After half a year of putting off the inevitable, I finally did it: I watched Precious. To be fair, I had a lot of pre-conceived notions about what the film would be like because I had talked to so many people about it. I was biased and thought that it would make caricatures out of black mothers and play into stereotypes about black men's violence. I assumed that it wouldn't treat black poverty in an honest way and that it would sensationalize it. You know, I figured it would be over the top and use implausible story lines in a disturbingly bad way while talking about class and gender tensions within the black community. Turns out that all these prejudices I had were, unfortunately, true. I want to offer up a disclaimer: I am perfectly fine with the idea of making films that investigate the lives of poor black Americans. I find it problematic to try to shy away from these issues and I would welcome any film that gave identifiably human qualities and dimensions to its characters who experienced these types of tribulation. This film, however, does none of that and instead, it glamorizes pain and turn black women and men into monstruous figures who audiences can easily distance themselves from once they leave the theater. I don't care what anybody says about black art: it's always political in the way that it represents black people and it never has the luxury to avoid being a piece that is on display for both black and white consumption. Never. Whether it's pessimistic or cynical of me, I really do believe this. Anytime a text or a work of art is put out into the public sphere, it turns into a piece that serves to exemplify or represent black people. And I sure as hell don't want anybody, black or white, to look at Monique's portrayal of a black mother and to assume that she is an honest example of what black motherhood is.
Having grown up in New York City surrounded by black women of all different socioeconomic classes, I have seen a whole range of the way mothers treat their kids. There are the doting moms, the yummy mummies, the worn-out-Princeton-grad-I-should-be-in-a-work-environment-but-I-stay-at-home mothers, nonchalant young adult mothers, angry mothers who threaten to beat their kids but who subsequently spoil them with material goods and there are mothers who are just plain nasty. But within this spectrum, all of these women appear human to me. Being human involves a plurality of temperament and a range of emotions. Monique never moves beyond a constant grumble in the movie. She sounds like she's about to bark at any moment and she shows not one shred of love for her daughter or family in this film. Not one. In the moment that she does seem to be at peace, holding Precious' new baby, her sweetness fades and she does the unthinkable: she hurls the newborn across the room. I don't doubt for one second that there have been black mothers and grandmothers who act this way and who are this violent all the time. But I know, or I have to believe, in my heart of hearts that these women don't represent the majority of black maternal figures. The danger with a portrayal like this is that it puts this depiction out into the stratosphere for ignorant and semi-ignorant people to assume that this reflects what black mothers are like. I find it naive to assume that people with very little knowledge of black culture outside of pop references such as this movie (and there are many, many people like this) don't turn the media sources they see into generalizations about what black life is.
In addition to my visceral discomfort with Monique's demonstration in Precious, I really felt undone by the way the film packed on layers and layers of stereotypes without ever trying to dismantle them. One of the most heated subjects within the black community in America is the issue of skin color. Luckily enough, I did not grow up around black people who turned shades of skin color into an area of discussion or debate. It wasn't until I reached college that I started to hear people distinguish between those with lighter skin and those with darker skin. Since I've become more familiar with these ideas about standards of beauty and skin color, it's dawned on me that director Lee Daniels made a very poor choice in electing to have Gabourey Sidibe, who has a very dark complexion, play Precious while her beautiful and inspiring teacher is played by Paula Patton, who just so happens to be have light skin. Why does Daniels specifically choose to make the dark-skinned character be the one who is,arguably, substantially less attractive (facially) than the light-skinned woman? I don't care if the director is somehow toying with light vs. dark debates and trying to investigate them. He doesn't do it successfully and this commentary on the inherent beauty of all black skin gets quickly lost on audience members who Daniels' refuses to educate about this subject.
The other really unnerving component of Precious is that it is so intensely visual and bodily that it reinforces negative stereotypes about black bodies and people. Never in all the films I've ever seen involving white people has a female character been shown being raped. It's not like we hear about it in the background of this film and our imaginations are left to run wild. We watch the man's sweat drip off his body as he repeatedly forces his way into Precious. What makes this even worse is that the man is her own father. But if the story wasn't sensational enough, we get a part of the film where Precious is forced to sexually please her abusive mother. Sexual assault and rape are topics that are so deeply horrific that turning them into a spectacle like this is actually a terrible disservice to discussions and ideas about how to combat this rampant problem. It's not that I don't want the rape scenes to be part of the film or part of any discussions of these issues within the black community (because I don't always mind airing out dirty laundry if it can be done in a beneficial way.) I think these are truly important conservations or subjects to be broached but as soon as you turn something as grotesque as rape into a visual part of the story line, you remove its power. If the film can show everything, what makes the incestuous rape scene any more or less horrible than the scene in which Monique tries to throw a television set at her daughter? If the story is a monolith of horrendously egregious abuse, how can we distinguish between the nuances and differences of the awful things she encounters? Furthermore, in thinking about this film as a representative piece of work, it's unimaginable to think that a director would use these scenes to play into ideas about how terrible black parenting can be. Why do black people have to be the ones who have the moral duty to be "honest" about how horrible some of their parents are? Doesn't this burden ever fall on white people?
