On the morning of Tuesday, September 11th 2001 I had newly become a sixth grader. By that afternoon, my world had been rocked. I spent my entire childhood living in a Battery Park City apartment not even two blocks away from the Twin Towers. My home was destroyed that day and my sense of security in this city and frankly in this world was absolutely shattered. My family was fortunate enough to survive that day and to have started our lives over again but the hurt of the day will never leave me.
With that said, someone might assume that I would harbor prejudice against all Muslim people because the people responsible for the attacks were also Muslim. But I don't. Even though a huge part of my world was ruined on that day, I don't make the inexcusable mistake of associating all Muslim people with those who created terror that September morning. That's why I've been so shocked by the extremely negative response to the proposed Mosque that could be built 2 blocks away from Ground Zero. The other thing that gets me, which my mother articulated very well to me when we spoke of this, is that the title "Ground Zero Mosque" sounds just like a headline constructed by advertising executives sitting around a table, figuring out how to "brand" this story. The mosque will be at Park Place which is not on top of Ground Zero nor directly next to it. It's two blocks away. In New York real estate, we don't even go two blocks without multiple Starbucks' and Duane Reades.' 2 blocks in Manhattan terms means a WORLD of difference.
Leaving real estate aside, let's take a quick glance at the Constitution of the United States. You know, the principles that make us uniquely American. The rules we're all supposed to live by. The undeniable standards which we're supposed to hold ourselves to. Now if you don't like reading too much and it gives you a headache to go too deeply into it, then let's just look at the first one. The very first one says the following: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." What most people take this to mean is that you have the freedom to practice religion regardless of where you choose to worship. This means that all the people in downtown Manhattan and anywhere who are rejecting the plan to build a mosque near the site of the September 11th attacks are actually suggesting that the builders forego the first principle of the United States Constitution to make an exception...where there absolutely shouldn't be one.
While I believe that this very basic legal reason should suffice and should end all public discussion about whether this building should be built, there is clearly something deeper here. These protestors are asking for the prohibition of this building because it would be an official indication that the U.S. has declared Islam an un-American religion. The problems with this are limitless but here are a few key points that stick out in my mind: 1) how dare we declare anyone's religion unfit or unworthy when our good ol' American principles of liberty and freedom directly state otherwise?; 2) calling ourselves the land of the free and the home of the brave is rendered entirely useless when we try to place bans on people simply because they share the same religion or ethnicity as those directly linked to terrorist attacks; and 3) I'm so surprised that after years of trying to be PC and hide racism towards, oh I don't know, every minority race that exists in this country, people haven't figured out how to conceal their Islamophobia.
From another angle, let's think about this: after Timothy McVeigh blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995 (the largest terror attack prior to 9/11), no one said that all blond males in Oklahoma City should be banned from living in the area. The only time people are willing to blame an entire class of people for the actions of a few is when the criminal or criminals belong to a minority group.
In the times when I've watched the news long enough to sit through the stories about these protestors, I've watched people make comments like "this mosque is un-American" and "they can have a mosque wherever they want but just not here" and, my personal favorite, "we don't know which ones are the good ones and which ones are the bad ones." Now if the rules that define our nation allow us to practice religion freely, then no one religion can be persecuted as being "un-American". Furthermore, the second statement suggests that you can be free everywhere except for right here. Reminds me of when blacks were free to live however they wanted in their homes and go to school anywhere BUT with little white children. The people foaming at the mouth with signs of how their sons and daughters and cousins and fathers died that day have let their emotions, and not their knowledge of the rules of this society, get the better of them. Whether you personally feel comfortable with a religion or not, or use all Muslims as scapegoats in your own mind, you really shouldn't claim that you want to protect the rights and freedoms of the United States and enter a public sphere saying that some people just don't deserve that.
And the final statement about the "good ones" and the "bad ones" is the best because it illuminates the struggle that minorities continue to deal with in this country. When people start seeing bad apples in one group and using those examples to generalize about everyone who even remotely looks like those criminals, we've lost it all as a nation. I'm pretty damn sure that the potential mosque goers at this site will be no more like the terrorists that day than I am like any black criminal on Death Row.
