This article makes me so mad.
After watching a documentary containing the startling statistic that only 17% of television protagonists are women, I was happy to watch this week's Parks and Rec. That, coupled with 30 Rock, is a solid hour of female leading ladies (actually, the unfortunately unfunny show Whitney is at least about a woman, so good going NBC). I think Parks and Rec does more for the feminist cause than 30 Rock, even though Tina's always my favorite, because 30 Rock's constantly harping on Liz Lemon's affinity for food, bad fashion sense, and all the other things that are stereotypical of "working women" who give up their personal lives and femininity to be more masculine, more "feminist," is not what I think feminism should be about.
Leslie Knope is a put-together, passionate career woman. She loves her job, and she is well-respected and competent. That's why this article is so infuriating. The author clearly thinks that being a feminist means you can't be a person. Independent women are allowed to get help from their friends (and boyfriends!) occasionally. You're allowed to fall in love and you're allowed to make sacrifices for the person you love if you want to.
Isn't the most empowering option for Leslie to stay with her man AND run her own campaign? She is far from a damsel in distress. She is allowed to have character flaws, too. The example of her behavior in the bowling alley just exhibited one of Leslie's weaknesses--she fixates on details and wants people to like her. That just shows how Ben is good for her, what women should look for in a partner: someone who evens them out, who makes them better. What's anti-feminist about a healthy, balanced relationship? Pretending that Leslie has to be a perfect role model without any flaws is silly and destructive. Media images of women being perfect is what is wrong with our society; making the ideal working woman is just as bad as the ideal photo-shopped model. The unattainability of it is the problem. Leslie's supportive friends and good attitude help her deal with her flaws in positive and constructive ways. THAT is a good role model.
In case the writer of this article didn't notice, Leslie is currently maintaining her job in the Parks Department with her usual competence, running her City Council campaign, AND successfully dating Ben. Where is she getting the notion that the show is making Leslie choose between work and love? I thought the writers handled that plot beautifully.
Also, if you want something truly anti-feminist, check out the opening line of this wretched article:
"If you’re looking to get into the pants of a feminist, wonkish liberal, make sure to work Parks and Recreation into your sweet nothings."
To get into the pants of a feminist. Really? Really?
Clearly, this writer doesn't know what feminism is, or why Parks and Recreation is and continues to be an important presence on primetime tv. Yes, bitches get stuff done, but they shouldn't have to be bitches to do so. Enter Leslie Knope.
Showing posts with label television. Show all posts
Showing posts with label television. Show all posts
Feb 3, 2012
Aug 12, 2011
Sex in the City
My mom idly put the tv on Sex in the City 2 this afternoon. We were waiting for my dad's imminent arrival so we could partake of her spaghetti (mine consisting only of noodles, making my waiting kind of pointless...). Though it didn't dawn on me then, that we were even doing such thing a rang of the patriarchal society of the past, born from ideas that produce such things as Sex in the City.
I've watched bits and pieces of the show over the years, never even a whole episode. I only watched thirty minutes or less of the movie. But these small snippets told me everything I needed to know: this show is one of those female-empowerment movies that aren't really about female empowerment at all.
On the surface, the four privileged ladies own New York City (or Abu Dhabi, the movie's setting), strutting around, checking out young male models, and generally being what a mainstream male lead would be. This could be construed as progress.
But that is only on the surface. Yes, the women choose to sing karaoke to "I Am Woman." But they were singing the powerful words to impress a supposedly sultry man staying at the hotel. They change into new sets of elaborate, expensive clothes every scene. They ogle a sweaty men's rugby team in the pool. They perpetuate the common myth that women must either be frivolous and slutty or subservient and boring. Their kind of "feminism" means using sex as a bartering tool, manipulating men with the promise of their bodies. Then sitting around drinking Cosmopolitans and complaining about that very quality in men. Double standards are not broken by simply flipping them around.
This false sort of feminism is everywhere, and it's learned young. The summer before sixth grade, my male cousin and I were rooting through all the random junk collected in the nooks and crannies of my grandma's house when we stumbled upon a small collection of what I assume were my grandfather's Playboys.
I flipped through them, intrigued by the novelty of the things; I read some of the articles, even laughing at the desperation ringing through the questions posed in the advice column. But my cousin sat spellbound. The naked images swarmed his consciousness; his hormones glazed his eyes over with a creepy kind of hunger. He asked me for some scissors. I helpfully pointed out pictures that seemed the most practical to remove and conceal, but many were rejected for focusing too heavily on one half of the body or the other.
