Previous Entry | Next Entry

Yah. Nobody's gonna like this.

women, defiance
cross-posted from my fan journal

edited to change "women using their bodies" to "women using their position" as it is in the article. Sorry. Too angry to see straight.

I am happily leafing through the current Entertainment Weekly this morning, enjoying one of my favorite pop cultural fixes, and I come across a cross-page ad for an upcoming television show on NBC: Playboy Club. That's right. It's set in a Playboy Club in the 1960s, to reap some of that Mad Men resonance--the clothes, the sexual politics, the music, the smoking, and the drinking. And the women in the corseted, crotch-cutting, chest-displaying outfits, complete with painfully high heels and the serving procedure known as the "Bunny dip": crouch without bending your back, holding your drink tray perfectly level at shoulder height. Because we couldn't do this at a dance club like Whiskey à GoGo or someplace where the culture was changing, like the Greenwich Village or San Francisco nightclubs. No, we have to have it be the Playboy Clubs where we can show women put on display like products in your grocer's dairy case in every episode as background, with men freely given permission to ogle and grope them and treat them like fecal matter because, hey, that was the time. The producer claims it's about female empowerment and women using their position to get what they want. A spot on the board, asshat? A job as CEO or CFO? How about second vice president at a bank? What about head chef at a pricey restaurant, or producer/director of a movie? (Hey, wait--we can hardly get a lot of those jobs now.) And what happens to them when they get wrinkles, or start to sag, or gain weight, or get pregnant, or develop minds of their own? How do their bodies get them what they want then? Or even now?

ABC, at the same time, is offering us Pan Am, focusing on "stewardesses and pilots and their glamorous world". (Keep scrolling down in the article for the other shows mentioned in this post.)

I thought I was through with this crap after the publication of COFFEE, TEA, OR ME? and Gloria Steinem's blistering series of articles on how demeaning a Bunny's life really is. I thought feminism would clear this garbage off televisions when All in the Family's Edith Bunker finally rose up and told Archie what he could do with his racism and sexism and moved out, when divorced women were portrayed as workers and parents rather than "easy," and when women headlined dramas rather than only home how-to shows and pre-school kids' TV.

But wait! There's more!

ABC also has Good Christian Bitches!--glamorous backbiting women à la Desperate Housewives, Gossip Girls, and Pretty Little Liars--and Don't Trust the Bitch in Apartment 23.

To all of you who told me that I was wrong (when I said that using the b-word just tells people it's okay to use this term that trashes women), and that you were using the b-word to reclaim it for women, I hope you're happy. Because now cheap TV producers think it's a cool word to use on national television to mean nasty women.

Oh, yes. And they're re-booting Charlie's Angels. Again. Because women can't kick butt without a man to tell them to do it. I'm reserving judgment on the program about two guys who think the only way to get ahead is to dress up as women. Transfolk gotta eat, too, even if cisjerks snicker at it.

I am so angry I cannot see straight. Don't tell me I'm getting excited over nothing. This tide of egregious disrespect has been creeping up, and creeping up. Now, as they try to take our reproductive rights away, and we discover that rape numbers in the civilian and military population are under-reported (the FBI numbers don't include statutory and date rape, 60% of the population doesn't report it at all, and in the military it's 80% that doesn't report), our mass media tells us that we are here for sex. Women are shown in the media as sexual objects, as pieces of meat there to display desirable things like cars, watches, drinks, and a suit on a man.

Now the women who ruin their backs and feet running up and down airplane aisles and the women who were penalized for a two-pound gain are being shown off once more as the living equivalent of sex toys, which makes all of us sex toys. We're all of us bitches, because our media culture tells us so.

Comments

( 100 comments — Leave a comment )
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
[info]hawkwing_lb wrote:
Aug. 4th, 2011 06:32 pm (UTC)
It's a bloody disgrace, is what it is.
[info]doesi wrote:
Aug. 4th, 2011 06:51 pm (UTC)
I didn't know they used the b-word on ABC.
[info]kaydeefalls wrote:
Aug. 4th, 2011 06:57 pm (UTC)
That's just appalling. Ugh, I don't even have the words.
[info]goldjadeocean wrote:
Aug. 4th, 2011 07:05 pm (UTC)
NPR has a really good smackdown of the attempt to spin The Playboy Club as female empowerment.