And another series of questions: Why does Precious' baby have a ridiculous name like Mongo? why doesn't Precious do anything but look down at the ground for the entire movie? what purpose does it serve to have her baby have Down Syndrome? why must she be illiterate? why must she be morbidly obese? why does she steal and subsequently eat an entire bowl of fried chicken until we watch her physically throw up all the food? why doesn't the girl smile until the 54 minutes into the film? why does her rapist father happen to be either sexually promiscuous enough or addicted enough to infect her with HIV? And why doesn't a gay black director notice that this sort amalgamation of stereotypes and negative portrayals has a detrimental effect on how black people are viewed? This time I'm really being dead serious: what's up with that?
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Monday, May 3, 2010
Warning: Dangerous Curves Ahead
I absolutely love this. So a few weeks ago, Lane Bryant released this commercial http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiGt6bjk0NM, which FOX and ABC banned because they deemed it too racy. Imagine that? A full, gorgeous, curvy woman being considered attractive. Not only attractive but too sexy to be shown on TV in her underwear. It may just be my imagination but I'm pretty sure I've seen Victoria's Secret advertisements all over various TV networks. Ones that look like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJAh8U11OsI&feature=related or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3thFA2Jmtc&feature=related .The problem isn't that American networks mind displaying women in their underwear. In fact, they do it all the time. The "problem" is when a certain kind of woman, one who is voluptuous and not abashedly so, is displayed as a sexy figure.
By banning this ad, these networks are sending very confusing messages. Is it that extremely slim women are not sexy enough to be banned from TV? Does that mean that stick figure women aren't actually sexy after all and that women with fuller figures are? Or does it mean that people aren't comfortable with the idea that curvy women not only enjoy their bodies but that many men love them, too? What I'm trying to ask is this: What are women "supposed" to look like? This sort of schizophrenic attitude towards the female figure drives many women crazy on a daily basis.
Now typically, if someone is advocating for plus size figures to be considered beautiful, they say that even women with "imperfections" are attractive. While I should be an advocate for body diversity and the worship of all shapes, I just don't buy it. Why can't anyone just say that curvy women who look built to reproduce are sexy? Why must we turn discussions of body types either into praise of "skinny, beautiful" bodies or, on the other end of the spectrum, a sentimental tale of loving yourself no matter what? Women with curves should be (and have for many centuries)considered ideal. I repeat: women with curves should be considered ideal. I hate the idea that voluptuous women say that they are happy with themselves in spite of not being the "perfect size 0". This assumes that they themselves aren't perfect the way they are. I think that this ad and the decision to pull shows us that women's bodies are constantly being policed both by men and by other women. I'm tired of it and I'm tired of the rhetoric of body acceptance and "being ok with not being perfect" Since when is starvation sexy or evolutionarily sound? Ladies, what's up with that?
By banning this ad, these networks are sending very confusing messages. Is it that extremely slim women are not sexy enough to be banned from TV? Does that mean that stick figure women aren't actually sexy after all and that women with fuller figures are? Or does it mean that people aren't comfortable with the idea that curvy women not only enjoy their bodies but that many men love them, too? What I'm trying to ask is this: What are women "supposed" to look like? This sort of schizophrenic attitude towards the female figure drives many women crazy on a daily basis.
Now typically, if someone is advocating for plus size figures to be considered beautiful, they say that even women with "imperfections" are attractive. While I should be an advocate for body diversity and the worship of all shapes, I just don't buy it. Why can't anyone just say that curvy women who look built to reproduce are sexy? Why must we turn discussions of body types either into praise of "skinny, beautiful" bodies or, on the other end of the spectrum, a sentimental tale of loving yourself no matter what? Women with curves should be (and have for many centuries)considered ideal. I repeat: women with curves should be considered ideal. I hate the idea that voluptuous women say that they are happy with themselves in spite of not being the "perfect size 0". This assumes that they themselves aren't perfect the way they are. I think that this ad and the decision to pull shows us that women's bodies are constantly being policed both by men and by other women. I'm tired of it and I'm tired of the rhetoric of body acceptance and "being ok with not being perfect" Since when is starvation sexy or evolutionarily sound? Ladies, what's up with that?
Friday, April 16, 2010
Nudity and the Fears of the Black Female Body
Anyone who's ever listened to or seen Erykah Badu knows that homegirl is crazy. Crazy in the good sense, though. From her ever evolving hairstyles to her tantalizing and reckless interviews(see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92GM851j20k) she's about as irreverent as they come. Since her infamous 1997 hit "On & On," I've fallen for her nutty and quirky antics. Those who are familiar with her know that she doesn't play by the rules of female stardom: she doesn't hypersexualize herself, she doesn't mind people thinking she's weird and her music typically has messages targeted towards the black community about its own strengths and weaknesses. That's why I find it so weird that when she dropped her most recent song "Window Seat," people went ape sh...ok mad, they were "mad" when they saw the video she made for it.
First of all: it's amazing. She starts off at the scene of JFK's assassination in Dallas with a recording from a reporter saying,"only a few minutes until he arrives," which gives the scene a sense of history. She continues with the lyrics informing her listeners of her own complexity. She claims on the one hand "I need you to want me....I need your attention" but then she qualifies that later by saying "don't want nobody next to me/ I just want a ticket outta town." She wants it all and I say let her have it!