As he expertly chose the money shots of women draped suggestively over chairs, lying on their backs wearing nothing but stilettos, cradling their boobs like they're precious cargo with faked innocent faces, I began to squirm in my under-developed flesh. I knew I hadn't the power of those pictures, but thought one day I might, but even then, so young, it just felt so wrong.
It wasn't the general society-frowned-upon conscious catching that weirded me out. It was the nature of the power of sexuality, something I hadn't really contemplated before. It seemed somehow unfair, to both the models on the page and eyes feasting upon them. The awkwardness of being an impartial observer to the interaction (and implying the future of the relationship...) made me see how powerful sexuality can be.
Sex and the City tries to show that, but they only really portray superficiality and manipulation. I think maybe a more genuine feminism respects an equal sexual dynamic. It's a powerful tool, and we're not right to give it completely to one sex or the other.
Nor is feminism completely tied up in sex, In the City or elsewhere. Soon, Mom realized that the first preseason football game had started, and we flipped the channel and observed the game with an enthusiasm usually reserved for men. It's this small give and take, realizations that no qualities should be masculine or feminine. That is what a true feminist show would promote. Not snagging the pool boy with the most impressively filled Speedo, as Samantha Jones might think.
I've watched bits and pieces of the show over the years, never even a whole episode. I only watched thirty minutes or less of the movie. But these small snippets told me everything I needed to know: this show is one of those female-empowerment movies that aren't really about female empowerment at all.
On the surface, the four privileged ladies own New York City (or Abu Dhabi, the movie's setting), strutting around, checking out young male models, and generally being what a mainstream male lead would be. This could be construed as progress.
But that is only on the surface. Yes, the women choose to sing karaoke to "I Am Woman." But they were singing the powerful words to impress a supposedly sultry man staying at the hotel. They change into new sets of elaborate, expensive clothes every scene. They ogle a sweaty men's rugby team in the pool. They perpetuate the common myth that women must either be frivolous and slutty or subservient and boring. Their kind of "feminism" means using sex as a bartering tool, manipulating men with the promise of their bodies. Then sitting around drinking Cosmopolitans and complaining about that very quality in men. Double standards are not broken by simply flipping them around.
This false sort of feminism is everywhere, and it's learned young. The summer before sixth grade, my male cousin and I were rooting through all the random junk collected in the nooks and crannies of my grandma's house when we stumbled upon a small collection of what I assume were my grandfather's Playboys.
I flipped through them, intrigued by the novelty of the things; I read some of the articles, even laughing at the desperation ringing through the questions posed in the advice column. But my cousin sat spellbound. The naked images swarmed his consciousness; his hormones glazed his eyes over with a creepy kind of hunger. He asked me for some scissors. I helpfully pointed out pictures that seemed the most practical to remove and conceal, but many were rejected for focusing too heavily on one half of the body or the other.
As he expertly chose the money shots of women draped suggestively over chairs, lying on their backs wearing nothing but stilettos, cradling their boobs like they're precious cargo with faked innocent faces, I began to squirm in my under-developed flesh. I knew I hadn't the power of those pictures, but thought one day I might, but even then, so young, it just felt so wrong.
It wasn't the general society-frowned-upon conscious catching that weirded me out. It was the nature of the power of sexuality, something I hadn't really contemplated before. It seemed somehow unfair, to both the models on the page and eyes feasting upon them. The awkwardness of being an impartial observer to the interaction (and implying the future of the relationship...) made me see how powerful sexuality can be.
Sex and the City tries to show that, but they only really portray superficiality and manipulation. I think maybe a more genuine feminism respects an equal sexual dynamic. It's a powerful tool, and we're not right to give it completely to one sex or the other.
Nor is feminism completely tied up in sex, In the City or elsewhere. Soon, Mom realized that the first preseason football game had started, and we flipped the channel and observed the game with an enthusiasm usually reserved for men. It's this small give and take, realizations that no qualities should be masculine or feminine. That is what a true feminist show would promote. Not snagging the pool boy with the most impressively filled Speedo, as Samantha Jones might think.
Mar 1, 2011
Live From New York...
Tina Fey is a small contributor to my horrible posting habits. A small one. Most of it can be attributed to laziness and an uninspired existence.
I spent much of this weekend ignoring my homework by watching episode of episode of 30 Rock on Netflix. Though I watched all of these episodes when they originally aired, they're just as entertaining the second time around.