ETA: And then I read the Jezebel article, which just... cribbed all the NPR article's points. Sure, they give credit, but it seems kind of icky to me that one article basically rewrote the other without adding anything new.

Edited at 2011-08-04 07:10 pm (UTC)
[info]tammy212 wrote:
Aug. 4th, 2011 09:21 pm (UTC)
I do like NPR's much longer analysis of the difference between real empowerment and what was shown in the pilot. I hope the show's producers and directors' tailfeathers are smokin'!
[info]spiderling wrote:
Aug. 4th, 2011 07:05 pm (UTC)
No, your not angry over nothing. There has been a long slow backslide for a long time now. Ironically I think 'girl power' is a lot to blame. On the surface it's supposed to be about girls empowering themselves sexually, but it's not. It tells girls that the ONLY power they have is their sexuality, and dressing up, and being pretty. There's empowerment shown through intelligence, courage, or real strength. Empowerment has come to equal dressing like a slut and sleeping with a different man every day of the week. And it's not the same thing.
[info]alicetheowl wrote:
Aug. 4th, 2011 07:52 pm (UTC)
I wish I could remember where I read it so I could give proper credit, because it made me sit up and say, "Hell yeah!", which startled my husband. But I was reading a book about feminism that said that "girl power" is just another way marketing executives are packaging objectification. That they got us believing it has anything to do with feminism is just another sign of advertisements' pernicious infiltration.
(no subject) - [info]spiderling - Aug. 4th, 2011 08:39 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]rosiphelee - Aug. 5th, 2011 02:25 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]alicetheowl - Aug. 5th, 2011 06:32 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]dragontail - Aug. 5th, 2011 04:14 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]spiderling - Aug. 5th, 2011 04:07 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]tammy212 - Aug. 5th, 2011 07:03 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]spiderling - Aug. 5th, 2011 08:08 pm (UTC) - Expand
[info]spiderling wrote:
Aug. 4th, 2011 07:07 pm (UTC)
Bad typing! I meant There's NO empowerment of women shown through intelligence, courage, or real strength.
[info]cysfics wrote:
Aug. 4th, 2011 07:08 pm (UTC)
Ugh. At least hopefully these shows will crash and burn?

I'd say not to insult sex toys like that, though. They do good stuff!
[info]tammy212 wrote:
Aug. 5th, 2011 07:04 pm (UTC)
I'd say not to insult sex toys like that, though. They do good stuff!

So do women-as-sex-toys. I just think they might want to do more than just sex-toys stuff.
[info]arylla wrote:
Aug. 4th, 2011 07:19 pm (UTC)
Oh God, that Playboy show. D: I've read the interviews where they claim it's all about empowerment, and the bunnies aren't objectified by the show, because they are portrayed as characters with a life and a story. If that were true, it'd maybe even be some good, but my inner cynic tells me that ... no, I kinda don't, and can't, buy into that defense.

(I have to defend Pretty Little Liars, though. The show has all the visuals of Gossip Girl and Desperate Housewives, but the four main characters are actually shown as sharing a deep bond of friendship with each other. Completely without any backbiting or backstabbing. It's more about how they have to stick together in an environment that perceives them as nothing but pretty little liars.)
[info]redzolah wrote:
Aug. 4th, 2011 07:33 pm (UTC)
Well, fuck.

Can't come up with anything more constructive to say than that. I've just spent the last four days having a running argument with a huge bunch of young, female book bloggers who told me there was nothing wrong with their labeling pretty much any strong female character a Mary-Sue because 'there's no such thing as sexism anymore!' and who called me a Faux-Feminist when I insisted that their actions were damaging to women.