The crux of the video is her decision to strip off her clothing. Now, it's clear that Americans have this mixed emotions about the human body and sexuality. We sell everything you could imagine with a 95% naked female body: razors, beer, watches. You name it and there's a scantily clad broad somewhere pitching it to you. But as soon as a woman in her late thirties with a slender but obviously mother-of-two type body strips down and removes that last 5% of her clothing that the other chicks don't, it becomes criminal. Reminds me of something from like 6 years ago...oh that's right. In 2004 when Janet Jackson's breast flashed the nation, some children's innocence was lost forever and the FCC got really up in arms. It was just awful, the worst of crimes, right? Wrong.
I just don't get it: how is fair to tease about sex and the body all day long but as soon as parts of a real body are shown (or even pixelated like in this video), our heads spin and we get angry? There is nothing inherently sexual about her strip down in this video. She's not pouting her lips or angling her hips out a la Gisele Bundchen. No, she's literally walking through the streets and taking clothes off like any of us might do before a shower. Ok hopefully we don't all fling our clothes around like that the way she does but you get the idea. The video asks us to think about what we're gonna do when presented with a natural nude body. Are we gonna immediately assume her actions are meant to be sexually appealing? Depending on our answers to the question, we then have to ask more questions: Is she just trying to shock us? Is it impossible for us to separate a female body from its potential to be used sexually? What of the fact that she's a black artist? Is she setting black women back? We're compelled to reflect on ourselves and our understanding of the significance of the body.
In many of the reactions I read online to this video and in the conversation I had with a few close friends, I realized that Badu is using her body as a test: are we gonna get hung up on how she looks (revealing our superficial interest in the configuration of her body and her violation of "the rules") or are we gonna move past it and understand that she's using her nude body as a metaphor to talk about the nature of being a vulnerable individual? At the end of the video, a shot rings out and Badu falls to the ground while the music stops and we hear her voice speaking the words, "They play it safe, are quick to assassinate what they don't understand/ they move in packs, ingesting every act of hate on one another/ they feel more comfortable in groups, less guilt to swallow/ they are us, this is what we have become afraid to respect the individual/ a single person or event or circumstance can move one to change, to love herself, to evolve." We find out after watching this expedition that all along, she was suggesting that people are quick to pounce on someone who doesn't fit the status quo and who are willing to stand out at the risk of attack.
The other part of the heated reaction I sensed was that people were disturbed by the idea that children were there to watch the scene unfold. My question, then, is the following, "Aren't we all naked underneath our clothes?" Nothing about what she was doing was sexual or intimate. She was literally walking down the street. Not writhing as we see (and, I might add, as many kids see nowadays) in many popular music videos, for example. She was walking. Of course it would be uncomfortable for parents to have to explain something like that to children but isn't that the job of parents? To explain the complicated nature of the world to their kids? It's kind of hard for me to get really upset about a supposed violation like that since I know that wearing clothes and depending on clothes to cover ourselves up is a social construct that is both very useful and aritificial at the same time. No, I didn't grow up in a nudist colony but part of me sees clothing as just another way we limit ourselves and in this video, I see no harm in her using the fact of her nakedness as a teaching lesson to viewers to get them to see how powerfully covering oneself up has infiltrated our collective consciousness.
My other issue, too, is that people get so upset when naked bodies are exposed because they believe that anything remotely relating to sex is distasteful while those same parents shove violent videos games into the Play Stations so their kids will shut up and leave them alone. We'll excuse violence or scenes of violence though they can literally train young children to think it's ok to physical harm people but as soon as a hint of nudity comes up, all hell breaks loose. When's the last time a butt cheek killed anyone? Never. And if you can find a time when it did, I will personally hand you $600,000 in a banana costume. Not.Gonna.Happen.
I hope that one day, seeing a real black woman's body, not one being objectified as a tool to make a rapper's video seem more glamorous or alternatively a blimp-sized Precious look a like, will be ok in America. I hope, too, that when we consider a person stepping outside the box and challenging our notions, we don't fail her test and get stuck on the debate about how her hips look. Unless it's sexualized or Mammy-looking (yes, I've taken a bunch of African American Studies courses recently), we haven't the first clue of what to make of a real looking black woman. Badu let's us know with the word "EVOLVING" scribbled across her back and her silly Rick James-wig-wearing self at the end of the video that all of these transformations in our awareness can change with a bit of humor, though. It's the right sort of attitude to take, given how serious we get about nakedness, and especially black nakedness, in our culture. I mean, how have we made it this far and forgotten how beautiful the black female body is? Why do we waste our time fearing it? What's up with that?
First of all: it's amazing. She starts off at the scene of JFK's assassination in Dallas with a recording from a reporter saying,"only a few minutes until he arrives," which gives the scene a sense of history. She continues with the lyrics informing her listeners of her own complexity. She claims on the one hand "I need you to want me....I need your attention" but then she qualifies that later by saying "don't want nobody next to me/ I just want a ticket outta town." She wants it all and I say let her have it!
