This is a cross post from a good friend of mine.  It originally appeared at team berlin.  If you are interested in guest or cross posting at feministhemes.com, send a line with your idea to ms.wizzle@feministhemes.com.

Inception was not that good of a movie.  It wasn’t that BAD of a movie either.  Leonardo DiCaprio did a mediocre job with a mediocre movie.  There were two female parts in the entire movie, one of which was an antagonist.  Maybe three if you count the not-so-pretty lady at the bar who steals the wallet, but then turns back into a man immediately afterward.

This was a heist movie.  Yes, the heists may have taken place inside of dreams, but let’s dissect the elements of the movie.  First, it starts out with a theft in process.  Then, the person who was being robbed offers the thief a job…something that’s seemingly impossible.  Then a chunk of the movie is used up setting up a team, including the ever popular outlier that doesn’t really belong.  I will summarize Dane Cook’s description of this.  “The guy that is a last minute replacement and somebody vouches for him.”  Of course, they need to find the guy who they need to pull out of retirement for “one last job.”  Now the movie is done assembling the team, and they begin doing their training, plotting, planning, and preparing.  Is it important?  Yeah.  Does the movie spend too much time on it?  Yes.  If it is necessary to set up some background information on characters, it may be useful to actually spend time on it.  While it is nice to allow the audience to have their own imagination on what has gone on in the past with these characters and their interactions with each other, it is unnecessary if we don’t pay attention to any of the characters or if their roles are overshadowed greatly.  In this case, there’s no point in telling any story on any of the other characters because DiCaprio’s character is the only one who has even the slightest growth during the entire movie, and the only one that has closure at the end.  The actual heist was good.  It had multiple levels with different times going.  It would’ve been interesting for them to show the watches working at different speeds (see: beginning of the movie) just for reference sake or for a cheap gimmick.  A quick note on when they did this at the beginning of the movie: they showed the watch and time difference before explaining it.  That’s fine and dandy.  Then they explained it and never showed it again.  Though they did make it rather obvious that time was moving at different speeds on different levels, so that’s fine.

Was there character development?  A bit, I suppose.  DiCaprio’s character is haunted by his dead wife…and in the end he gets over it.  Otherwise, the other characters are hardly in the movie with active parts to really even tell if they have character developments or not. Read the rest of this entry »

The chances of me forking over cash for a ticket to Eclipse is about as likely as me forking over cash to have my eyeballs mauled out of my head by rabid kittens, so don’t expect a review of the film around here until after I can Netflix it in between Ginger Snaps and Buffy (in order to protect me from the crappy mythology and buffer the straight-up misogyny).   However, io9 has a sweet post up on all this Twilight Eclipse stuff, which is full of win.  Here are some highlights:

Why Team Jacob always has to lose in Twilight

Team You Are Not Allowed To Have An Interracial Relationship

Jacob represents humanity, warmth, frank eroticism . . . and an interracial relationship. Though Jacob’s tribal identity has played a part in previous films, it’s in Eclipse that we learn what that means. At one point, Jacob brings Bella to a tribal meeting where one of the pack leaders tells us a story that unfolds in flashback like a cross between Dances With Wolves and Dark Shadows. “When the cold ones came,” he explains, they fought the native wolves. We see a white vampire in European garb slaughtering native wolves. Then when the wolves kill him, his wife comes to their village, destroying everyone in a blaze of fire and imperialist nastiness.

Team You Must Be Controlled By An Older Man Who Hates Sex

Pretty much as soon as they are together, Bella asks Edward if he’ll have sex with her, and tries to get him to take off his clothes. He makes a “yuck” face and refuses, claiming he does want to but that he comes from an era when he would court her and ask her father’s permission to marry her. Then he gets on one knee and proposes, giving her what my great-grandmother would have called a “dinner ring,” a giant, Victorian-style sparkle monstrosity. She says yes, and they hug. Nobody gets laid.

Team Don’t Date The Guy Who Wants Sex As Much As You Do

Rejecting Jacob is a way of rejecting the consummation of her desire. It’s a rejection of the man who finds her unambiguously appealing, and isn’t horrified by his own desires either. (Edward is always insisting that if he had sex with Bella it could kill her.) “Being with me would be as easy as breathing,” Jacob tells Bella. But she doesn’t want to breathe, or even be alive. She wants to remain frozen in unrequited desire, lusting after a man who finds lust disgusting.

