I've had an addiction for roughly 4 years now. Unlike an addiction to drugs, shopping, alcohol, or even sex, there is no rehab for Facebook. I'm on the site regularly and it might be considered my number one extracurricular activity. It's a time to be weird and creepy (which I excel at) and to "reconnect" with those people who you see every day of your sad, sappy life. One of the funnier things about the site, though, is that I was invited by my friend to join as a sophomore in high school and can't really remember life before Zuckerberg's creation. Or rather the Winklevoss' creation that Zuckerberg manipulated and stole. See, on Thursday night or , more precisely, Friday morning I went to the midnight showing of The Social Network, the new movie out about the creation and development of Facebook which challenges all of our notions about where the site actually came from.
First of all, before that night, I'd never been to the Harvard Square movie theater, which is both a travesty and mystery given that I've been visiting this campus since I was wee. Somehow it was just one of those obvious things that I've never done (similarly, I'm a life long New York who's never been to the Empire State Building). But I finally got around to it in the most Harvardian way possible: I went with other Harvard students to a Harvard Square movie theater to watch a movie about Harvard students' shenanigans. How many times can I say "Harvard" in a couple sentences? The answer: many, many times. Anyhow, I thought the movie was absolutely fabulous.
There were clutch lines like "Mark, I have to study" to which Mark (played by Jesse Eisenberg) replied "No you don't. You go to BU" and the one where one of the giant, WASPy crew twins exclaimed, "I'm 6'5, 220 and there are two of me!!" I had a great time watching the movie's portrayal of the final club and social scenes on campus. I've seen many unfortunate things at parties here at school but I've yet to see girls in nothing but their underwear and heels at parties. Maybe I'm just not hitting up the prime spots on my Saturday nights. Part of the fun of watching the movie was dissecting which things felt realistic(like the social pressure placed on males to insinuate themselves into particular power circles) and which ones didn't (the buildings looked nothing like they do in real life).
I felt this way about the movie overall but there was one element of the film that got to me: Eisenberg's portrayal of Zuckerberg. It's like when you go to H&M and you look from across the room at a really cute gray sweater. It's everything you've been dreaming of and you know it'll complete that outfit you planned to wear to dinner next Saturday. Then you walk up closer to it and all the detailing is fabulous EXCEPT for the random patch of rhinestones along the collar. The collar is obviously a central part of the top and it will be seen by all but it's just not quite right. That's exactly how I felt about Eisenberg's portrayal of Zuckerberg.
If you wanna play a slightly autistic person, inhabit the person's slight autism. If you wanna be relentlessly obnoxious, be relentlessly obnoxious. If you wanna play a pathetic person, act as a pathetic person would. But how could it be, Eisenberg, that Zuckerberg was all three of these things but still social enough to ever have any friends? Don't get me wrong: Harvard has more than its fair share of weird and unfortunate humans. However,Eisenberg's portrayal makes the Facebook creator seem less like a socially challenged person and more like a maniacally brilliant man-child. Without seeing the movie, it's hard to communicate the difference between being a tool and being other worldly (in a bad way) but to me, the story didn't make sense because if in real life Zuckerberg was as unpleasant as he appeared in the film, he would have no social contact to speak of.
The oddity of his demeanor was especially distinct and bizarre when compared to the other characters in the film. Andrew Garfield's portrayal of Saverin as an innocent but likeable bystander made sense in the context of someone who'd been ripped off and JT's depiction of Sean Parker (a man who made and lost millions by stealing music and offering it to people for free) as a sleazy individual seemed believable. Armie Hammer captured what the Winklevoss' must have been like. But there was just something about Eisenberg that felt too forced and too robotic to me.
Zuckerberg is clearly a smart or at least clever man who figured out how to create a social networking site that would, in a few short years, revolutionize the way young people interact across the planet. It's interesting that the movie tried to at once demonstrate his creativity and passion for this website and at the same time focused on possibility that he ripped off the Winklevoss' original website. Was he inventive and brilliant or was he merely a thief? The movie doesn't really answer the question.
At the end they do tell us that the twins won a $65 million settlement, which you'll know, even if you struggled with arithmetic in grade school, means that each twin got $32.5 million. And I've heard they're still trying to go back for more. I mean, it's true, $32.5 million is chump change at the age of 25. However, I do think it's enough to get by on. Like you can maybe get some ramen with that and take your girlfriend out to Denny's with that twice a year.
