Saturday, July 31, 2004

sexist, racist, and heterosexist indoctrination as "just entertainment"

In my last post I rambled (way too long really, but oh well) about how much I love movies. In this one, I have to say how much I hate the idea of films being packaged to "target audiences" namely when filmakers assume certain sadistic excuses for entertainment suit women better, warranting the horridly sexist label of...the chick flick.

I cannot explain how much I hate that term. So I won't. Instead, in one of my numerous rants to my husband, I came up with a term of my own to describe how much I also loathe movies that are packaged to men, i.e. the "dick flick." Why the derisive term? Because I refuse to watch films that are designed to sell the idea of woman as servant, sex object, deserving of (and asking to be) controlled, raped, abused, or even obsessed over. What the hell kind of movies are "XXX" and "The Fast and The Furious" anyhow, if not dick flicks? Which part of James Bond appeals to women (other than the stupid assumption that women as an audience are going to want to see it because James Bond is so obviously attractive). What about all of the Bruce Willis "Die Hard" movies...(they couldn't have picked a more perfectly fitting title!) ?
And while I think there are many talented actresses in film today, casting any descent actress in the obligatory chic flick is a waste of their time/talents and people's money. But are all movies that depict such violence against women as tragic but socially or contextually acceptable worthy to be termed dick flicks?

Not necessarily. What is the draw in these movies? They say, action...adventure...whatever. This was the same tagline used to describe a "family film" that is "Fun for everyone" that I happened to enjoy (initially): "Pirates of the Carribbean." For me, it was cool, right up to that point where the lead female character is slapped, later groped, forced on display and so fucking unbelievably typecast it hurts. What, you didn't catch that? I did, specifically because I saw the movie, this Disney movie, with my son and with my best friend and her three daughters (who have experienced what Jackson Katz termed "violent masculinity" first hand). But what does seeing an attractive white woman slapped (by a big black man no less) and treated like a sex object or at the very least, a possession, teach children? Is this to fit the "historical context" when women were possessions and class and racial roles were more blatantly obvious? If this is the case, then why does the big black man get to hit her and not be killed for it and why does he get to order around (for lack of a better term) the two weirdo Pirate buddies? This aspect reminded me a little of Othello, where we the Moor does have power but is nevertheless a violent man who kills his faithful white woman at the provocation of her supposed infidelity. Perhaps the point is that so we see how bad Pirates were? Well what does that mean then when at the end we're supposed to cheer Will's decision to side with the Pirates? Wait there are good Pirates and bad Pirates right? The womanizer vs. the abuser? Well gee, where DO you draw that line anyhow? I mean Jack Sparrow steals, lies, and even holds the woman hostage, not to mention all of the reasons why the other women in the film slap him and why he thinks he "probably deserved it." But he's the "hero" of the story, right? It is admittedly pathetic that I can't even remember the name of the female character. I think though, this is because I couldn't buy into her part of the story quite as well, as she was simply, primarily, a reactive character in a male dominated "drama."

So what's the big deal? If I don't like it, I don't have to see it, right? Well...it is a big deal because these images permeate our culture and shape our views of one another, our roles in relationships and our ability to relate to one another. If you want to watch a movie that actually has something to say on this (and put far better than I am doing here, I'm sure) watch Jackson Katz's "Tough Guise" film. Better yet, host a movie night and invite every dick flick and chick flick fan you can find and have them watch it with you. Also, check out bell hooks' book "Outlaw Culture" and Sut Jhally's film "Advertising and the End of the World." The fact that we can watching women being struck in films and it not evoking anger or even disgust (and don't let the "Pirates" PG-13 rating fool you, for Mulan doesn't fare much better) is and should be troublesome. Yet the criticism of the objectification of women usually surrounds voyeurism and violence. This criticism should include the indoctrination of this violence as being so commonplace it becomes normal. It doesn't evoke outrage. We emphathize with the not so bad guy vs. the woman who gets tossed around between them like a rag doll. She is beautiful, yet her empowerment comes not from her ability to fight but her ability to choose heterosexuality and take the likeable loser (he is, as Jack points out, a criminal) over the accomplished officer.
But it is, just entertainment, right? Hey I admit, I liked the movie until I actually thought about it and my reactions to the scenes in which she is slapped and reduced to being an object of other's pleasure and expectation. As much as I love Kevin Spacey as an actor and enjoyed the film "The Life of David Gale" especially, I still find fault with the part in the movie that shows him being "framed" for rape. This is not because it is impossible to conceive a woman might (what fake being raped?) but that the statistics of reported rapes and rape convictions alone prove that women are less likely to even report rape yet alone try to prosecute a rapist. The structures (although improving) offer rape victims little support and they have to prove victimization, so that the accused ends up having more credibility and rights than the victim.
So to even suggest that something like that might happen is bothersome to me. I'm not saying it never has or never will happen but that to portray it the way that movie does, as a charge orchestrated by a cunning woman who wanted sex against an innocent yet obliging man, well that just bothers me. Yet, if you simply follow the rhetoric surrounding the Bryant rape case, you see it again. Whether or not the woman was raped, consented to sex, or was opportunistic and money hungry seems irrelevant if you listen to the media spin on the case. What is important is that we empathize with Bryant whether or not until he is PROVEN guilty. What is most tragic to me is that until he is PROVEN guilty, the woman who is accusing him of rape will never be considered (by the media and general public at least) INNOCENT. Fear of having to stand trial, facing and accusing someone of rape and not being believed is the most stigmatizing aspect of rape and the one factor that more often than not, actually keeps rape victims from reporting it.