The crux of the video is her decision to strip off her clothing. Now, it's clear that Americans have this mixed emotions about the human body and sexuality. We sell everything you could imagine with a 95% naked female body: razors, beer, watches. You name it and there's a scantily clad broad somewhere pitching it to you. But as soon as a woman in her late thirties with a slender but obviously mother-of-two type body strips down and removes that last 5% of her clothing that the other chicks don't, it becomes criminal. Reminds me of something from like 6 years ago...oh that's right. In 2004 when Janet Jackson's breast flashed the nation, some children's innocence was lost forever and the FCC got really up in arms. It was just awful, the worst of crimes, right? Wrong.
I just don't get it: how is fair to tease about sex and the body all day long but as soon as parts of a real body are shown (or even pixelated like in this video), our heads spin and we get angry? There is nothing inherently sexual about her strip down in this video. She's not pouting her lips or angling her hips out a la Gisele Bundchen. No, she's literally walking through the streets and taking clothes off like any of us might do before a shower. Ok hopefully we don't all fling our clothes around like that the way she does but you get the idea. The video asks us to think about what we're gonna do when presented with a natural nude body. Are we gonna immediately assume her actions are meant to be sexually appealing? Depending on our answers to the question, we then have to ask more questions: Is she just trying to shock us? Is it impossible for us to separate a female body from its potential to be used sexually? What of the fact that she's a black artist? Is she setting black women back? We're compelled to reflect on ourselves and our understanding of the significance of the body.
In many of the reactions I read online to this video and in the conversation I had with a few close friends, I realized that Badu is using her body as a test: are we gonna get hung up on how she looks (revealing our superficial interest in the configuration of her body and her violation of "the rules") or are we gonna move past it and understand that she's using her nude body as a metaphor to talk about the nature of being a vulnerable individual? At the end of the video, a shot rings out and Badu falls to the ground while the music stops and we hear her voice speaking the words, "They play it safe, are quick to assassinate what they don't understand/ they move in packs, ingesting every act of hate on one another/ they feel more comfortable in groups, less guilt to swallow/ they are us, this is what we have become afraid to respect the individual/ a single person or event or circumstance can move one to change, to love herself, to evolve." We find out after watching this expedition that all along, she was suggesting that people are quick to pounce on someone who doesn't fit the status quo and who are willing to stand out at the risk of attack.
The other part of the heated reaction I sensed was that people were disturbed by the idea that children were there to watch the scene unfold. My question, then, is the following, "Aren't we all naked underneath our clothes?" Nothing about what she was doing was sexual or intimate. She was literally walking down the street. Not writhing as we see (and, I might add, as many kids see nowadays) in many popular music videos, for example. She was walking. Of course it would be uncomfortable for parents to have to explain something like that to children but isn't that the job of parents? To explain the complicated nature of the world to their kids? It's kind of hard for me to get really upset about a supposed violation like that since I know that wearing clothes and depending on clothes to cover ourselves up is a social construct that is both very useful and aritificial at the same time. No, I didn't grow up in a nudist colony but part of me sees clothing as just another way we limit ourselves and in this video, I see no harm in her using the fact of her nakedness as a teaching lesson to viewers to get them to see how powerfully covering oneself up has infiltrated our collective consciousness.
My other issue, too, is that people get so upset when naked bodies are exposed because they believe that anything remotely relating to sex is distasteful while those same parents shove violent videos games into the Play Stations so their kids will shut up and leave them alone. We'll excuse violence or scenes of violence though they can literally train young children to think it's ok to physical harm people but as soon as a hint of nudity comes up, all hell breaks loose. When's the last time a butt cheek killed anyone? Never. And if you can find a time when it did, I will personally hand you $600,000 in a banana costume. Not.Gonna.Happen.
I hope that one day, seeing a real black woman's body, not one being objectified as a tool to make a rapper's video seem more glamorous or alternatively a blimp-sized Precious look a like, will be ok in America. I hope, too, that when we consider a person stepping outside the box and challenging our notions, we don't fail her test and get stuck on the debate about how her hips look. Unless it's sexualized or Mammy-looking (yes, I've taken a bunch of African American Studies courses recently), we haven't the first clue of what to make of a real looking black woman. Badu let's us know with the word "EVOLVING" scribbled across her back and her silly Rick James-wig-wearing self at the end of the video that all of these transformations in our awareness can change with a bit of humor, though. It's the right sort of attitude to take, given how serious we get about nakedness, and especially black nakedness, in our culture. I mean, how have we made it this far and forgotten how beautiful the black female body is? Why do we waste our time fearing it? What's up with that?
Thursday, April 1, 2010
An Oscar Curse? Or Just a Curious Phenomenon?
And the "Oscar Curse" strikes again: Sandra Bullock has decided to divorce her husband Jesse James after it was revealed in March that he slept with lots, and lots of other women besides the actress. I want us all to think about the main woman involved in this scandal, a one Ms. Michelle McGee. The woman has arm sleeves of ink and even has the word "Sinners" tattooed on her forehead to reflect the way we're all sinful (don't ask me how I know this....I just do). Of course I shouldn't rag on her too hard. I mean while she did let someone take a piping hot needle with ink to the front of her head, she did have the decency to keep her bangs over the tat...you know, to be modest. Gotta give her credit for that. Anyhow, when comparing women like McGee and the James' other ladyfriends (especially that fox of an ex-wife) with a woman like Sandra Bullock, the star of "Ms. Congeniality" and "The Marriage Proposal," I feel like I'm watching an episode of Sesame Street where they play that game "Which one of these things is not like the others?" James seems to like himself some *cough cough* adult film star-looking ladies. I don't begrudge him that. To each his own...beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that mess. But for the love of the Creator, why did he and Sandra Bullock ever get married in the first place?