This movie to me was funny because it showed the intersection between money, creativity and white male identity. It reflected the motivations behind these people's actions and the complexity of power structures: the Winklevoss's had money and social power while Zuckerberg had the creativity and skills not only to make his own website but to capitalize on their idea. In America, it doesn't matter whose idea comes first. As "The Social Network" reveals, the ability to enact an idea and to figure out a way to monetize it is the only thing that counts. Whether Zuckerberg's character was as putrid and weasely as the movie insinuated, one thing's certain: he's made his mark (haha, get it, that's his name...Mark...ok I'll stop) on social affairs. Does this mean that I have to be as relentlessly unbearable as Zuckerberg to get ahead in life/start a social revolution? Is that my only option? What's up with that?
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Friday, September 3, 2010
Brangelina vs. Aniston: A Look into Reproductive Rights
About a decade ago I watched this movie about a sullen chick who'd sort of lost her way and ended up in an insane asylum with some actual crazies. That movie was called Girl, Interrupted and technically starred Winona Ryder but more importantly centered around her friend Lisa, played by Angelina Jolie. I was a weird 10 year old/ I'm still weird but I had a real fascination with mental illness and with how media sources portrayed people who are colloquially referred to as "nuts." I found it even more interesting that Angelina not only played an insane woman in film but also seemed to have a few screws loose in real life, as well. She was kissing her brother, having major Daddy issues, wearing a vile of blood and, most pitifully, dating Billy Bob Thornton.
Cut to about ten years later and now the woman is juggling 6 kids, a career as an action film star, her peace work in foreign countries and a sex life with Mr. Brad Pitt! Things have certainly changed for her but it's one particular moment in her life that gets my attention: the moment when she "stole" Brad Pitt from Jennifer Aniston.
I'm clearly a devotee of celebrity gossip and of celebrity interviews and I always remember hearing that Brad Pitt wanted children. In fact, I think there is an American law that determines that it would be a crime for him not reproduce. It's there in fine print somewhere, I swear. The man's gorgeous. Jennifer Aniston, on the other hand, clearly didn't want to: didn't wanna be pregnant and didn't want to adopt as evidenced by the fact that she hasn't done so in the five years since this all broke out. May sound harsh but any woman who says, "no, no Brad Pitt, I'm holding out for someone better to be the father of my children (biological or not)" can't have it all together. That might've been a fair excuse while she was starring on "Friends" but after it ended, they still stayed married without having any babies. Then entered Angelina.
The reason I'm thinking about this now is because last night, I was speaking with two friends about the movie Salt. They both agreed (in jest) that Angelina was wrong to have taken a woman's husband and it got me thinking. What right does any spouse have to deprive the other of a child? Alternatively, what right does a partner have to force the other person to be a parent if he or she doesn't want to? They wisely asked me why I assumed that she even could have kids or didn't want to have children. They suggested that maybe at one point towards the beginning of their marriage they both wanted to be childless but he changed his mind or that maybe they planned for children and then she decided against it. Maybe there were fertility issues involved. Whatever the case may be, I don't believe that two people who are in love have to or should stay together if they have radically opposing ideas about having children.
They could've adopted children or been foster parents. There are a multitude of ways for people to become parents. But a few definite ways not to be a parent include not getting pregnant and not taking in children who aren't biologically yours. In the Jennifer-Brad-Angelina triangle, it's clear that after he left Aniston, he chose (along with Jolie) to become parents to a brood of children. Clearly he wanted to be a parent: no man finds a woman with two adopted children, stays with her as she adopts another and then proceeds to procreate twice more with her if he isn't interested in the job.
In the conversation we had, my friends did the crucial job of asking me to illuminate my point and why I believed so fervently that this shift in relationships was understandable and just. I didn't make the judgment call because I think women should all be babymakers or that I was trying to claim that women who can't have children are somehow less than women. The truth is, I would make the same assertion if a woman wanted to have children and her male partner didn't. This is not, at it's core, a question of gender issues. To me, reproductive rights and fairness are the focus of this debate regardless of whether the person is a man or a woman. Not to go all creepy and morbid (i.e. Angelina circa 1999) but the fact of the matter is that we are all on this planet for a limited amount of time and the closest any of us gets to immortality, should we desire it, is by reproducing our DNA so that it can be passed on for generations and generations or by sharing our personality traits with adopted children.
With that said, I feel that every person has the right to choose the best scenario that either allows them to pursue this possibility or to decide that he or she has no interest in doing so. What I don't think should happen, is that a person has these options limited on account of who he or she is partnered with. If two people are going along fine until they hit this very important issue and realize they wanted two entirely different things, I don't believe that each of these individuals ought to be obligated to stay with his/her partner for the sake of maintaining a relationship.