These things matter also because children DO get these messages by internalizing them.
Even though my son has never seen these movies, we did watch "Pirates" together. Though he had it in his head long before that film (from Disney movies and toy packaging no less!) that there are fundamental differences between that which is catagorized as being for boys/manly/masculine and that which is catagorized as being for girls/girly/feminine. He doesn't want anyone to confuse him as liking something that might be perceived as girlish, so he criticizes heavily toys, films, and attitudes in girls and other boys, all things girlish or feminine. He also (thanks to the elementary school playground) has formed interesting opinions about homosexuality, religion (particularly Christianity) and marriage. What bothers me is this indoctrination of normality and the nonchalant attitude of which certain structures view and further this view of what is normal or how to be normal/acceptable/good. Imagine for one moment if I went to my son's school and tried to stand on the playground teaching students about gays and lesbians in a positive light, or if I tried to argue that gays and lesbians should be able to marry (if they choose to) and that there really SHOULD be an enforcable separation between Church and State which actually extends to schools, if not the White House! I wonder how well that would go over. Obviously it wouldn't and that is my point, that is why I find such indoctrination infuriating and that is why I'm ranting about it here. How does this pertain to human rights and cultural myopia? Trace the history of genocide and hate crimes. It is easy to see the damage inflicted by the catagorization and indoctrinization of norms that are meant to dehumanize others to the point of exclusion and extermination, particularly if and when such catagories and norms go unquestioned. Think about it.

To me, just by labeling something a chick flick (or a dick flick for that matter) you are reinforcing catagories of norms that dehumanize and stereotype. But what does one little word matter, anyhow? The answer to this could be found in asking if Ebert or any other film critic would ever use my term "dick flick" to describe/discuss the genre of films marketed specifically to men, with as much abandon as "chick flick"? Maybe I should email him and see (if he responds at all) just how quickly he would turn it down.

peace!


Friday, July 30, 2004

the comic relief of "What to do in case of fire?"

I love movies, especially the ones that manage to make me laugh as well as think. I happened upon the movie "What to do in case of fire?" recently at Hastings and I must say, I adore what I have watched of it thusfar (so much that I have to ramble about it here!)

The plot is about six anarchists protesting the occupation of Berlin and what happens after a bomb they planted goes off years later, after some have "grown up" and "moved on" and others refuse to. The problem for these "former" anarchists is that the police have collected all of their former "propaganda" films, detailing all of their "work." There's a specifically telling scene in the movie, where after the bomb explodes years later (which is in an abandoned building, though the explosion does injure two people) two police officials (investigators? I haven't quite figured out yet who they are) discuss making a list of every leftist group and investigating them and should anyone complain about their human rights being violated well...too bad for them. The notion of rights and violations vs. freedom of expression and protest are interspersed throughout the movie which for me at least, make it all the more interesting and evocative.