There've been a bunch of sham marriages that we've watched crumble in the public eye. None of them seems quite as preposterous as this coupling, though, because the two don't seem compatible in anyway. She's been the average the American sweetheart type woman who isn't exactly sexayyy but who has the allure of being a mediocre talent, packaged to perfection. Let's put it this way: if you saw Sandra Bullock on the street without make-up and if she never became famous with the help of amazing PR people, no one would give a second glance at the woman as she walked down the street. Nothing wrong with that. I'm just saying that you'd be hard pressed to find any black female of equivalent attractiveness and talent in the spotlight the way she is and she definitely wouldn't be romanticized as a Hollywood darling. But that is a separate topic for a different blog post :) If we look at Jesse James, we get a totally different type of person. The man looks like he was birthed on the backseat of a Harley and his tattoos and bandana imply that he was raised in the backwoods of Alabama. Again, nothing wrong with that. It's just that he's definitely not the kind of man you wanna run into late at night after he's had a few beers. He also looks like a straight up hooligan in some recent photos from US Weekly as he poses like a Nazi, giving Hitler the ever important shout out. He's a real catch. Totally dreamy.
Now I have no particular affections for either of these two people and I really don't care for hearing about their problems. The one thing that DOES interest me, though, is that Bullock is now part of the supposed "Oscar Curse" where women who win the Best Actress award subsequently lose their significant others. Let's review, shall we? Helen Hunt and Hank Azaria's relationship crumbled after her win in 1998, Gwenyth Paltrow and Ben Affleck broke up a few months after her award in 1999, Julia Roberts and Benjamin Bratt's relationship fell apart after she won in 2001, Halle Berry lost Eric Benet to his sex addiction in 2002 (what a shame), Hilary Swank broke up with husband Chad Lowe in 2005, Reese Witherspoon split with Ryan Phillippe in 2006, and Kate Winslet filed for divorce from Sam Mendes after her win in 2009, etc. Regardless of whether these relationships fell apart in the weeks after the award ceremony or in the years following, it's interesting to entertain the idea of a "Curse." I like to think of it more as a question of power dynamics. Does a woman become less attractive once she enjoy great recognition for her work? Is having a partner's whose professional achievements grows with each new day inherently overwhelming to some men? Or do women who receive these sort of accolades disparage men who cannot do the same? Can't people be successful without the destruction of their personal lives? Really, what's up with that?
There've been a bunch of sham marriages that we've watched crumble in the public eye. None of them seems quite as preposterous as this coupling, though, because the two don't seem compatible in anyway. She's been the average the American sweetheart type woman who isn't exactly sexayyy but who has the allure of being a mediocre talent, packaged to perfection. Let's put it this way: if you saw Sandra Bullock on the street without make-up and if she never became famous with the help of amazing PR people, no one would give a second glance at the woman as she walked down the street. Nothing wrong with that. I'm just saying that you'd be hard pressed to find any black female of equivalent attractiveness and talent in the spotlight the way she is and she definitely wouldn't be romanticized as a Hollywood darling. But that is a separate topic for a different blog post :) If we look at Jesse James, we get a totally different type of person. The man looks like he was birthed on the backseat of a Harley and his tattoos and bandana imply that he was raised in the backwoods of Alabama. Again, nothing wrong with that. It's just that he's definitely not the kind of man you wanna run into late at night after he's had a few beers. He also looks like a straight up hooligan in some recent photos from US Weekly as he poses like a Nazi, giving Hitler the ever important shout out. He's a real catch. Totally dreamy.
Now I have no particular affections for either of these two people and I really don't care for hearing about their problems. The one thing that DOES interest me, though, is that Bullock is now part of the supposed "Oscar Curse" where women who win the Best Actress award subsequently lose their significant others. Let's review, shall we? Helen Hunt and Hank Azaria's relationship crumbled after her win in 1998, Gwenyth Paltrow and Ben Affleck broke up a few months after her award in 1999, Julia Roberts and Benjamin Bratt's relationship fell apart after she won in 2001, Halle Berry lost Eric Benet to his sex addiction in 2002 (what a shame), Hilary Swank broke up with husband Chad Lowe in 2005, Reese Witherspoon split with Ryan Phillippe in 2006, and Kate Winslet filed for divorce from Sam Mendes after her win in 2009, etc. Regardless of whether these relationships fell apart in the weeks after the award ceremony or in the years following, it's interesting to entertain the idea of a "Curse." I like to think of it more as a question of power dynamics. Does a woman become less attractive once she enjoy great recognition for her work? Is having a partner's whose professional achievements grows with each new day inherently overwhelming to some men? Or do women who receive these sort of accolades disparage men who cannot do the same? Can't people be successful without the destruction of their personal lives? Really, what's up with that?