Perhaps it was this Tina-filled marathon that prompted me to further ignore my homework by watching a documentary-ish feature on VH1 (for some reason?) about Saturday Night Live in the years 2000-2010. Knowing Tina was a writer during some of this time, I had to watch it.
I've always kept up relatively with SNL, but haven't been a faithful watcher since Tina departed. I mostly tune in now when there's a host a like (Elton John on April 2nd!); I'll catch the popular sketches on the internet later. But this documentary renewed my fallen interest in the variety show.
SNL, having been around for a bazillion seasons, is much more culturally relevant than jumpstarting the careers of some our most popular comedians. Each episode serves as a time capsule of sorts. The people and events the show parodies weekly are very topical and very temporary. I won't get many of the jokes from the episodes in the 80's, because largely, you had to be there. Even Tina Fey's famous Sarah Palin sketches aren't as funny if you haven't seen the original (and hilarious in their own right) incidents.
Yet, reruns of SNL are a Saturday television mainstay and many of the characters and lines stay in the pop culture conscious long after the events that spawn them.
The documentary suggested that this was because SNL serves as the people's voice. Like my favorite Molly Ivins said, "Satire is traditionally the weapon of the powerless against the powerful."
This is illustrated best by the first episode after the tragedy on September 11th. SNL was particularly affected, being so close to Ground Zero. Nobody felt very funny that week, especially those who were still breathing the smoke on their daily commutes.
But SNL had to go on. The first joke was told by none other than Rudy Guiliani, surrounded by a few firemen (with ashes from the site still clinging to their clothes), and the tension broke, and the funny could happen again. Though the laughter may have felt unnatural for awhile, SNL pushed the nation a little further towards normalcy.
People say SNL sways elections, which they vehemently deny, and they tend to occasionally piss off Mark Walhberg. But there's no denying that it's been on air for so long for a reason. Maybe they don't sway votes, but they get people to google "David Paterson." And in this day and age, that's a pretty good accomplishment.
I spent much of this weekend ignoring my homework by watching episode of episode of 30 Rock on Netflix. Though I watched all of these episodes when they originally aired, they're just as entertaining the second time around.
Perhaps it was this Tina-filled marathon that prompted me to further ignore my homework by watching a documentary-ish feature on VH1 (for some reason?) about Saturday Night Live in the years 2000-2010. Knowing Tina was a writer during some of this time, I had to watch it.
I've always kept up relatively with SNL, but haven't been a faithful watcher since Tina departed. I mostly tune in now when there's a host a like (Elton John on April 2nd!); I'll catch the popular sketches on the internet later. But this documentary renewed my fallen interest in the variety show.
SNL, having been around for a bazillion seasons, is much more culturally relevant than jumpstarting the careers of some our most popular comedians. Each episode serves as a time capsule of sorts. The people and events the show parodies weekly are very topical and very temporary. I won't get many of the jokes from the episodes in the 80's, because largely, you had to be there. Even Tina Fey's famous Sarah Palin sketches aren't as funny if you haven't seen the original (and hilarious in their own right) incidents.
Yet, reruns of SNL are a Saturday television mainstay and many of the characters and lines stay in the pop culture conscious long after the events that spawn them.
The documentary suggested that this was because SNL serves as the people's voice. Like my favorite Molly Ivins said, "Satire is traditionally the weapon of the powerless against the powerful."
This is illustrated best by the first episode after the tragedy on September 11th. SNL was particularly affected, being so close to Ground Zero. Nobody felt very funny that week, especially those who were still breathing the smoke on their daily commutes.
But SNL had to go on. The first joke was told by none other than Rudy Guiliani, surrounded by a few firemen (with ashes from the site still clinging to their clothes), and the tension broke, and the funny could happen again. Though the laughter may have felt unnatural for awhile, SNL pushed the nation a little further towards normalcy.
People say SNL sways elections, which they vehemently deny, and they tend to occasionally piss off Mark Walhberg. But there's no denying that it's been on air for so long for a reason. Maybe they don't sway votes, but they get people to google "David Paterson." And in this day and age, that's a pretty good accomplishment.
May 17, 2010
Huddy
Why do people get so emotionally invested in television couples? I am the world's worst for this and it's particularly weird considering my lack of investment in real life couplings.
I just repressed uncharacteristic squeals (but couldn't stop the grin) as I watched Cuddy FINALLY admit she loves House and them finally share a kiss that wasn't a hallucination induced by Vicodan! I've been waiting for that ALL SEASON. But why??