We can't just bend the rules because this was a massive volume of people who died or because it shook up the nation or because it is "insensitive." A mosque and Islam have little connection to the terrorists who flew into the towers. It's not only embarrassingly racist and prejudiced to hold these beliefs but it's really shameful and inconceivable. Whether you feel personally comfortable with Islam or any religion for that matter, it is certain that it would be illegal not to build this house of worship on the grounds of religion alone. If the mosque isn't built, and didn't join the other mosques and churches that are already in the area, it should be because of zoning issues and financial reasons alone. I mean are we really gonna say a certain group of people should be less free to practice religion because people who looked like them once did something horrifically destructive? What the hell is up with that?
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Friday, August 6, 2010
In Defense of Men: A Look at Men in the Movie Industry
One of the joys of a liberal arts education is that you get to take random classes that will probably never serve you again save a few key moments. I realized the other day, though, that one of things I took away from my Psychology 1 class freshman year was the following phrase: "'is' does not imply 'ought'" While the professor was invoking Hume's wisdom to talk about the fact that though a certain genetic pattern may exist, it does not mean that it should necessarily demonstrate itself, I adapted the phrase to fit my own meaning. See, I was chatting with my younger brother who is the biggest movie guru on the face of the earth and I started asking him about movie trailers. I did my usual thing where I partially ask him a question and partially harass him about his response. Seems to me that if a Martian (yes, bear with me, a Martian) were to visit Earth and head to the nearest Loews, he/she/it would assume that most men are slobs and that women are beautiful props.
Movie trailers for films like the recent "The Other Guys" with Will Ferrell and Eva Mendes, "Knocked Up" with Seth Rogen and Katherine Heigl, "Dodgeball" with Vince Vaughan and Christine Taylor, and practically any Judd Apatow film paint comedy through very masculine lenses. And not strong, heroic, valiant lenses but rather slovenly and grotesque ones. Furthermore, this perspective also clouds dramatic and action film trailers like "Fast and the Furious" so much that it leaves very little room in the way of 3 dimensional female characterization: in a 45 second clip, 25 seconds are devoted to cheesy dialogue between men, 15 seconds are allotted for gunshots and explosions and 5 seconds are left for a hot babe to sashay sultrily through a room. It's a tried and true formula.
Typically, when I notice portrayals of women like this, I get a frustrated because they're just other instances of females being relegated to second tier roles. It wasn't always this way, though. Movies like "Marnie" from 1964 and 1961's "Breakfast at Tiffany's" centered on the female protagonists, with all of their flaws and endearing characteristics. There was no effort to hide their weaknesses or romanticize them but they were instead given the decency of being examined from all angles. Even movies in the 80's like "Sixteen Candles" focused on Molly Ringwald and all of the frustrations that come with being a teen girl. So when I started to question my brother about why it is that women aren't the focal point of many popular movies, whether comedic or dramatic, he gave a very simple and understandable explanation. He told me that the biggest demographic of tickets sales are men aged 18-30. Of course movies come from a very masculine perspective because they're primarily pitching to a masculine audience and, considering this is a capitalist society, that equation makes a hell of a lot of sense.
That's when I thought back to the "'is' does not imply 'ought" equation. Simply because movie goers tend to be male, does that mean that a female perspective should be left out? I mean, after all, women do make up 50% of the population so it seems like an odd omission to pretend that their only function is to be shrewish figures whose bodies men crave but whose opinions they could do without. But a story of sexism towards women is an old one, staler than that loaf of bread you've held onto too long in your kitchen cupboard. What really started to interest me, though, in that moment is how unfair these movies are to men.
I get, as my brother told me, that these types of films represent a fantasy: a man can be however disheveled he wants (in comedic films, that is) and get a hot chick. Who says, though, that men want to think of themselves that way? That they want to maintain the lowest common denominator of proficiency at life? No doubt, the prospect of being able to do as you want and act like you want is a freeing one but it doesn't represent men in a positive light. Is every man comfortable with the fact that a huge sector of media represents them as socially inept losers with little going for them and a sense of humor that doesn't transcend gender lines? In "Superbad," for example, the funniest bits of the film are when Seth Rogen and Michael Cera engage one another but as soon as women enter the equation, they feel the need to tone their banter WAY down. There's definitely truth to this sort of behavior but it doesn't feel idyllic to me.
If I were an average dude, age 18-30, I'd rather pay $15 to watch a movie where a basic dude with a basic job and basic hygiene gets a supermodel. Not a Jonah Hill, Michelin Man-look alike or an unclean looking Vince Vaughan type. And the worst part is that it’s not as though these movies are entirely humorless: in fact, they can be extremely entertaining. They would be ten times,funnier, though, if there wasn’t the added distraction of wondering how on God’s green earth Seth Rogen managed to make a modern, working woman like Katherine Heigl keep his baby after a one night stand. I wouldn't fantasize about being incompetent because that wouldn't reflect well on my membership in the male species and it wouldn’t speak highly of my standards for myself.