Monday, March 15, 2010
Pimping Out Babies....When Enough is Enough
I’m going to need women to stop using their reproductive power as a way to gain fame. There’s the Octo-Mom, Kate Gosselin, the Duggar lady with her 567 kids and counting, the Pregnant Man who’s now on pregnancy number three. And then there’s this lady, Rielle Hunter. In 2007, news reports broke that Hunter, a film producer, had an ongoing affair with John Edwards. It’s now three years later and this woman has managed to stretch her fifteen minutes of fame out to the edges of the earth. She has a new spread in GQ Magazine with photos of her posing “seductively” (if that’s what we can call it) with the daughter she had with Edwards. Though it’s hard not to focus on the fact that Edwards was reckless enough to impregnate a woman while his wife was dealing with incurable cancer, it’s also alarming to think that this woman is actually surpassing his level of crazy. Why is this 46-year-old woman pimping out the evidence (read “her daughter”) of her affair in a men’s magazine years after the fact?
I always wonder about women who sleep with powerful men and then use that sexual experience as leverage to get their name in headlines. There are other ways, ladies, so many other ways. In one photo, the woman clasps the little girl to her as she dons a half shirt. Oooh sexay. Except not. Half shirts belong either in the 80’s or in the trashcan. But let me not get distracted here. I’m also perturbed by the way the woman tries to smize (and yes that means “smile with your eyes”; I’ll give Tyra Banks credit where credit is due) and appear sensual with her bed-head hair. As if to say “I’m important because I slept with this famous, powerful guy” she’s also placed in a bed with rumpled sheets because we ALL know what that means….
This story’s funny to me because it just makes no sense and it’s unfortunately not new either. No one should seek fame so much that they sleep with a man that she ought not to, discuss it constantly to different media outlets and then take pics with the baby that made us at all "interested" in the story. I don’t begrudge anyone the right to get pregnant when they want to but babies shouldn’t be used to make help Mommy get on the cover of magazines or to show up on Susie Reed’s newsfeed. Using your vagina to get famous? Not exactly unique. I guess if I could ask Rielle two questions they’d be the following: “You’re really gonna fall back on the oldest trick in the book?” and, more importantly, “What’s up with that?”
I always wonder about women who sleep with powerful men and then use that sexual experience as leverage to get their name in headlines. There are other ways, ladies, so many other ways. In one photo, the woman clasps the little girl to her as she dons a half shirt. Oooh sexay. Except not. Half shirts belong either in the 80’s or in the trashcan. But let me not get distracted here. I’m also perturbed by the way the woman tries to smize (and yes that means “smile with your eyes”; I’ll give Tyra Banks credit where credit is due) and appear sensual with her bed-head hair. As if to say “I’m important because I slept with this famous, powerful guy” she’s also placed in a bed with rumpled sheets because we ALL know what that means….
This story’s funny to me because it just makes no sense and it’s unfortunately not new either. No one should seek fame so much that they sleep with a man that she ought not to, discuss it constantly to different media outlets and then take pics with the baby that made us at all "interested" in the story. I don’t begrudge anyone the right to get pregnant when they want to but babies shouldn’t be used to make help Mommy get on the cover of magazines or to show up on Susie Reed’s newsfeed. Using your vagina to get famous? Not exactly unique. I guess if I could ask Rielle two questions they’d be the following: “You’re really gonna fall back on the oldest trick in the book?” and, more importantly, “What’s up with that?”
Sugar and Spice and a Pinch of Gender Bending
Let me be honest about one of my worst vices: I’m thoroughly hooked on, maybe even downright obsessed with celebrity blogs. I regularly check at least six of them (perezhilton, theybf, evilbeetgossip, etc). It’s an evil, dirty habit and I know I should stop. But sometimes these blogs actually have interesting commentaries on pop culture and things to say about one of my favorite topics: gender. Recently, I’ve kept noticing that multiple blogs have been talking about Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt’s golden child, Shiloh, and her “image.” They noted, as did Life & Style magazine, that Shiloh’s haircut is now short and that she dresses “like a boy.” The headline on the magazine even says, “Why is Angelina Turning Shiloh Into a Boy?” People, people, people...
Let’s start at the beginning: the child is pictured with a shorter cropped haircut, which (though incredibly unfortunate looking) is not an especially atypical haircut for a 4-year-old girl. She’s also wearing a yellow polo shirt underneath a gray V-neck sweater (I guess maybe the V doesn’t cut down low enough to hint at her future cleavage?) and some black pants. We actually have a term for this. She’s what we call a “tomboy.” Yes, she wears black and yes, she doesn’t wear $300 dresses every day like her counterpart, Suri Cruise. She’s a bit more rugged, a little bit more boisterous. It’s just her way. Maybe if we analyze this further, we could pin it on the fact that she’s one of six children and is trying to stand out. Or maybe this is a deeply personal expression of her identity. Or....she could just be a tomboy. I’m gonna go with option C.
I also just love the headline because it means that this is Angelina’s responsibility. It’s basically saying, “Angelina, you’re a mother, a woman and an especially beautiful, famous woman at that. Why are you intentionally leading your daughter astray?” or “why are you letting this genetically perfect little girl obscure her femininity?” First of all, why it Angelina’s task alone to guide her daughter’s femininity and not Brad’s? Second of all, what is wrong with a little girl not liking dresses? And third of all (and I think this might just be the most important question) why is this on the cover of a magazine?