I'm sooo invested in their fictional relationship that I was mentally willing them to have scenes together. It's imperative to my well-being that those two are firmly together. And they're not even real!
They aren't the only tv couple I've given a little piece of my heart to. I can count many. Most notably Tommy and Jude of Instant Star, who I felt were eternally gipped. I was completely depressed for a week after the botched series finale in which Jude breaks off their engagement and goes off to live in London. I still get sad w hen I listen to the show's soundtrack, especially their duet.
And nobody can forget Ross and Rachel. Oh the agony when he steps off that plane with another chick and Rachel's left there by herself! The sadness!
And Eric and Donna on That 70's Show. Even in a wholly comedic setting, you can't help but be completely and utterly sad every time they break up. Though the show ends with them finally kissing again, you can't help be a little dissatisfied.
And oh, Buffy and Angel from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. She freakin has to KILL HIM! I can't watch it without tearing up a little! When I was little, I even wrote their names on my Jenga blocks (yeah, I don't understand that either) and always made sure they were beside each other when we played. That episode just breaks my pathetic little heart.
But by far the very worst is Luke and Lorelai from Gilmore Girls. I was already far too invested in that tv show, but when they broke up the really bad time and didn't get back together for the whole season, I thought I might die. It's a really good thing that I watched them mostly in rapid, box-set-dvd succession so that I didn't have to suffer the agony of waiting week to week. Though it's also hinted that they end up together, I wanted to see them married so bad I still get mad when I think about it.
It's absolutely irrational. But the writers of the shows set it up so that fans feel inclined to set up entire websites dedicated to tv couples and come up with cutesy little combined names for them. You think the general public would get tired of this formula of touch and go couples, but they don't. I obviously don't, considering they appear to pull me in every single time.
Am I trying to make up for something lacking in my own life? Wouldn't that mean that everyone is also trying to fill this gap, evenly the happily married? Is it a human desire to see "true love" prevail? Is it a need to feel a craving for drama? Why, oh why? It causes me such stupid agony.
Now it's time for me to watch Big Bang Theory, where my heart can bleed for Penny and Leonard. Lord have mercy, what's wrong with our culture??
Also, did I mention how excited I am that House and Cuddy are finally together? Cause I am.
I just repressed uncharacteristic squeals (but couldn't stop the grin) as I watched Cuddy FINALLY admit she loves House and them finally share a kiss that wasn't a hallucination induced by Vicodan! I've been waiting for that ALL SEASON. But why??
I'm sooo invested in their fictional relationship that I was mentally willing them to have scenes together. It's imperative to my well-being that those two are firmly together. And they're not even real!
They aren't the only tv couple I've given a little piece of my heart to. I can count many. Most notably Tommy and Jude of Instant Star, who I felt were eternally gipped. I was completely depressed for a week after the botched series finale in which Jude breaks off their engagement and goes off to live in London. I still get sad w hen I listen to the show's soundtrack, especially their duet.
And nobody can forget Ross and Rachel. Oh the agony when he steps off that plane with another chick and Rachel's left there by herself! The sadness!
And Eric and Donna on That 70's Show. Even in a wholly comedic setting, you can't help but be completely and utterly sad every time they break up. Though the show ends with them finally kissing again, you can't help be a little dissatisfied.
And oh, Buffy and Angel from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. She freakin has to KILL HIM! I can't watch it without tearing up a little! When I was little, I even wrote their names on my Jenga blocks (yeah, I don't understand that either) and always made sure they were beside each other when we played. That episode just breaks my pathetic little heart.
But by far the very worst is Luke and Lorelai from Gilmore Girls. I was already far too invested in that tv show, but when they broke up the really bad time and didn't get back together for the whole season, I thought I might die. It's a really good thing that I watched them mostly in rapid, box-set-dvd succession so that I didn't have to suffer the agony of waiting week to week. Though it's also hinted that they end up together, I wanted to see them married so bad I still get mad when I think about it.
It's absolutely irrational. But the writers of the shows set it up so that fans feel inclined to set up entire websites dedicated to tv couples and come up with cutesy little combined names for them. You think the general public would get tired of this formula of touch and go couples, but they don't. I obviously don't, considering they appear to pull me in every single time.
Am I trying to make up for something lacking in my own life? Wouldn't that mean that everyone is also trying to fill this gap, evenly the happily married? Is it a human desire to see "true love" prevail? Is it a need to feel a craving for drama? Why, oh why? It causes me such stupid agony.