Team Choose Not To Choose

Her “choice” of Edward is a foreclosure of so many other choices that go beyond losing a chance to make it with wolf boy. And we’re reminded of this constantly, as if the movie itself wants to alert us to how problematic Bella’s choice really is. Her best human friend gives a speech at graduation that’s about how being young means making lots of bad choices before figuring out who you want to be. Meanwhile, members of the Cullen family explain to Bella how they were dragged into vampirism against their wills, and how horrible it is to lead a life that is so devoid of choice and opportunity and hope.

Flippin’ awesome – it almost makes me feel excited about tearing Eclipse apart, and like maybe it will do it in a more interesting and less stomach turning way than New Moon.  Now go read the whole post. READ IT!!!

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. Read the rest of this entry »

Splice is a sci-fi horrorish film that is in many ways a modern retelling of the story of Frankenstein.  What Splice does differently from most sci-fi horrorish films is to incorporate complex, intelligent female characters and examine (both directly and indirectly) female emotional and sexual development in an extreme situation.  Until it blows it at the end.

Also, I have never seen so many people stand up and exit the theater so quickly when the credits started rolling, but that might be a Utah thing (more on that later).  If anything, the strong reactions of my fellow theater-goers only made me more thoughtful about this unusual movie.

Here’s what you need to know: Clive and Elsa are a couple (literally) of scientists who have been working on splicing together DNA from different animals to create new species in the hopes of developing cures for livestock diseases.  They think it would be a good idea to take this to the next level – the human level – in order to find cures for human diseases, and pretty much just to test their theory about how awesome they are.  They’re told no, but they do it anyway.  What they end up creating is first a creepy slimy thing, which evolves into a cute rabbitish thing, and finally into a human chimera thing.  Although Clive was recently trying to talk Elsa into kids, she wasn’t interested.  Now she has become very attached to their creature, Dren, and he’s the one with serious second thoughts.  Spoilers ahead. Read the rest of this entry »

The Planned Parenthood feed on facebook brought this chart to my attention today.  The chart is pretty big, so it’s hidden behind the jump.  The diagrams are pretty clear (and shocking, and saddening) on their own, but what I’d like to talk about are the ways that some of the findings were illustrated.  Let’s start with basic STD rates.

One in five people in the US has an STD.  One in four high school girls has an STD.

Question: What is a little off about these images?

Answer: The first, generic finding is represented with the universal male.  “People,” we can assume, refers to human beings: male, female, or any other label one chooses to apply.  But all of these people are represented by the male silhouette.  We know this is the male silhouette because the female silhouette, as displayed in the high school girls illustration, is pink rather than gray, wears a cute little triangle dress, and holds hands with her neighbors rather than keeping her arms to her sides.

.

One in two sexually active youth will contract an STD by age 25

Then there are the youth of the US.  Like “people,” we’ll assume that “youth” is intended to refer to individuals of any gender, likely under the age of 18.  We have returned to the universal male figure, but now the non-infected figure is pink rather than gray.  Who knows what to make of this.

.
Fifteen new STD cases are reported every week from porn actors and actresses

Ah, then we bring porn into this and our gendered but sexless little figures bust out the hip-out, blowing hair, stiletto-heeled pose.  Suddenly the generic leaps from male imagery to female imagery, and a very sexualized female at that.  Because this is the image that porn brings to mind.

What else did you notice in these illustrations?  Any other hidden stereotypes or assumptions that I didn’t pull out?  (Hint: One statistic on race?  Really?)  Full chart down here

[This was originally posted on November 12, 2009.]

Although Tina Fey has let me down with 30 Rock, I am continually impressed with Amy Poehler.  Her straight-to-dvd film Spring Breakdown is much better than The Man wants you to think, although it does sort of feel like it’s more along the lines of A Night at the Roxbury or Superstar than anything in theaters today.

Amy and her friends go to Spring Break to keep an eye on the daughter of a political hotshot and protect her (mom, that is) from the press.  In the midst of the excitement, Amy and Rachel Dratch get pulled into the crazy partying, only to later realize the importance of true friendship and self-respect.

It’s kind of refreshing to see Spring Break mocked for its ridiculousness instead of paraded as soft-core porn, not to mention the beauty of a film about women that is about more than chasing a dude (although that is how they end up there in the first place…).  Either way, I recommend Spring Breakdown if you liked the SNL Feature Films of the 90s, or if you like your women short, sassy, and spunky.