By no means do I want to downplay the importance of the love and mutual devotion between couples but I don't think it's reasonable to claim that Brad did the wrong thing by leaving or that Angelina was a homewrecker. It's hard to break something, in this instance, a marriage, that is truly and honestly unshakeable. Pitt should not have cheated on Aniston (in fact, that was his true crime) but his decision to leave a woman with seemingly little interest in childrearing for someone who shared his desire to be a parent makes perfect sense to me. Should we really be deprived of children or forced to have them because the person we love has other interests? Actually, how can we believe someone truly loves us if he or she doesn't want us to do the best we can to get things we want out of life? What's up with that?
Cut to about ten years later and now the woman is juggling 6 kids, a career as an action film star, her peace work in foreign countries and a sex life with Mr. Brad Pitt! Things have certainly changed for her but it's one particular moment in her life that gets my attention: the moment when she "stole" Brad Pitt from Jennifer Aniston.
I'm clearly a devotee of celebrity gossip and of celebrity interviews and I always remember hearing that Brad Pitt wanted children. In fact, I think there is an American law that determines that it would be a crime for him not reproduce. It's there in fine print somewhere, I swear. The man's gorgeous. Jennifer Aniston, on the other hand, clearly didn't want to: didn't wanna be pregnant and didn't want to adopt as evidenced by the fact that she hasn't done so in the five years since this all broke out. May sound harsh but any woman who says, "no, no Brad Pitt, I'm holding out for someone better to be the father of my children (biological or not)" can't have it all together. That might've been a fair excuse while she was starring on "Friends" but after it ended, they still stayed married without having any babies. Then entered Angelina.
The reason I'm thinking about this now is because last night, I was speaking with two friends about the movie Salt. They both agreed (in jest) that Angelina was wrong to have taken a woman's husband and it got me thinking. What right does any spouse have to deprive the other of a child? Alternatively, what right does a partner have to force the other person to be a parent if he or she doesn't want to? They wisely asked me why I assumed that she even could have kids or didn't want to have children. They suggested that maybe at one point towards the beginning of their marriage they both wanted to be childless but he changed his mind or that maybe they planned for children and then she decided against it. Maybe there were fertility issues involved. Whatever the case may be, I don't believe that two people who are in love have to or should stay together if they have radically opposing ideas about having children.
They could've adopted children or been foster parents. There are a multitude of ways for people to become parents. But a few definite ways not to be a parent include not getting pregnant and not taking in children who aren't biologically yours. In the Jennifer-Brad-Angelina triangle, it's clear that after he left Aniston, he chose (along with Jolie) to become parents to a brood of children. Clearly he wanted to be a parent: no man finds a woman with two adopted children, stays with her as she adopts another and then proceeds to procreate twice more with her if he isn't interested in the job.
In the conversation we had, my friends did the crucial job of asking me to illuminate my point and why I believed so fervently that this shift in relationships was understandable and just. I didn't make the judgment call because I think women should all be babymakers or that I was trying to claim that women who can't have children are somehow less than women. The truth is, I would make the same assertion if a woman wanted to have children and her male partner didn't. This is not, at it's core, a question of gender issues. To me, reproductive rights and fairness are the focus of this debate regardless of whether the person is a man or a woman. Not to go all creepy and morbid (i.e. Angelina circa 1999) but the fact of the matter is that we are all on this planet for a limited amount of time and the closest any of us gets to immortality, should we desire it, is by reproducing our DNA so that it can be passed on for generations and generations or by sharing our personality traits with adopted children.
With that said, I feel that every person has the right to choose the best scenario that either allows them to pursue this possibility or to decide that he or she has no interest in doing so. What I don't think should happen, is that a person has these options limited on account of who he or she is partnered with. If two people are going along fine until they hit this very important issue and realize they wanted two entirely different things, I don't believe that each of these individuals ought to be obligated to stay with his/her partner for the sake of maintaining a relationship.
By no means do I want to downplay the importance of the love and mutual devotion between couples but I don't think it's reasonable to claim that Brad did the wrong thing by leaving or that Angelina was a homewrecker. It's hard to break something, in this instance, a marriage, that is truly and honestly unshakeable. Pitt should not have cheated on Aniston (in fact, that was his true crime) but his decision to leave a woman with seemingly little interest in childrearing for someone who shared his desire to be a parent makes perfect sense to me. Should we really be deprived of children or forced to have them because the person we love has other interests? Actually, how can we believe someone truly loves us if he or she doesn't want us to do the best we can to get things we want out of life? What's up with that?