As I said, I haven't finished the film yet but so far, I love it. I enjoy the comic relief (much in the way I enjoy the comic relief in "American Beauty") but also the way that it suggests a reality check of ideology, set against a backdrop of history. I also appreciate the fluctuation between activism, anarachism, and "life in the real world" and how some of them feel that putting the past behind them equates with living life as is, unquestioning the status quo (or becoming it!)
I wonder then, if we as audience are compelled to judge those who are still agitating for change (and I MEAN agitating) as being stuck in teenage mode, rebelling against any and all authority...i.e. they simply haven't "grown up." I think of this in two ways. First, I was for so many years religiously rebellious. I went through the punk phase, goth phase, "industrial" phase, etc. etc. After having my son though, I starting thinking alot about not wanting to alienate him from the status quo, even if I questioned it. So my second point is that while I have not stopped questioning and I LOVE that my son regularly questions authority (including mine)
I am wondering if "growing up" really means having to find where you're willing to fight and choosing to do more wisely, if you choose to do so at all. Think about it. Even the most rightist people tend to believe they are fighting for something that is worth fighting for. Even the greatest pacifist has to draw a line for themselves as to what part of living constitutes a necessary violence for the sake of living. (Here, I am reminded about those of the Jainist faith who wear masks over their faces to keep from breathing in insects but also of people worldwide who protest war and yet support "humanitarian intervention" if it will lessen horrid slaughter of the defenseless. Generalizations aside, I wonder why questioning authority becomes equated (and thus degraded) as being immature. Change has always come from questioning/agitating and one could argue that knowledge itself comes from the willingness to question the "authority" of others and to seek out knowledge and understanding for oneself.
So while I can sit and watch a film like this and appreciate the questioning, agitating and even the fighting for social change, I appreciate more that the greater tension comes not between the police or even the State and the protesters but within the protesters themselves and with each other as they struggle with this same question.

I look at my son and wonder what he will be like as a teen. He's only nine (soon to be ten) but I wonder, you know, what will his priorities be? What will he fight for or will he think there is any point to struggling? After all, there is a interesting trend in children his age to believe that things that are bad are simply that and why try to change it. This worries me. Yet I have faith that he has the kind of mind and character that will question injustice (or at least that which he deems unjust) and will argue against it. He ALREADY does that quite well. With all of the political analysts focusing on the causes/problems of voter apathy, hell I think they need to focus more on the youth culture and what apathy is doing to them and why it is permeating their lives, replacing civic engagement with rampant consumerism/consumption. They are, after all, the ones who will inheirit our unexploded bombs, our unfought/unfinished wars and our unasked, unanswered questions. They are the ones who deserve our attention more than any damn leader or professional rhetoritician.

I know full well the desires of a parent cannot render a certain course for their child. If it were up to my dad, I would be getting a "meat and potatoes degree" and would be working as hard as possible toward security and status. There of course is where our paths diverge as parent and child but also where a greater understanding arises. When I don't react egotistically I can see my own unwillingness to truly listen to him. This is because listening requires one to think about what others value and what others love and fear and to see how those values are not necessarily any better or worse than our own. To me, better and worse are value judgements that separate, secure and distance. At some point, you have to ask yourself how much weight you are willing to put on other's perception of your worth. I see this alot in my own relationship with my son. Point here is that I think we can learn alot about ourselves just by listening to others and seeing how we relate as human beings to one another but also in relationship to the social structures that bind and divide us.

I am learning to value listening deeply more than speaking out (or yelling) all of the time.
After all, how can you possibly think/reflect or grow if you're always shouting at some enemy or toeing the line of one extreme or another? Imagine if those who run nations stopped long enough to listen before REACTING? Imagine if we could get beyond our us vs. them mentality as individuals, nations and even as a species? What will it take to get there, I wonder... an erasing of arbitrarily drawn borders, imaginary lines and fences, needing to be guarded at all times and at all costs? Well...

Someone asked me once what is the point of having a weblog? Does anyone care about what you like or don't like? Why should you assume so? Why do you think you can just say these things and that in doing so, people will listen? Is blogging a sort of benign ego tumor growing wild but not really causing too much chaos (yet?) I don't know why others write but for me, it boils down to trying to carve sense out of life. My criticism of what I have termed "cultural myopia" is not lost on me either and I admit that freely because it is the one facet of myself I really wish to change. Yet how DO you grow out of your blindspots? Out of your ego? Out of your need to be the Sun around which all things orbit and depend upon to live? I like to think (sounding abashadly kindergardenish) we all have our own light to bring as well as our shadows to cast.
It is my hope that this blog serves some purpose other than as an ego boost in cyberspace.
I like to think it might serve as a sort of consciousness shift. Speaking of which, it was incredibly nice to hear on PBS's "NOW" show a man (whose name I did not catch) was arguing that people will have to realize their interdependence and interconnectedness in order for the human race to survive. Every time I hear someone saying that it makes me smile and gives me hope. More hope than any well-crafted, teleprompted speech or convention ever could.