The greatest trick that the patricarchal media have managed to pull over the last fifty years was to convince the very young women who should be fighting to preserve their mother's achievements that it's old-fasioned, mean, petty, dumb, pointless, rude and unattractive to believe in sexism. That even wanting to be equal is somehow out of date. Now the world shoves scantily dressed, emaciated women in our faces with a mocking leer, and tell us it's empowerment, and when we say 'Hang on!' our own sex turns on us and tells us to shut up because we're making them look bad. How did this happen?

Fuck. Just FUCK. That's all.
[info]goldjadeocean wrote:
Aug. 4th, 2011 07:50 pm (UTC)
You can come sit by me! I get pretty riled about Mary Sue shame-culture.
(no subject) - [info]redzolah - Aug. 4th, 2011 08:44 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]tammy212 - Aug. 5th, 2011 07:22 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]redzolah - Aug. 5th, 2011 09:37 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]tammy212 - Aug. 4th, 2011 09:24 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]goldjadeocean - Aug. 5th, 2011 03:12 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]tammy212 - Aug. 5th, 2011 07:23 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]vixenmage - Aug. 5th, 2011 12:41 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]goldjadeocean - Aug. 5th, 2011 03:14 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]boosette - Aug. 6th, 2011 03:47 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]vixenmage - Aug. 7th, 2011 12:51 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]boosette - Aug. 7th, 2011 11:40 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]nonnycat - Aug. 4th, 2011 07:56 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]redzolah - Aug. 4th, 2011 08:56 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]tammy212 - Aug. 5th, 2011 07:26 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]redzolah - Aug. 5th, 2011 09:28 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]dewline - Aug. 6th, 2011 08:29 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]redzolah - Aug. 6th, 2011 08:31 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]tammy212 - Aug. 4th, 2011 07:58 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]redzolah - Aug. 4th, 2011 09:04 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]tammy212 - Aug. 4th, 2011 09:26 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]redzolah - Aug. 4th, 2011 11:12 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]tammy212 - Aug. 5th, 2011 07:27 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]poetic_pixie_13 - Aug. 5th, 2011 02:16 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]goldjadeocean - Aug. 5th, 2011 03:24 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]poetic_pixie_13 - Aug. 5th, 2011 04:25 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]tammy212 - Aug. 5th, 2011 07:33 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]redzolah - Aug. 5th, 2011 07:11 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]tammy212 - Aug. 5th, 2011 08:00 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]tammy212 - Aug. 5th, 2011 07:31 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]goldjadeocean - Aug. 6th, 2011 12:19 am (UTC) - Expand
[info]nonnycat wrote:
Aug. 4th, 2011 07:49 pm (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that regardless of reclamation, the word would get used anyway. It isn't like these people give a crap about women in the first place.

Blaming women for men's misogynistic actions leaves a really bad taste in my mouth.

Edited at 2011-08-04 07:55 pm (UTC)
[info]tammy212 wrote:
Aug. 4th, 2011 08:03 pm (UTC)
If you're referring to anything I said, Nonny, I try only to blame women for licking the boot on their necks, and then I lay all the rest of the shit off on those who put it there. I really don't hold with fighting with my natural allies--it's only when they side with our enemy that I have to ask them how long they've had that dreadful case of rectocranial inversion.
(no subject) - [info]nocturnallady - Aug. 4th, 2011 10:44 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]tammy212 - Aug. 5th, 2011 08:01 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]nonnycat - Aug. 5th, 2011 11:59 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]tammy212 - Aug. 5th, 2011 08:17 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]nonnycat - Aug. 6th, 2011 12:20 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]tammy212 - Aug. 6th, 2011 04:00 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]nonnycat - Aug. 6th, 2011 01:18 pm (UTC) - Expand
[info]empresspatti wrote:
Aug. 4th, 2011 07:51 pm (UTC)
Why aren't we ALL Pussycat Dolls?

I'm betting that not one of those shows will last 13 weeks. I'm going to enjoy the fact that they are costly mistakes to the networks.

