moon, Twilight werewolves are wolves whenever they get angry as a result of an ancient treaty.  Which includes in broad daylight.  And when they get in fights with their girlfriends.  WTF.  Do your research.*

Bella’s still on her adrenaline kick, so she jumps off a cliff.  But she lives.  But Edward’s psychic sister thinks she died, so Edward thinks she died, so Edward decides he wants to die.  (OMGTRULOVE4EVA!!!)  Apparently vampires in the Stephanie Meyer Universe can’t take care of that themselves.  I guess it would be kind of hard.  I mean, while traditional vampires burst into flames in sunlight, Stephanie Meyer vampires glisten.  Also, traditional vampires could attempt to self-stake, take a bath in some holy water, or set themselves on fire.  Stephanie Meyer vampires have to go to Italy to be quartered by hand by some religious-type dudes.

So Bella dumps Jacob, since he’s… not Edward I guess.  I mean, they’ve both told her what she can and cannot do, they’ve both done the “its better if we’re apart” thing, and they both have families that would reasonably try to eat her if given the right opportunity.  But Jacob is…  younger?  Native American?  Not sparkly?  Anyway, she dumps him and then takes off to Italy where she tries to save Edward by offering her own life to the vamps.  Pope vamp is like, “yes, we will drink your blood!” and Edward’s sister is like “no, let me do it!” and Pope vamp is like “that’s totes a good idea, I’ll take your word for it, you’re all free to go.  Enjoy Italy!”  Right.  Makes total sense.

Then the Cullens have a family meeting in which they vote about whether or not to initiate Bella.  (Um, hello, you guys kind of promised Pope vamp that you would…)  They vote in favor, then Edward gets all grumpy because he didn’t get his way and now his family is on Bella’s side, since she’s been begging him to make her a vamp this whole time because she is OVER THE HILL at 18 and she’s having nightmares about turning into her grandma.

Jacob and Edward have a meeting where they discuss Bella’s future.  Bella tells Jacob that she loves him (right, because she was really into it when he was doing all the stuff she asked and she was blowing him off and then he started blowing her off and that made it so HOT that she fell in love with him but ditched him to save her ex-boyfriend who regularly breaks her heart).  Jacob has understandably had enough of this crap and leaves, and Edward agrees to turn Bella into a vampire (dreams can come true!) as long as she agrees to…  <DUN DUN DUN> MARRY HIM!!!  OMGROMANTICLOVEBABIESXOXOX!!!!!!!

Okay, so there’s drivel out there.  There is crappy adolescent romantic drivel.  I myself fell victim to Dawson’s Creek at that age.  And there was Titanic, and on a related Leonardo DiCaprio note, Romeo & Juliet.  Teens go for this stuff, therefore, this stuff is marketed to teens.  But Twilight’s cup runneth over with misogyny, powerless women, women who are defined only by the man that claims them, and whose lives cease to exist without this controlling force around.  And teens are eating this up to the point that it honestly makes me angry and sad.  The messages we need to be sending about identity and love should be about two whole people entering a relationship, not one being completed by or dependent on the other.  Women should have voices.  Men should not throw them into tables or tell them what they can and can’t do.

Please make Twilight go away.  Bring back Buffy.

LOST has reached its end, and whether it was a fond or a furious farewell for you, here are some other perspectives on the show and its treatment of (in particular) its female and POC characters.  As I (unfortunately) have not yet seen the 2.5 hour finale, none of these links have any finale spoilers, but other season 6 spoilers abound, so be warned if you were waiting until you could binge on the whole season at once now that it’s over.

TelevIsm: The Numbers–Lost and Race and Death Off the Island [bitch]

Portraying marginalized people in the face of a mostly white slate of network television shows is great, but it’s only a start. Painting these lives comes with responsibility: to not play into racist stereotypes, to create new and interesting portrayals and stories, and to build on the promise of a main cast that is only a little over half white.

LOST Has A Mommy Track [the sexist]

Claire’s most interesting story line was having a baby and a boyfriend. Sun’s most interesting storyline is having a husband and a baby. Kate’s most interesting story line is having two potential boyfriends, between whom she cannot choose, and also a baby eventually. Juliet’s most important storyline was that her boyfriend might have thought for 1.5 seconds about liking another girl so she had to fall down a mine shaft and explode three times on screen.

TelevIsm: The Disappointing Case of Kate Austen [bitch]

I really loved her at the beginning of the show. She was so capable yet so compelling, and she totally seemed to have an inner life. And now she’s just useless. She does whatever the dudes do, or quite frequently, whatever they tell her to do. Whenever she manages to form a unique opinion of her own, it pretty much always ends up not really mattering in the end and being overruled.

Farewell, Kate Austen: We Won’t Miss You, And That’s Too Bad [jezebel]

Austen isn’t the only problematic female character on the show; the fates of the majority of the women on the show are tied directly to the male leads, and women who have been left on their own (Ilana, Claire, Danielle, Jacob’s mother) tend to end up either dead or crazy… Penny’s fate is always tied to both Desmond and her father, Alex’s fate is always tied to Ben, Sun’s fate is always tied to Jin’s, and motherhood is always presented in an odd and frightening way and never seems to end well for anyone.