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
"The Good Ones" and "The Bad Ones": A Debate about the Mosque Near Ground Zero
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?
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?
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?
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Is it 2010 or 1950? Questions about Sexism in Modern Television programming
Sometimes I don't even know why I bother to watch TV anymore. The other day, I literally sat through an advertisement for a show about dwarfs who run a pitbull rescue organization. The head dwarf's name is Shorty. C'mon, son. It's the summer, though, and because I've been gainfully unemployed since my return from Espana, I've lapsed into turning on the 'set every now and again. I did that this past Sunday to disastrous results. Don't get me wrong. I love attractive, successful black men and I suppose the football player Chad Ochocinco is technically one of those. However, I do require that those same men not speak Ebonics and that they have some grasp on a language with an actual dictionary. Not so with Ochocinco in his new reality dating show, "The Ultimate Catch."
Better yet, I'd prefer if he didn't outsource his dating life to VH1 for a reality show. I mean I get it: how hot would it be to have a collection of hot singles hanging on your every last word? As I continued to watch the show, Heaven knows why, I found a few things interesting. Number 1: I don't buy this "I have no preference for a particular type of woman and anyway, people are too hung up on race" attitude that Ochocinco espouses. Out of 17 young girls, he picked 2 black women to be in his top 16 and the rest are mostly brunette white women. The man clearly has a preference and he should just own up to it. Issue number 2: what separates an attractive girl from her less attractive peers? I mean if we're gonna play this game of reverting back to the good ol' days when women existed merely for the benefit of men, can we at least establish a clear rulebook of how they need to look to do this? I've always been confused about what it is men find sexy. Clearly, the answer is that they like ALL types of women. Perhaps what I should really be asking is what is it that they find definitively unattractive? I've often heard guys talk about that "ugly chick" or that "fat girl" and then assumed that only absolute bombshells will suffice. But then I watch wonderful shows like this where the man picks both unequivocally beautiful girls as well as ones who look like they baked too long in the oven and my head starts spinning. And the real shocker is that he reacted to all of them, the pretties and the not-so-pretties, with the same enthusiasm.
Or maybe I should amend that: he DID show different levels of enthusiasm for each girl. As a matter of fact, he determined the ones he liked in a ranking system similar to one that you'd find in a March Madness bracket. This, to me, is even more tragic than Flavor Flav's show, the Bachelor or any other dreadful TV dating show. Not only are women assessed based on their looks, the number of times they make out with the main protagonist or how many bitch fests they get into with other women in their obligatory mansions. Here, the women are directly given a ranking, starting with 1-16 and paired up with another contestant so that they can be judged comparitively. Speaking of objectification in my prior post, I feel like this must be it. A man evaluating a woman, giving her a number according to his particular preference and then expecting those women to compete for his affection.....not too cute.
And it's really not too cute in 2010. The thing is, the minute I turned away from that show, I landed one of the many channels that routinely plays "Family Guy." I will admit, hands down, that some of the writing on that show is absolutely hilarious and brilliant. But there's definitely an undercurrent of disdain and agression towards women that's popular in a lot of male and/or masculine humor of a show like this. As if it wasn't sad enough to watch these treacherous looking women teeter on their heels as this man looked them up and down on VH1, here I am watching these shows with my mother as Peter says to Meg "You can't give up sex. You're what we call a 'Practice girl.'" Both my mother and I are Harvard educated women sitting in a room in the modern era with a Black President and our kind (aka womenfolk) are still being disparaged left and right.
I'm not such a wet blanket that I believe we should entirely abandon all elements of pop culture just to make sure no one's been offended.It's not enough, however, to simply say "shut off the tv if you don't like it." As long as someone's watching, whether it's me or your cousin Dan or any other random person, those things become filtered into our collective cultural conscience and affect they way we view and interact with one another.I would like to hear a strong argument from people who watch these shows without a critical about whether they'd want their future daughters to grow up with these subtle but omnipresent messages.Why can't I imagine a solid response? What's up with that?