This post is a soapbox, but bear with me.  I didn’t hide it behind a cut because it’s not something that I feel like I should hide behind a cut, in my mind, my life, or my blog.  I beseech you to stick with it, it was an important experience for me.

Yesterday I gave a lecture on sex to 250 college students at a college that is 80% LDS (Latter Day Saints aka Mormon).  Then I gave it again to another 250 students.  The night before my lecture I did some feminist reading to pump myself up.  This was apparently a bad idea, as I proceeded to pass the night restlessly, having nightmares about my lecture turning into a riot over abortion.  The class wouldn’t listen to me, and parents of kids from my high school youth group harassed and condemned me.  Whoa.

The lecture itself went fine (both times).  About two thirds of the students attended, and probably only 8-10 got up and left in the midst of the lecture (less than when I gave the same lecture last semester).  A handful stayed after each period, some to challenge what I had said (which is both fair and welcome), and others to shake my hand and thank me for discussing what is here a very (very) taboo subject.

The lecture begins with myths and truths about sexual motivation factors, such as hormones, drugs and alcohol, erotic materials (porn!), attraction to partner, cultural values and meaning, and evolutionary perspectives.  Part two of the lecture targets sex crimes: the differences between sexual assault (umbrella term for many sexual offenses) and rape (specific form of sexual assault).  I discuss prevalence rates, stats about the relationships between victims and rapists (stranger rape vs. date rape, acquaintance rape, marital rape, etc.).  I emphasize that rape is about power and control and their arousing properties, not sexual desire, citing the example that in this state the youngest reported rape victim is 2 months old, the oldest 94 years.  I discuss how to help a survivor, what to say, what not to say, and list campus and community resources.  Then shit hits the fan.

Some people leave when I bring up porn.  Some people leave when I indicate that rape is not a rare crime.  But the real exodus begins when we start discussing sexual orientation as a spectrum rather than a binary system.  I discuss the differences between biological/physical sex and gender identity.  I discuss the differences between sexual identification and sexual orientation or attraction.  I discuss how these constructs don’t always “match.”  Then we experiment with the Kinsey scale, discussing the possible 0-6 ratings of a series of individuals in vignettes (including research findings that suggest greater arousal to gay porn in homophobic versus nonhomophobic straight men – another exodus from the classroom) to illustrate the point that fitting people into boxes isn’t as easy or effective as we’d like.  Next, I ask students to generate a list of factors that they consider to be involved in determining sexual orientation.  What makes someone gay?  What makes someone straight?  I don’t ask students to discuss these ideas out loud, because things get wildly out of hand when this occurs.  Instead, I discuss the evidence for and against elements like environmental, biological, and cultural factors.  I conclude that these research findings suggest that “reparitive therapy” – attempts to cure someone of same sex attraction – is not possible, and does more harm than good: a stance that is supported by numerous professional associations including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, and National Association of Social Workers.

Is it a perfect lecture?  Certainly not, and I’d give just about anything for the department to let me teach the sex and gender class (which is offered only once every-other year).  But its worth it.  Terrifying at times, but worth it.  And once I’m up there talking about sex, sharing new perspectives, and shaking up taboos I love it.  I love the students that stay after to ask more questions respectfully.  I love the students that shake my hand and thank me for introducing and briefly discussing rape and GLBTQ issues respectfully.  I love that I can create an atmosphere for 50 minutes in which students can feel safe.

But yesterday there was a moment that I didn’t feel safe.  Between the two lectures an older gentleman in the second section approached me about what he heard during the tail end of the first lecture.

“So this is a lecture about being gay, then,” he said.

“Actually, it’s about sexual drives -” I began.

Dude: “Are you gay?”

Me: “- sexual motivations -”

Dude: “Are you gay?”

Me: ” – sex crimes -”

Dude:  “Are you gay?”

Me:  “Will you let me tell you what the lecture is about?”

Dude:  “Will you answer my question?”

By this time other students were trying to get the guy to back off.  “Why does it matter?” they kept asking him.  I held my own – I explained what the lecture was about, that the professor had asked me to present on these topics (Dude: “This is not in the syllabus, you know that?  This is not in the course description,” repeat x10), and that he was not by any means required to stay.  He kept asking if I was gay.  He wanted to know my “angle.”  I wish I had said “Sir, would you feel comfortable answering that question with such interrogation?”  I wish I had said “Sir, can you explain to me how that is relevant?”  Instead I said “I’m currently in a committed relationship -” he has a knowing and disapproving look on his face “-with a male.”  Commence eyes bugging out of said dude’s head.  I continued, “I have never been in a relationship with a woman, but I see no problems with that.”