Anyhow, the film is worthwhile in my opinion.


peace!

Wednesday, July 28, 2004

one of my favorite Thich Nhat Hahn poems

Oneness

The moment I die
I will try to come back to you
as quickly as possible.
I promise it will not take long.
Isn't it true
I am already with you,
as I die each moment?
I come back to you
in every moment.
Just look,
feel my presence.
If you want to cry,
please cry.
And know that I will cry with you.
The tears you shed
will heal us both.
Your tears are mine.
The earth I tread this morning
transcends history.
Spring and Winter are both present in the moment.
The young leaf and the dead leaf are really one.
My feet touch deathlessness,
and my feet are yours.
Walk with me now.
Let us enter the dimension of oneness
and see the cherry tree blossom in Winter.
Why should we talk about death?
I don't need to die
to be back with you.

 
--from "Call me by my true names" by Thich Nhat Hahn

Tuesday, July 20, 2004

gratitude and the song "imagine"

I was sitting here, listening to John Lennon's "Imagine" wondering what a world without religion, possessions, "a brotherhood of man" might look like.  Then I thought about how possessions are only as important as you make them.  For me, the summer is quickly winding down and school has kept me running mad. Yet this weekend was the nicest I have had in years. I spent four days in a house in the mountains (house-sitting) without electricity and no nearby coffeehouses. Two vices short of a dozen... Anyway, it was wonderful, taking long walks in the woods and playing checkers, uno attack and reading with my son. I didn't get a bit of homework done.  Instead I did all the things I always want to do but rarely find time for, cooking very yummy food, playing, and sleeping. What a gift.
 
"Imagine all the people living for today"
 
"Nothing to kill or die for and no religion too"
 
"Imagine all the people living life in peace"
 
How can that song not bring tears to your eyes? Call me what you wish but I don't get that way listening to the "national anthem" or standing there watching a flag wave, a President speak, or some member of the religious right preach.  Then again, hearing "Imagine" always reminds me of the end of the movie "The Killing Fields" where Dith Pran and Sidney Schanberg are reunited in a refugee camp.  Maybe we could extend Lennon's ideas a bit to include no refugees, no wars waged in the name of peace or oil profit... no Presidents with GPA's less than mine, hey!
I want my degree to mean something yes, but my work to mean something more. Most of all,
I want my truest successes as a human being, to be mirrored in my nine year old (going on thirty!) son's huge blue eyes and perfect smile! 
 
Last thought here...let's get serious about having a woman president. Let's have Janeane Garafalo. Hell if Arnold can claim Hollywood as the most prominent thing on his resume and win an office retaining all of his supreme intelligence to call dems femmes (okay, who should be more insulted there, really?), who's to say no to Janeane?  I'd love to see her tear into those who can't even write their own speeches and especially into those who do!  Go Janeane!  Or Ani, how about it? 
 
Seriously though, I really do think it would be nice to have a leader well read in something other than the old testament while paying lipservice to the new testament, brotherhood and peace.
If George Bush the first can lecture Nelson Mandela on human rights and Bush jr can be nominated for the nobel peace prize, well, we have SERIOUS work to do.
 
namaste.
 
peace!
 

Thursday, July 01, 2004

who is counting?

I take issue with the link on MSNBC's homepage that reads: "The Human Cost of the war in Iraq" as just below those big words it lists who counts in this cost: Those lives lost of "coalition forces." This is horrid arrogance to think that only certain people's lives count or are considered worth counting.

For a far more accurate and detailed study on the cost of Bush and Company's war...please check out the study "Paying the Price: The Mounting Costs of the Iraq War" from http://www.fpif.org

The study authors Phyllis Bennis and the "IPS Iraq Task Force" do an excellent analysis of ALL of the costs including the loss of civilian workforce to feed the military machine.

peace!