Better yet, I'd prefer if he didn't outsource his dating life to VH1 for a reality show. I mean I get it: how hot would it be to have a collection of hot singles hanging on your every last word? As I continued to watch the show, Heaven knows why, I found a few things interesting. Number 1: I don't buy this "I have no preference for a particular type of woman and anyway, people are too hung up on race" attitude that Ochocinco espouses. Out of 17 young girls, he picked 2 black women to be in his top 16 and the rest are mostly brunette white women. The man clearly has a preference and he should just own up to it. Issue number 2: what separates an attractive girl from her less attractive peers? I mean if we're gonna play this game of reverting back to the good ol' days when women existed merely for the benefit of men, can we at least establish a clear rulebook of how they need to look to do this? I've always been confused about what it is men find sexy. Clearly, the answer is that they like ALL types of women. Perhaps what I should really be asking is what is it that they find definitively unattractive? I've often heard guys talk about that "ugly chick" or that "fat girl" and then assumed that only absolute bombshells will suffice. But then I watch wonderful shows like this where the man picks both unequivocally beautiful girls as well as ones who look like they baked too long in the oven and my head starts spinning. And the real shocker is that he reacted to all of them, the pretties and the not-so-pretties, with the same enthusiasm.
Or maybe I should amend that: he DID show different levels of enthusiasm for each girl. As a matter of fact, he determined the ones he liked in a ranking system similar to one that you'd find in a March Madness bracket. This, to me, is even more tragic than Flavor Flav's show, the Bachelor or any other dreadful TV dating show. Not only are women assessed based on their looks, the number of times they make out with the main protagonist or how many bitch fests they get into with other women in their obligatory mansions. Here, the women are directly given a ranking, starting with 1-16 and paired up with another contestant so that they can be judged comparitively. Speaking of objectification in my prior post, I feel like this must be it. A man evaluating a woman, giving her a number according to his particular preference and then expecting those women to compete for his affection.....not too cute.
And it's really not too cute in 2010. The thing is, the minute I turned away from that show, I landed one of the many channels that routinely plays "Family Guy." I will admit, hands down, that some of the writing on that show is absolutely hilarious and brilliant. But there's definitely an undercurrent of disdain and agression towards women that's popular in a lot of male and/or masculine humor of a show like this. As if it wasn't sad enough to watch these treacherous looking women teeter on their heels as this man looked them up and down on VH1, here I am watching these shows with my mother as Peter says to Meg "You can't give up sex. You're what we call a 'Practice girl.'" Both my mother and I are Harvard educated women sitting in a room in the modern era with a Black President and our kind (aka womenfolk) are still being disparaged left and right.
I'm not such a wet blanket that I believe we should entirely abandon all elements of pop culture just to make sure no one's been offended.It's not enough, however, to simply say "shut off the tv if you don't like it." As long as someone's watching, whether it's me or your cousin Dan or any other random person, those things become filtered into our collective cultural conscience and affect they way we view and interact with one another.I would like to hear a strong argument from people who watch these shows without a critical about whether they'd want their future daughters to grow up with these subtle but omnipresent messages.Why can't I imagine a solid response? What's up with that?
Monday, July 19, 2010
Globalization and Objectification Pt. 2: Morocco
I love the times in life when you're handed lemons and you choose to go to Morocco. One such time came approximately 4 Fridays ago when I decided to participate in a tour of three Moroccan cities named Tanger, Tetuan and Chefchaouen for a weekend. After hours of bus and boat travel, I finally reached Africa. This was my second time in the Motherland. What I came to realize, though, was that this African nation was nothing like South Africa, which I had traveled to three years prior. In fact, the entire weekend I was there, I only saw about 3 other people with black skin. I was also made aware of the rarity of my visit and presence as a black American in Morocco by several people on my trip.
Thankfully, all of their comments and jokes were in good fun and never meant to harm me. But I did find it hilarious that our tour guide and his companion insisted on calling me their "Soul Sister" and that other men in the streets felt comfortable re-naming me "Mama Africa" and "Obama." The irony was priceless: I was being reminded that I'm black more openly in Africa than in any other place I've ever been. No this wasn't the Africa where people had been segregated into different castes with a system of separation and degradation. I wasn't in a post-Apartheid African country. I was just as much (if not more) an anomaly in Spanish-Arabic Morocco as I am living on the Upper West Side of New York City. And yet there was something playful about the black American and Arabic Moroccan dynamic that I encountered in those few days.
I had an extreme connection to them because the African continent is something that we, meaning myself and the Moroccan people, hold close to our hearts. However, we felt that way for very different reasons. For them, it's their homeland but we definitely don't share a racial identity. For me, merely being on African soil had an almost indescribable significance, as if I had returned to sites close to "home."