As I renew my library card.
[info]tammy212 wrote:
Aug. 4th, 2011 08:01 pm (UTC)
I'm hoping, like you and [info], that these shows won't last. But that they're out there in the first place, and that major networks approved them, says something very ugly about the current state of our mainstream culture.
(no subject) - [info]shveta_thakrar - Aug. 4th, 2011 09:08 pm (UTC) - Expand
[info]live_momma wrote:
Aug. 4th, 2011 08:06 pm (UTC)
I wasn't aware of most of those shows, but when I saw the Pan Am trailer a few weeks ago, I thought it was a satire! I couldn't believe it when it seemed like they were actually serious. I still kind of can't. Every time the commercial comes on, I think, "I have to be missing something."
[info]nocturnallady wrote:
Aug. 4th, 2011 08:11 pm (UTC)
there is SO a reason i dont bother owning a TV.. and stuff like this is one of the reasons... our culture is SO going downhill for the most part... i hate to have to admit it but a lot of that i think is to blame on the generation i am from, as well as the one right before mine... I was born in 1985 and i think hose of us who grew up in the 90s and many who grew up in the 80 are just plain apathetic because well by the time our generations came around for most of the people american society had managed to kinda gloss over the visible rough edges of society for the most part and shift focus onto other more trivial matters (or atleast towards news and issues that are less likely to really CHANGE how our society is really run ) for most people. in this day and age it really does take some effort for people to get past the news that is about just things that are just short term issues and to see the bigger pictures and to dig down to the underlying more long term effecting issues that it seems like most of society seems to think that well if we ignore them or gloss over them then well they'll just go away. but well it just doesnt work that way.

Can i say that not only are you my favorite author but i think that in your own way you ARE a hero as much as any of the characters in your books BECAUSE you do dig deeper and through your writing you encourage young readers to look deeper and to make the effort to change the world for the better. I personally take part in a lot of things on Change.org they do a lot of petitions and i'm betting someone could start a petition on there and with your readers alone could probably get a good ways towards getting several of those shows taken off air as popular as you are if posted links on here .
[info]tammy212 wrote:
Aug. 4th, 2011 08:44 pm (UTC)
Thanks so much. I hope you're right--I just wish there were MORE of us, and that we had a bigger platform! I don't understand how so many other people can be satisfied with baubles instead of substance!
(no subject) - [info]nocturnallady - Aug. 4th, 2011 10:37 pm (UTC) - Expand
[info]matociquala wrote:
Aug. 4th, 2011 08:37 pm (UTC)
Yeah, pretty much. This stuff makes me so tired.
[info]tammy212 wrote:
Aug. 4th, 2011 08:46 pm (UTC)
Goddess knows I have my tired days, Bear. But this stuff? It was like someone stuck a copper wire up my butt and turned on the current, I swear. It's offense of the most egregious kind, out there where no one can ignore it. They did it because they think no one gives a flying fuck and thus they can get away with it. That ain't right.
(no subject) - [info]matociquala - Aug. 5th, 2011 01:04 am (UTC) - Expand
[info]gehayi wrote:
Aug. 4th, 2011 08:39 pm (UTC)
I wasn't aware of the TV shows, but I've noticed this creeping phenomenon for a while. I'd hoped that I was imagining things.

There seems to be an increase in passive heroines in YA as well...passive to the point where even if the girl says no and fears that the guy will rape and/or murder her, the guy still has license to stalk her, verbally harass her, lunge for her, pin her up against a pillar...and then ask her for a date as if he weren't doing anything wrong.

And this crap gets marketed as ROMANCE.

And girls buy the notion that being treated like shit is romantic and loving, because that's what the book says, after all. Moreover, most of these coproliths are being penned by women...and a woman wouldn't tell them that abuse and sexism were love if they weren't, would she?

That the writers themselves might have internalized misogyny to the point where they don't see any other way to be never seems to occur to their readers.