Now it's time for me to watch Big Bang Theory, where my heart can bleed for Penny and Leonard. Lord have mercy, what's wrong with our culture??
Also, did I mention how excited I am that House and Cuddy are finally together? Cause I am.
Nov 30, 2009
House is not destroying my brain!
So I'm tired of entertainment getting a bad rep.
For some reason, society decided to be entertainment-centered and consider people who indulge in purely entertaining pursuits as dumb or lazy. How both of these things exist at the same time is interesting, but beside the point at hand.
Perhaps this entertainment stigma is only common to the circle I run in, which happens to be a group of very academic (and elitist, including myself) people. Nonetheless, it irks me.
I happen to enjoy television. For some reason, this evokes a neanderthal image, drooling at the moving pictures on the box. Perhaps this is what it equates to sometimes.
But not all of the time. I happen to think television is occasionally used in a productive and thought-provoking manner. For example, tonight I indulged in one of my favorite shows, House.
House is an excellent example of good tv writing, especially in the realm of character development. The show is strongly driven by House's character. Tonight's episode was even a prime example of the utilization of foil characters that would make my English teacher proud. The show brings up many philosophical issues that my family and I often discuss while watching and afterwards, and sometimes the next few days.
This runs counter to the argument that television eliminates conversation between families, and eliminates independent thought. It spurs both of these in my house. Are we simply a counterexample or is this a common occurrence? I do not know.
Yes, there are plenty of shows I watch for pure entertainment; I am not ashamed to watch them. It's not as if I never contemplate life, read classic novels, or anything considered more worthy pursuits by the academic elitists. I'm a strong believer in "all things in moderation." What's wrong with moderate television watching?
Don't get me wrong, however. I do not approve of such drivel like "The Hills." I see no value in watching this. But I also support the right of somebody who wants to watch it, if that's how they are entertained.
Many claim that tv is corrupting our youth and the future of the world and all sorts of things like that. I think there's a place in this world for tv and other "useless" entertainment. The key is learning moderation, and a lack of it is where our true troubles lie. I don't think I'm a lesser person for watching television and liking it, and I don't think anybody is a better person for foregoing it. If you genuinely like it, watch it. If you don't, don't. But don't assign morality to 90210.
I guess this is very preachy and possibly elitist as I try to combat elitism. Well, nobody's perfect. I guess all the tv has rotted my brain.
For some reason, society decided to be entertainment-centered and consider people who indulge in purely entertaining pursuits as dumb or lazy. How both of these things exist at the same time is interesting, but beside the point at hand.
Perhaps this entertainment stigma is only common to the circle I run in, which happens to be a group of very academic (and elitist, including myself) people. Nonetheless, it irks me.
I happen to enjoy television. For some reason, this evokes a neanderthal image, drooling at the moving pictures on the box. Perhaps this is what it equates to sometimes.
But not all of the time. I happen to think television is occasionally used in a productive and thought-provoking manner. For example, tonight I indulged in one of my favorite shows, House.
House is an excellent example of good tv writing, especially in the realm of character development. The show is strongly driven by House's character. Tonight's episode was even a prime example of the utilization of foil characters that would make my English teacher proud. The show brings up many philosophical issues that my family and I often discuss while watching and afterwards, and sometimes the next few days.
This runs counter to the argument that television eliminates conversation between families, and eliminates independent thought. It spurs both of these in my house. Are we simply a counterexample or is this a common occurrence? I do not know.
Yes, there are plenty of shows I watch for pure entertainment; I am not ashamed to watch them. It's not as if I never contemplate life, read classic novels, or anything considered more worthy pursuits by the academic elitists. I'm a strong believer in "all things in moderation." What's wrong with moderate television watching?
Don't get me wrong, however. I do not approve of such drivel like "The Hills." I see no value in watching this. But I also support the right of somebody who wants to watch it, if that's how they are entertained.
Many claim that tv is corrupting our youth and the future of the world and all sorts of things like that. I think there's a place in this world for tv and other "useless" entertainment. The key is learning moderation, and a lack of it is where our true troubles lie. I don't think I'm a lesser person for watching television and liking it, and I don't think anybody is a better person for foregoing it. If you genuinely like it, watch it. If you don't, don't. But don't assign morality to 90210.
I guess this is very preachy and possibly elitist as I try to combat elitism. Well, nobody's perfect. I guess all the tv has rotted my brain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)