As I started thinking through my days and my time there, it really dawned on me that there are definitely some values and interests that are shared between Western and non-Western cultures. Morocco and the U.S. had similar, yet vastly different opinions of me: they both agree that I'm black and somehow an "other," but while Morocco celebrates that,the U.S. has yet to make up its mind about me. Similarly, the two countries share a bit of pop culture. My guide insisted that he be called Michael Douglas because he knew in his blessed heart that he was the actor’s doppelganger and said he was looking for his Catherine Zeta-Jones. The weekend was filled with similar antiquated pop culture references that would've been fitting 10 years ago and I was charmed by every last one of them.
It's really creepy and hilarious at the same time to think of two wildly different nations sharing some of the same cultural and racial images. Why is that wherever an American travels, she can't go long without being reminded of some element of U.S. life? Our American tentacles reach all corners of the globe, whether the women in that country are culturally and socially permitted to show their faces in public or not. Sure, they had to try to establish connections to us in order to make us feel comfortable in their environment and so that we'd be more inclined to buy one of their beautiful but overpriced rugs. But it strikes me as odd that in order for us to get on the same page, we harkened back to U.S. idols and delicious U.S. presidents( I do intend to be Mrs. Obama one day....sorry, Michelle) in order to feel each other out rather than Moroccan public figures. At the risk of sounding very naive, I'll ask this: why the hell do they know so much more about intrinsic parts of American culture (our racial schizophrenia, our utter OBSESSION with Michael Douglas, the list goes on....)while our only image of North Africa and of Arabic countries in general is either of war zones, burqas and Aladdin? Furthermore, how is it that no matter whether I travel to North Africa or stay in the U.S., the very fact of my existence is a constant source of curiosity to all those I encounter (as evidenced with silent stares or elated shouts of "Baila, baila, Morena!"= "Dance, dance, Black girl!" in Chef Chaouen)? More importantly, now that I've returned to the States, why should I be deprived of the pleasure of being called Mama Africa every 20 minutes? Life's really just so unfair. What's up with that?
Thankfully, all of their comments and jokes were in good fun and never meant to harm me. But I did find it hilarious that our tour guide and his companion insisted on calling me their "Soul Sister" and that other men in the streets felt comfortable re-naming me "Mama Africa" and "Obama." The irony was priceless: I was being reminded that I'm black more openly in Africa than in any other place I've ever been. No this wasn't the Africa where people had been segregated into different castes with a system of separation and degradation. I wasn't in a post-Apartheid African country. I was just as much (if not more) an anomaly in Spanish-Arabic Morocco as I am living on the Upper West Side of New York City. And yet there was something playful about the black American and Arabic Moroccan dynamic that I encountered in those few days.
I had an extreme connection to them because the African continent is something that we, meaning myself and the Moroccan people, hold close to our hearts. However, we felt that way for very different reasons. For them, it's their homeland but we definitely don't share a racial identity. For me, merely being on African soil had an almost indescribable significance, as if I had returned to sites close to "home."
As I started thinking through my days and my time there, it really dawned on me that there are definitely some values and interests that are shared between Western and non-Western cultures. Morocco and the U.S. had similar, yet vastly different opinions of me: they both agree that I'm black and somehow an "other," but while Morocco celebrates that,the U.S. has yet to make up its mind about me. Similarly, the two countries share a bit of pop culture. My guide insisted that he be called Michael Douglas because he knew in his blessed heart that he was the actor’s doppelganger and said he was looking for his Catherine Zeta-Jones. The weekend was filled with similar antiquated pop culture references that would've been fitting 10 years ago and I was charmed by every last one of them.
It's really creepy and hilarious at the same time to think of two wildly different nations sharing some of the same cultural and racial images. Why is that wherever an American travels, she can't go long without being reminded of some element of U.S. life? Our American tentacles reach all corners of the globe, whether the women in that country are culturally and socially permitted to show their faces in public or not. Sure, they had to try to establish connections to us in order to make us feel comfortable in their environment and so that we'd be more inclined to buy one of their beautiful but overpriced rugs. But it strikes me as odd that in order for us to get on the same page, we harkened back to U.S. idols and delicious U.S. presidents( I do intend to be Mrs. Obama one day....sorry, Michelle) in order to feel each other out rather than Moroccan public figures. At the risk of sounding very naive, I'll ask this: why the hell do they know so much more about intrinsic parts of American culture (our racial schizophrenia, our utter OBSESSION with Michael Douglas, the list goes on....)while our only image of North Africa and of Arabic countries in general is either of war zones, burqas and Aladdin? Furthermore, how is it that no matter whether I travel to North Africa or stay in the U.S., the very fact of my existence is a constant source of curiosity to all those I encounter (as evidenced with silent stares or elated shouts of "Baila, baila, Morena!"= "Dance, dance, Black girl!" in Chef Chaouen)? More importantly, now that I've returned to the States, why should I be deprived of the pleasure of being called Mama Africa every 20 minutes? Life's really just so unfair. What's up with that?