So as much as it bothers me as a chica to watch movies that turn people like me (i.e. those with breasts) into bobble heads or uptight princesses, I'd really like to see the movie industry paint a better picture of what it is to be a man. How is it that a male dominated field can't manage to balance relatable actors and a few redeeming qualities in its characterization of men? Dude, what's up with that?
Movie trailers for films like the recent "The Other Guys" with Will Ferrell and Eva Mendes, "Knocked Up" with Seth Rogen and Katherine Heigl, "Dodgeball" with Vince Vaughan and Christine Taylor, and practically any Judd Apatow film paint comedy through very masculine lenses. And not strong, heroic, valiant lenses but rather slovenly and grotesque ones. Furthermore, this perspective also clouds dramatic and action film trailers like "Fast and the Furious" so much that it leaves very little room in the way of 3 dimensional female characterization: in a 45 second clip, 25 seconds are devoted to cheesy dialogue between men, 15 seconds are allotted for gunshots and explosions and 5 seconds are left for a hot babe to sashay sultrily through a room. It's a tried and true formula.
Typically, when I notice portrayals of women like this, I get a frustrated because they're just other instances of females being relegated to second tier roles. It wasn't always this way, though. Movies like "Marnie" from 1964 and 1961's "Breakfast at Tiffany's" centered on the female protagonists, with all of their flaws and endearing characteristics. There was no effort to hide their weaknesses or romanticize them but they were instead given the decency of being examined from all angles. Even movies in the 80's like "Sixteen Candles" focused on Molly Ringwald and all of the frustrations that come with being a teen girl. So when I started to question my brother about why it is that women aren't the focal point of many popular movies, whether comedic or dramatic, he gave a very simple and understandable explanation. He told me that the biggest demographic of tickets sales are men aged 18-30. Of course movies come from a very masculine perspective because they're primarily pitching to a masculine audience and, considering this is a capitalist society, that equation makes a hell of a lot of sense.
That's when I thought back to the "'is' does not imply 'ought" equation. Simply because movie goers tend to be male, does that mean that a female perspective should be left out? I mean, after all, women do make up 50% of the population so it seems like an odd omission to pretend that their only function is to be shrewish figures whose bodies men crave but whose opinions they could do without. But a story of sexism towards women is an old one, staler than that loaf of bread you've held onto too long in your kitchen cupboard. What really started to interest me, though, in that moment is how unfair these movies are to men.
I get, as my brother told me, that these types of films represent a fantasy: a man can be however disheveled he wants (in comedic films, that is) and get a hot chick. Who says, though, that men want to think of themselves that way? That they want to maintain the lowest common denominator of proficiency at life? No doubt, the prospect of being able to do as you want and act like you want is a freeing one but it doesn't represent men in a positive light. Is every man comfortable with the fact that a huge sector of media represents them as socially inept losers with little going for them and a sense of humor that doesn't transcend gender lines? In "Superbad," for example, the funniest bits of the film are when Seth Rogen and Michael Cera engage one another but as soon as women enter the equation, they feel the need to tone their banter WAY down. There's definitely truth to this sort of behavior but it doesn't feel idyllic to me.
If I were an average dude, age 18-30, I'd rather pay $15 to watch a movie where a basic dude with a basic job and basic hygiene gets a supermodel. Not a Jonah Hill, Michelin Man-look alike or an unclean looking Vince Vaughan type. And the worst part is that it’s not as though these movies are entirely humorless: in fact, they can be extremely entertaining. They would be ten times,funnier, though, if there wasn’t the added distraction of wondering how on God’s green earth Seth Rogen managed to make a modern, working woman like Katherine Heigl keep his baby after a one night stand. I wouldn't fantasize about being incompetent because that wouldn't reflect well on my membership in the male species and it wouldn’t speak highly of my standards for myself.
So as much as it bothers me as a chica to watch movies that turn people like me (i.e. those with breasts) into bobble heads or uptight princesses, I'd really like to see the movie industry paint a better picture of what it is to be a man. How is it that a male dominated field can't manage to balance relatable actors and a few redeeming qualities in its characterization of men? Dude, what's up with that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)