Now, I’ve seen some pretty ridonkulous headlines in my day. Headline’s showing me how some 350 lb woman finally took charge of her life and lost half her body weight or how the finale of The Bachelor was such a shocker or about how some 40-something actress is finally free to be herself after splitting up with her third husband. But this just takes it to a new low: we’re now expected to pay $3.50 to learn the details about two famous people’s child and her gender-bending ways. Not about the celebs themselves who’ve actually worked on movie sets and starred in films. No, now we’re hearing about what clothes their first biological child is wearing. I mean I guess it’s actually hilarious because it means nothing new or important is going on the celeb world or even (gasp) in the REAL world. But dayum. We’re really up in arms about how a 4 year old dresses? I say, Shiloh, push all the gender boundaries you can with your badass, little kid self!! And for the haters who spend $3.50 to hear more about this story, I ask you this simple question: what’s up with that?
Let’s start at the beginning: the child is pictured with a shorter cropped haircut, which (though incredibly unfortunate looking) is not an especially atypical haircut for a 4-year-old girl. She’s also wearing a yellow polo shirt underneath a gray V-neck sweater (I guess maybe the V doesn’t cut down low enough to hint at her future cleavage?) and some black pants. We actually have a term for this. She’s what we call a “tomboy.” Yes, she wears black and yes, she doesn’t wear $300 dresses every day like her counterpart, Suri Cruise. She’s a bit more rugged, a little bit more boisterous. It’s just her way. Maybe if we analyze this further, we could pin it on the fact that she’s one of six children and is trying to stand out. Or maybe this is a deeply personal expression of her identity. Or....she could just be a tomboy. I’m gonna go with option C.
I also just love the headline because it means that this is Angelina’s responsibility. It’s basically saying, “Angelina, you’re a mother, a woman and an especially beautiful, famous woman at that. Why are you intentionally leading your daughter astray?” or “why are you letting this genetically perfect little girl obscure her femininity?” First of all, why it Angelina’s task alone to guide her daughter’s femininity and not Brad’s? Second of all, what is wrong with a little girl not liking dresses? And third of all (and I think this might just be the most important question) why is this on the cover of a magazine?
Now, I’ve seen some pretty ridonkulous headlines in my day. Headline’s showing me how some 350 lb woman finally took charge of her life and lost half her body weight or how the finale of The Bachelor was such a shocker or about how some 40-something actress is finally free to be herself after splitting up with her third husband. But this just takes it to a new low: we’re now expected to pay $3.50 to learn the details about two famous people’s child and her gender-bending ways. Not about the celebs themselves who’ve actually worked on movie sets and starred in films. No, now we’re hearing about what clothes their first biological child is wearing. I mean I guess it’s actually hilarious because it means nothing new or important is going on the celeb world or even (gasp) in the REAL world. But dayum. We’re really up in arms about how a 4 year old dresses? I say, Shiloh, push all the gender boundaries you can with your badass, little kid self!! And for the haters who spend $3.50 to hear more about this story, I ask you this simple question: what’s up with that?
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Mediocrity is the Name of the Game
If we're going to live in a world where we choose to idolize certain people we don't know (i.e. a world in which celebrity reigns supreme), we ought to look up to those who are actually special. People like Beyonce or Lady Gaga. People who are creative and who mix playful teasing with a splash of seriousness. People who can carry a tune and who exude confidence. People who (dare I say it) have real talent. In essence, people who are not Taylor Swift.
It's been about 3 days and I still haven't managed to pick my jaw up from off the ground after watching John Legend open the Grammy envelope and say that Taylor Swift won Best Album of the Year. Album of the Damn Year. Had anyone ever heard the song "Single Ladies" or listened to a track or two of "The Fame"? While Beyonce's album "I Am....Sasha Fierce" was not her strongest one to date, it's safe to say that in general Beyonce possesses more talent in her left pinky toe than Taylor Swift has in her entire body. Also, Lady Gaga put forth an album that was completely unique and has repeatedly challenged the music industry to re-think what is salable. Plenty of people dig what Lady Gaga has put out there in the music stratosphere in the past few years. And Beyonce will always be a queen (even if this last album wasn't her best showing). That's why I'm still so dumbfounded, confused, perturbed, upset...I could keep going...by this win. It makes no sense why this little girl won Album of the Year.
In truth, the song "You Belong with Me" is cute. I listen to it sometimes when I'm feeling ridiculous. I feel it. Especially the part where she goes "Standing by waiting at your backdoor/All this time how could you not know/ You belong with me?/ You belong with me" It's touching. But in Beyonce's song "Ego" she breaks out with the lines "Usually I'm humble, right now I don't choose/ You can leave with me or you could have the blues/ Some call it arrogant, I call it confident/ You decide when you find on what I'm working with/ Damn I know I'm killing you with them legs/ Better yet them thighs/ Matter a fact it's my smile or maybe my eyes/ Boy you a site to see, kind of something like me" It's pure fierceness! She's playing with the idea of male perspective, taking ownership of her own body and proclaiming the power she has an attractive, strong woman. All in a playful way, of course.