You're one of two or three YA writers I can think of whose readers consistently praise them for writing active heroines who affect the plot directly and who make their own decisions. I'm glad that the two or three of you exist. But I wish that there were a thousand times more.
[info]tammy212 wrote:
Aug. 4th, 2011 08:47 pm (UTC)
But I wish that there were a thousand times more.

You and me both!
(no subject) - [info]filkferengi - Aug. 8th, 2011 05:17 pm (UTC) - Expand
[info]kateelliott wrote:
Aug. 4th, 2011 08:57 pm (UTC)
It's so discouraging.
[info]tammy212 wrote:
Aug. 4th, 2011 09:33 pm (UTC)
I'll feel discouraged once I run out of mad. Right now I'm still at the grab-my-naginata-and-run-out-back-and-see-if-I-can-demolish-our-old-garage-on-my-ownsome stage.
(no subject) - [info]nocturnallady - Aug. 4th, 2011 10:47 pm (UTC) - Expand
[info]akwilliams wrote:
Aug. 4th, 2011 09:27 pm (UTC)
I haven't thought of anything to say, but I realised I can't just leave without commenting because you need to know your words are being read, and are sinking in even when people don't reply.

This stuff is really important. I'm glad you keep fighting this fight for us all, even though I know it's hard on you, but I guess in that you embody the strengths you give your characters - you never give up, even when it gets exhausting and hard.

I don't know how to change it or stop it or make the problem more visible or make more people realise it is a problem, but I just needed to say thanks for saying it, anyway.
[info]tammy212 wrote:
Aug. 4th, 2011 09:35 pm (UTC)
I really appreciate your taking the time to say this, and I appreciate everyone's having taken time to comment. It means a lot that I'm not standing down at the bottom of some crevasse yodeling at the wind. It means more than I can say that there are others who agree, when plainly there are too many people already who see nothing wrong with such idiocy.

Thank you.
[info]iqeret wrote:
Aug. 4th, 2011 10:46 pm (UTC)
What bothers me isn't that the media is producing these… things… but that women are watching them. I spent five minutes watching Real Housewives of XYZ, and the rest of the evening being appalled by the showcasing of the shallowest of female behaviour. In this day and age, we have so many options of what we can watch; that women/girls choose to dignify the slop with their attention is… disappointing.

And people wonder why I watch Korean dramas…
[info]nocturnallady wrote:
Aug. 4th, 2011 10:52 pm (UTC)
i REFUSE to watch those shows.. they are appalling and not a good example of what people should be like.
(no subject) - [info]i_m_pk - Aug. 5th, 2011 04:21 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]iqeret - Aug. 5th, 2011 08:14 am (UTC) - Expand
[info]lovefromgirl wrote:
Aug. 4th, 2011 11:26 pm (UTC)
This is why I am more in love with the off-season offerings ("Combat Hospital" is made of win, IMO) and everything USA is showing right now. Especially "Covert Affairs". OMG, Auggie Anderson, marry me now. Or Annie Walker, really. It's legal in my state now. :) And it features Anne Dudek in a non-B-word role!
[info]kadymae wrote:
Aug. 5th, 2011 12:51 am (UTC)
Hmmmm. And could this be why I and so many women are watching nothing that's aired on the major networks these days? After the last episode of Friday Night Lights finished, I haven't had NBC prime time on once.

AMC, CW, USA, TNT, FX, MTV, Starz and HBO are where just about everybody I know tunes in for good drama these days.

Honestly though, I predict the Stewardess and Bunny shows will flop.





[info]kadymae wrote:
Aug. 5th, 2011 12:54 am (UTC)
hit post too soon.

I just hope the response to the pilot episodes comes in so bad that they never even hit the air.
(no subject) - [info]tammy212 - Aug. 5th, 2011 08:23 pm (UTC) - Expand
[info]vixenmage wrote:
Aug. 5th, 2011 12:53 am (UTC)
...Holy shit. I've heard the "Porn is Empowering" arguments done well, and they generally come down to "Women shouldn't be ashamed of their bodies, and no one should be shamed for having sex," but this... this is not that. Playboy is not that. This... let me see if I can actually put this sentiment into coherent words.