He concluded that I was an “advocate” (apparently that’s a bad thing?) and proceeded to inform me that this information is not in the textbook (it is) and won’t be on the test (it may) and is not outlined in the syllabus (neither is classical conditioning, Freudian theory, or a multitude of other specific Psych 101 topics), and that he would be leaving.  I thanked him (and thanked god that that was over and I wouldn’t have to put up with him through the next 50 minutes).

Students thanked me after class for this and apologized for their classmate.  I was happy to face off with him – defending my sexual orientation or my beliefs about sexual orientation is something that I rarely have to do and a burden that I will gladly bear when I can in the hopes that others might not have to, even for five minutes.

Was is as bad as my nightmare?  No, it was fabulous.  It was empowering.  It was inspiring.  But it sucktd that that could happen.  It sucks to be bullied by a student.  It sucks to face off with hatred, because it sucks that that kind of hatred exists.

Straight from io9, who said it better than I could:

Big, beautiful, lusty women. Gorgeous, gigantic, muscled men. Fantastic animals and larger-than-life settings. This is the wonderful world of Molly Crabapple: the woman who married art and burlesque and watched them make beautiful music together with Dr. Sketchy’s Anti-Art School.

Dr. Sketchy’s Anti-Art School is an amazing event. Roughly twice a month (in the NY location) artists come to sketch live models, but not just any live models, actual cabaret performers. Skits, performances, music, all kinds of festivities. So much more than just a bunch of artists sketching models.

The World of Molly Crabapple contains artists and performers from all walks of life. Her vibrant images capture happy, smiling people that we’d like to get to know. Not just the most beautiful women around but also circus performers, muscle-men and lots of other interesting characters. You will notice that many of these pieces show their subjects on stage, with adoring fans surrounding them.

As you can see… Molly likes to put lots and lots of characters into her work. An image is packed with detail. You can look at these pictures all day long and still not see all the cool touches in them.

Pretty flippin’ sweet.  Be sure to check out more of Molly’s work at her personal site,  and learn more about Dr. Sketchy’s Anti-Art School.  Mad shoutouts to io9 for this one!

It’s like Lady Gaga is doing something new and fabulous every time I turn my computer on.  I love it.

“Everyone has that… phone call of, “Oh my gosh, you won’t believe what I did last night. I was so stupid I didn’t use a condom,” and there’s all this laughter on the phone… I’ve gotten those phone calls, and it’s our job as friends to one another to say, “I don’t know why you’re laughing because it’s very serious. I really don’t feel there’s enough women who are educated about AIDS, how quickly it’s spreading, how dangerous it really is, how many people really have it, and we want to do good jobs as women who represent a sexual community and a strong independent group.”

For reals.  Too.  Cool.  I love how she’s using her fame to get important social messages across, and how she’s blowing everyone away in the process.  It’s like people thought pop stars couldn’t use their brains on their own.  Let’s shake it up!

More on their campaign at MAC Cosmetics, and additional coverage from Jezebel.

Lady Gaga fascinates me.  She makes me think.  I often find myself wanting to defend her, to whom I’m not sure.  I think she puts me on edge, makes me wonder why she does what she does, and I always come up with a self-satisfying answer.  Take her fashion statements for example.  They’re often… weird, to say the least.  They are revealing, bizarre, and often unattractive or even kind of hideous.  She does not dress like we typically expect our pop star/sex icons to dress.  And in an avant-garde, art club/theater kid misfit kind of way, that’s cool.  But I think it’s more than an angsty rebellion.  Lady Gaga’s fashion choices often make statements about how our society dictates female beauty.

Lady Gaga is thin, white, blonde, hairless…  She’s got the body of the pop star/sex icons of the last decade (Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, P!NK, Fergie, Mandy Moore, Jessica Simpson, Gwen Stefani… you know the mold), so she’s not scoring major points by presenting us with a new body type.  But what she does with that body is unusual.

Exhibit A: Body Shape

Despite having that “perfect” bod, Lady Gaga frequently distorts the way we see her body, using sharp angles, increasingly large shoulderpads, and poufs or wings to accentuate her hips.  Each of these things in moderation have been considered attractive/fashionable at one point or another, but the extremes to which she takes them have a distracting effect, creating a mismatched, unnatural body shape.

Read the rest of this entry »