Similarly, Lady Gaga's song "Money Honey" is an incredibly fun song with a bit of edge to it. She says, "Thats money honey/ Well I'm your lover and your mistress/Thats money honey/When you touch me, its so delicious/Thats money honey/Baby when you tell me the pieces/Thats money honey/Thats m-o-n-e-y...so sexy" I don't know about others, but I'm not trying to be anybody's "mistress" anytime soon. I don't want to be a slave to paper, either. If we could read between the lines a bit in this song, we might see that Ms. Gaga is toying with idea of the Almighty Green. At first money sounds appealing but her tone tells us it's really not. She's one tough cookie and although she's joking around in the song, there's still a subtle punch in there.
In comparing these three artists and their lyrics, I get more and more frustrated in thinking about Taylor's win. I guess in a twisted, perverted way, Kanye put her on the map and turned her into the underdog people want to root for. Or, another way of looking at it (which I'm leaning more towards now) is that she's a manageable figure. She's twenty, blonde, a stick figure and sings in a placid voice about wanting high school boys to notice her. Who doesn't love that? I don't.
She might have sold 3.2 million albums in 2009 (which is definitely 3.2 million more albums than I'll ever sell...even though I sound like Whitney in my own head) but that doesn't make her talented. She's the perfect example of something palatable, something that American tastes can digest. I really hope that we stop rewarding mediocrity, though. If we're going to pay to listen to artists, it's important that they show us something audacious that we don't normally think about (females' genuine celebration of their sexuality or the power of money) instead of the same old story about how hard it is to find a man these days. In order to be paid millions, you gotta give me something to work with. Some meat and potatoes. Something to chew on.
Taylor, where's your message? Where's your gripe with humanity? Why are you wearing a ridiculously cheap brown wig in your video for "You Belong With Me"? And why are your average voice and minimal stage presence enough to make you a Pop Star? What's up with that?
It's been about 3 days and I still haven't managed to pick my jaw up from off the ground after watching John Legend open the Grammy envelope and say that Taylor Swift won Best Album of the Year. Album of the Damn Year. Had anyone ever heard the song "Single Ladies" or listened to a track or two of "The Fame"? While Beyonce's album "I Am....Sasha Fierce" was not her strongest one to date, it's safe to say that in general Beyonce possesses more talent in her left pinky toe than Taylor Swift has in her entire body. Also, Lady Gaga put forth an album that was completely unique and has repeatedly challenged the music industry to re-think what is salable. Plenty of people dig what Lady Gaga has put out there in the music stratosphere in the past few years. And Beyonce will always be a queen (even if this last album wasn't her best showing). That's why I'm still so dumbfounded, confused, perturbed, upset...I could keep going...by this win. It makes no sense why this little girl won Album of the Year.
In truth, the song "You Belong with Me" is cute. I listen to it sometimes when I'm feeling ridiculous. I feel it. Especially the part where she goes "Standing by waiting at your backdoor/All this time how could you not know/ You belong with me?/ You belong with me" It's touching. But in Beyonce's song "Ego" she breaks out with the lines "Usually I'm humble, right now I don't choose/ You can leave with me or you could have the blues/ Some call it arrogant, I call it confident/ You decide when you find on what I'm working with/ Damn I know I'm killing you with them legs/ Better yet them thighs/ Matter a fact it's my smile or maybe my eyes/ Boy you a site to see, kind of something like me" It's pure fierceness! She's playing with the idea of male perspective, taking ownership of her own body and proclaiming the power she has an attractive, strong woman. All in a playful way, of course.
Similarly, Lady Gaga's song "Money Honey" is an incredibly fun song with a bit of edge to it. She says, "Thats money honey/ Well I'm your lover and your mistress/Thats money honey/When you touch me, its so delicious/Thats money honey/Baby when you tell me the pieces/Thats money honey/Thats m-o-n-e-y...so sexy" I don't know about others, but I'm not trying to be anybody's "mistress" anytime soon. I don't want to be a slave to paper, either. If we could read between the lines a bit in this song, we might see that Ms. Gaga is toying with idea of the Almighty Green. At first money sounds appealing but her tone tells us it's really not. She's one tough cookie and although she's joking around in the song, there's still a subtle punch in there.
In comparing these three artists and their lyrics, I get more and more frustrated in thinking about Taylor's win. I guess in a twisted, perverted way, Kanye put her on the map and turned her into the underdog people want to root for. Or, another way of looking at it (which I'm leaning more towards now) is that she's a manageable figure. She's twenty, blonde, a stick figure and sings in a placid voice about wanting high school boys to notice her. Who doesn't love that? I don't.
She might have sold 3.2 million albums in 2009 (which is definitely 3.2 million more albums than I'll ever sell...even though I sound like Whitney in my own head) but that doesn't make her talented. She's the perfect example of something palatable, something that American tastes can digest. I really hope that we stop rewarding mediocrity, though. If we're going to pay to listen to artists, it's important that they show us something audacious that we don't normally think about (females' genuine celebration of their sexuality or the power of money) instead of the same old story about how hard it is to find a man these days. In order to be paid millions, you gotta give me something to work with. Some meat and potatoes. Something to chew on.
Taylor, where's your message? Where's your gripe with humanity? Why are you wearing a ridiculously cheap brown wig in your video for "You Belong With Me"? And why are your average voice and minimal stage presence enough to make you a Pop Star? What's up with that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)