It's not so much "Women be ashamed of your bodies," though I know that gets involved (How dare you be less than a supermodel?) as it is "Women's bodies are their virtues," if that makes sense. It's the idea that somehow, the most important thing about a woman is her body, because that can get her what she wants. And that becomes a very serious double-standard (in theory-- in practice, not so much), because if "empowerment" is getting where you want because of your body position (that you have because of your body), then how do you justify shaming women for getting where they want with their bodies? You really can't. But it's still considered wrong-- so, what then? Women are doing immoral/unfair things, but that's just because they're women? Which puts us at some kind of weird thing where women-- like before the whole Attempt-to-Pacify-Suffragettes argument (aka, Women don't need rights, they have virtue!), which basically comes down to the Eve sort of argument-- women don't really have a moral compass.

This... is utterly convoluted, and I do apologize. I'll see if I can organize what I'm trying to say and try again, later.
[info]goldjadeocean wrote:
Aug. 5th, 2011 03:32 am (UTC)
I think the whole mindset is based, fundamentally, on the idea that men and women ought to occupy different social spheres. If you believe that women should only stay within a narrow sphere of jobs, then it's like shackles on "empowerment". If you grew up thinking your lot in life was to marry some boy from your highschool and become a meek wife in a dumpy dress, than moving to the city and getting a job and being glamorous and having men who want to have sex with you but aren't allowed, that's empowering, because you've got a hell of a lot more power than you would have. So it's possible that being a Playboy Bunny gave some women a leg up into a better life.

On the other hand, if your view of what women are capable of is different--especially if you don't want to see women as being The Gender Whose Job Is To Look Pretty And Sexually Satisfy Men--the whole enterprise looks pretty vile.
[info]dewline wrote:
Aug. 5th, 2011 01:13 am (UTC)
I'm expected to watch this stuff?
[info]tammy212 wrote:
Aug. 5th, 2011 08:24 pm (UTC)
We would never, EVER, ask you to, dear!
[info]mercury205 wrote:
Aug. 5th, 2011 01:53 am (UTC)
wow...
I can't even find words to describe how horribly demeaning that is. That's just terrible.
[info]poetic_pixie_13 wrote:
Aug. 5th, 2011 02:45 am (UTC)
(Ack, I'm sorry this has gotten so long.)

I just want to preface this by talking about reclaiming words. I have and still do use the word 'bitch' in that sense, that doesn't mean that I use it as an insult and when I'm faced with people who do I call them out on it. That's the important thing, to know that the words we choose don't come from nothing and that we address where it comes from whenever we can.

As always, women can only be empowered through their sexuality. And even then only when it's for a straight male gaze. Butch dykes who dress in leather and strut around aren't empowered according to their world view. As a woman, a young woman, it's just so frustrating to be told that yes I can be empowered, but only if I'm thinner, taller, blonder, whiter, straighter, more feminine. Not through my own efforts, my own achievements and friendships and heartaches. I have to marry a man and have two point five kids and a house with a dog. Never mind that I want to one day marry a woman and live in a place with a big yard and our adopted children who will grow up knowing about geeky things and politics and all manner of things that make conservatives clutch their pearls in fear.

I love when Hugh Hefner is described as visionary. Because, if a woman tried to create an 'empire' based on pornography directed by women for women she would not have been as successful as he has been. Playboy just brought into the mainstream what already existed, it truly did open up free speech, changed views about sexuality, but that free speech was still reserved for powerful men, that sexuality was still catered for straight men. Playboy has their first black cover-girl loooong after it became popular. And, of course, queer women in Playboy are feminine, giggling co-eds who have pillow fights. As for, trans women, women with disabilities, how dare you suggest they might be desirable?