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Globalization and Objectification Pt. 1: Spain
Primero: Viva Espana!! So happy that Spain won the World Cup! Now, on to more important matters. If you know me, you know that I’m not big on sports. Sure, I watch Yankees games with my Dad when I’m home, know basic rules to most sports and have played (bench warmer) on a few high school teams but you won’t find me seeking sports out in my day-to-day life. That’s why I find it incredibly funny that the first time I actually cared to know what was going in the sports world was when I spent this past June in Spain studying abroad for part of the summer. Generally, if I have any interest at all in a team or in a game it’s mostly because I want to know more about the players...you know, as people. I’ve generated several theories about these guys, especially one a few years ago about how Melky Cabrera and Robinson Canoe were secret gay lovers. And about how Jason Giambi was manic-depressive. And about why black basketball players only marry white women. But these are stories for another time. My main point is that the only way I’ve been able to get into sports in the past is by envisioning the life stories of those who played them. Not so in this case: I was only in it for pure “objectification” purposes.
What better way to celebrate the diversity of people on this planet then by seeking out the hottest soccer players from 32 teams around the globe? I mean there were dark ones, thin ones, ripped ones, short hair, braided hair, brown eyes, green eyes-- there was really just a lot of beauty to take in at once. Yes, sometimes I did want to know where the players were from and how they got to this point but, more importantly, I just wanted them to take their shirts off every now and again.
Let me take a step back, though. The reason I put the term “objectification” in quotes is because I hesitate to use that word as freely as other people tend to sometimes. Objectification is most definitely a real phenomenon but it doesn’t mean that something bad or dirty has happened every time someone appreciates another person’s body. For example, as I was sitting in a room with a group of Spanish men and American women watching the match between Spain and Honduras a few weeks ago,I looked over to the girls and said “I love objectifying men" with glee as if this was some type of revenge for all the women in the world who’ve been gawked and stared at throughout their lives. At the time I felt I was objectifying them by the very act of watching them run around and insisting in my own head that they were nothing more Adonises. Indeed,in my mind, I had done what men do to women all the time: I had turned them into desirable objects.
But question: isn’t our status as sexual beings a large part of what makes us human (and not inanimate)? We got here because our parents had sex. In fact, besides test tube babies, everyone on the planet who’s ever lived came as a result of sex. It’s not something to shy away from or think of as some nasty part of us. I don’t think that the mere act of appreciating the physical qualities of a man or woman constitutes as "objectification." It just seems like a term that is thrown around to loosely and that it waters down the potency of what it actually means to shape someone into a thing or a tool rather than a being.
To make this distinction a little bit clearer, let me use some real world examples. I spent a month in Spain and had more compliments thrown my way simply walking down the street than I ever have in my 20 years living in the US. Whether it was the the novelty of it or my general excitement to be living in a new place, I never felt as if I’d been turned into an object just because people were reacting to my presence. I was just being me, walking down the street and if someone cared to holler, that didn’t diminish my human value in anyway shape or form.
On the other hand, there are definite times when women (and sometimes men) are looked at purely as objects, and at these moments, objectification becomes a real issue. Video vixens, for example, act as if the only thing they live for is sex and pleasing men. No surprise here: that's their job. I'm not trying to pass a moral judgment on their professions but I am willing to say that they allow themselves to be portrayed as accessories for men's fantasies. None of these rappers seem to value what pleases these women or how they can work to mutually turn each other on. The women, like props, are in the background of the scenes to make the male leads seem extra capable and attractive. Whether the man looks like Rick Ross or Nelly, all women around them are (unrealistically) excited to be in the shot, just to be near a rap star. Whether the sexy scenario makes sense or not, there they are. The video girls in skimpy clothes are just dying to turn around and back that thang up for whoever can get them on TV.