It's a shift in the general mindset, the current climate is scary and with every generation there's a longing for the 'good old days,' forgetting that the good old days weren't good for the majority of us. And that is one of the brilliant things about Mad Men, it follows the escapades of these rich, white men (who are all so royally fucked up) and shows that even those who had the money and power weren't happy. One of feminism's greatest ideas is one that says we are all different and all of us regardless of gender have unique needs and wants, have different things that makes us happy.

But these shows, they don't do that. There's no nuanced view of history, nothing that shows how these women often had to change one kind of oppression for another. How they were used for profit and were just a way for men to make more money off of women's bodies. This 'fairytale' world is the dream of so many boys, who see women as objects that giggle at their bad jokes and never need silly things like attachment and respect, no, those are for real human beings. Instead their ideal woman lets you fuck them whenever you want, will listen when you need it and will always have dinner on the table.

We can never be anything if we're not attractive to men. We are still only objects, only nice things to be looked at and not listened to, respected, admired, or even loved as one loves another human being, fully and openly, knowing and accepting all flaws and ultimately seeing them as just another thing to love. I can't tell you how much I wish that it was that simple, for all those men who look at my chest and hips and not my eyes, who feign interest when I talk about politics, who dismiss my ideas because girls can't be intelligent, or insightful or, hell, even geeky, I just wish that they could see me as another human being with all the wroth that comes with that. How much simpler life would be, but also how much harder.
[info]tammy212 wrote:
Aug. 5th, 2011 08:36 pm (UTC)
As someone who's made a career by writing kick-ass female heroes who appeal primarily to a female audience, I obviously don't agree with your idea that we can't be anything if we aren't attractive to men. I am cisfemale, married to a cismale, and I'm the primary breadwinner. We have no children. I am fat; I was fat when we met; he didn't care. He listens to me (sometimes); I listen to him (sometimes); we respect, love, and admire one another, and like one another, accepting each other's flaws, which have changed over the years. He never looked at my chest and hips. He never dismissed my ideas or intelligence--I would have left him if he had. I've walked away from other men and women for doing so. It's not hard; it is lonelier. He never asked me to put dinner on the table; he cooks. He is proud of my success.

It can be done, regardless of the sex of one's partner. It just isn't easy. And if you cannot find a partner of any sex who does not accept you as you are, you are always better off learning to be comfortable in your own company (as I was for a number of years), just as you are better off with your own friends and interests even if you have a partner.

There are good men out there, if you want one. And we still have the right to be ourselves, respect ourselves, and shape ourselves, independently of them.
[info]teacoat wrote:
Aug. 5th, 2011 04:12 am (UTC)
Pretty much all of ABC's new shows for the fall sound disgusting to me, especially the "comedies". The summary for Last Man Standing on the OFFICIAL press release from back in May LITERALLY starts "Today it's a woman's world, and this man's man is on a mission to get men back to their rightful place in society." I really wish I was making that up. Then we have a show that is LITERALLY called Man Up and judging by the summary they are not being the least bit ironic about that.

Then there's Suburgatory, which is about a single father who moves his 16-year-old daughter out of the city and into the suburbs when he finds a box of condoms in her dresser. But it's OK because he "just wants what's best for [her]." BARF. You said you were reserving judgement on Work It, but considering the summary actually uses the word "mancession," I'm nto granting it the same courtesy. Not to mention that I think its whole premise is a dangerous, anti-feminist one. We're still fighting for equality in the workplace, and any show that tries to claim that it's easier to get a [good] job as woman is going to hinder that fight. Not to mention that I fail to see how it could be at all sensitive to trans* issues - it sounds like it aims to poke fun at actual trans* people.
[info]tammy212 wrote:
Aug. 5th, 2011 08:40 pm (UTC)
Pretty much all of ABC's new shows for the fall sound disgusting to me, especially the "comedies".

Isn't it disgusting? Just shoot me now.

any show that tries to claim that it's easier to get a [good] job as woman is going to hinder that fight.

I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to be dismissive, I was just praying it had to be better than the way it was written up.

Edited at 2011-08-05 08:46 pm (UTC)
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
( 100 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

May 2012
S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Ideacodes