In thinking about this term objectification, there are definitely many loopholes and subtleties that are difficult to discern but if I can try to illuminate it, I think this is it: when I watch teams of beautiful men doing what it is they love the most (i.e. playing soccer), it’s not designed so that I look upon them with lust. If it happens, that’s simply a byproduct. If instead they went out into the field and started flexing particular muscles to an all female and homosexual male crowd, then that’d be a different story. They would then be purposefully acting in a way that demonstrated that they knew how they were supposed to perform in order to excite other people. Likewise, if a man notices and comments on a woman's beauty with a "Que Bonita"without an expectation of her doing anything in return for the compliment,this is not objectification. If, on the other hand, he says, he whistles and says "Hey yo, Ma, can I talk to you for a second?" with an expectation that she walk over to him, that's, again, a different story.
There's room for us as sexual beings to notice and appreciate the beauty of others without looking at them purely as our playthings. Attraction is fun but using someone isn't. These are difficult topics to wrestle with and I wish I could be more clear. Why am I always looking for a clear cut, black and white explanation, though? What's up with that?
What better way to celebrate the diversity of people on this planet then by seeking out the hottest soccer players from 32 teams around the globe? I mean there were dark ones, thin ones, ripped ones, short hair, braided hair, brown eyes, green eyes-- there was really just a lot of beauty to take in at once. Yes, sometimes I did want to know where the players were from and how they got to this point but, more importantly, I just wanted them to take their shirts off every now and again.
Let me take a step back, though. The reason I put the term “objectification” in quotes is because I hesitate to use that word as freely as other people tend to sometimes. Objectification is most definitely a real phenomenon but it doesn’t mean that something bad or dirty has happened every time someone appreciates another person’s body. For example, as I was sitting in a room with a group of Spanish men and American women watching the match between Spain and Honduras a few weeks ago,I looked over to the girls and said “I love objectifying men" with glee as if this was some type of revenge for all the women in the world who’ve been gawked and stared at throughout their lives. At the time I felt I was objectifying them by the very act of watching them run around and insisting in my own head that they were nothing more Adonises. Indeed,in my mind, I had done what men do to women all the time: I had turned them into desirable objects.
But question: isn’t our status as sexual beings a large part of what makes us human (and not inanimate)? We got here because our parents had sex. In fact, besides test tube babies, everyone on the planet who’s ever lived came as a result of sex. It’s not something to shy away from or think of as some nasty part of us. I don’t think that the mere act of appreciating the physical qualities of a man or woman constitutes as "objectification." It just seems like a term that is thrown around to loosely and that it waters down the potency of what it actually means to shape someone into a thing or a tool rather than a being.
To make this distinction a little bit clearer, let me use some real world examples. I spent a month in Spain and had more compliments thrown my way simply walking down the street than I ever have in my 20 years living in the US. Whether it was the the novelty of it or my general excitement to be living in a new place, I never felt as if I’d been turned into an object just because people were reacting to my presence. I was just being me, walking down the street and if someone cared to holler, that didn’t diminish my human value in anyway shape or form.
On the other hand, there are definite times when women (and sometimes men) are looked at purely as objects, and at these moments, objectification becomes a real issue. Video vixens, for example, act as if the only thing they live for is sex and pleasing men. No surprise here: that's their job. I'm not trying to pass a moral judgment on their professions but I am willing to say that they allow themselves to be portrayed as accessories for men's fantasies. None of these rappers seem to value what pleases these women or how they can work to mutually turn each other on. The women, like props, are in the background of the scenes to make the male leads seem extra capable and attractive. Whether the man looks like Rick Ross or Nelly, all women around them are (unrealistically) excited to be in the shot, just to be near a rap star. Whether the sexy scenario makes sense or not, there they are. The video girls in skimpy clothes are just dying to turn around and back that thang up for whoever can get them on TV.
In thinking about this term objectification, there are definitely many loopholes and subtleties that are difficult to discern but if I can try to illuminate it, I think this is it: when I watch teams of beautiful men doing what it is they love the most (i.e. playing soccer), it’s not designed so that I look upon them with lust. If it happens, that’s simply a byproduct. If instead they went out into the field and started flexing particular muscles to an all female and homosexual male crowd, then that’d be a different story. They would then be purposefully acting in a way that demonstrated that they knew how they were supposed to perform in order to excite other people. Likewise, if a man notices and comments on a woman's beauty with a "Que Bonita"without an expectation of her doing anything in return for the compliment,this is not objectification. If, on the other hand, he says, he whistles and says "Hey yo, Ma, can I talk to you for a second?" with an expectation that she walk over to him, that's, again, a different story.
There's room for us as sexual beings to notice and appreciate the beauty of others without looking at them purely as our playthings. Attraction is fun but using someone isn't. These are difficult topics to wrestle with and I wish I could be more clear. Why am I always looking for a clear cut, black and white explanation, though? What's up with that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)