Recently I've been wanting to devote some time to the little bits of casual ways that the people around us can make us feel icky (microaggressions, anyone?).
For the record, I really do mean casual. Not big issues, or blatant displays that make my blood boil. These are more tiny things, things that we might not usually notice but are all the more dangerous because of this. It's these casual things, the comments and actions that demean us but are considered too small to get angry about, that reinforce how society knocks people down on a daily basis.
If anybody has examples of this that they would like to share, feel free to comment or, if you think your example deserves its own post, send me a message. Again, I'm looking for the types of things that would usually get you an exasperated look and a "Oh my god you're such a feminist" (or whatever label) from your friend/family member/goldfish who's tired of hearing you complain about the ways society oppresses women. Side note: if your goldfish is talking to you, you either need more friends or to ask it for three wishes.
So! Our first example! Aren't you excited to hear the comment that inspired the idea for this? I know I am! The most excited!
Last week NPR's program Fresh Air featured an interview with Nate Silver, a statistical analyst who writes a blog for the New York Times. It was a respectable interview that covered statistics in sports, politics, economics...everything (you can listen to the program here). I wasn't actually paying much attention (we all know ladies hate things like sports and politics, amirite????) when suddenly Silver, who had been talking about how much data we've generated in the past two years, said, "most of it [the data] is unimportant, like youtube videos of people's cats or texts between teenage girls". Ahh, what a beautiful sentiment. It warms the cockles of my little, cold feminist heart.
Now, my teenage years were not so long ago, and so I do understand it when people think that teenagers have trivial concerns. I'm not going to address whether this conception of teenagers is right or wrong (But really, we all went through that phase, we just didn't all have unlimited texting plans when we did, and besides, are we really going to waste energy deciding what is important enough for other people to care about? And are we really going to knock already insecure teens down because their problems aren't "important enough"?) but I want you all to notice the fact that Silver specified "girls". He could have just as easily said "texts between teenagers," as it means pretty much the same thing. Could have. But he didn't. In order to emphasize his point that the data in question was trivial, he added in the word "girls" for good measure. He probably didn't even think about it! Just like most people wouldn't question the comment itself. If I wasn't in such a grouchy mood I probably wouldn't have noticed it, either.
For a moment though, think about this: what would it have sounded like if Silver had said "texts between teenage boys"? That sounds weird, right? For me, at least, the phrase doesn't generate an image in my head, whereas thinking of texting teenage girls generates an image of airheaded teens giggling over gossip on their cell phones at the mall. It feels more comfortable. Do teenage boys text any less? By the way, not to undermine myself, but apparently studies have shown that teenage girls text more than teenage boys. That's not really what I'm talking about. More than that, I'm concerned that this goes deeper than who texts more. I'm afraid the real issue is that we're dealing with the instinctive feeling that teenage girls (and girls, or women, in general) are just sillier and more trivial than boys.
And are they, really? Think about the teenage boys you've known. I'm sure some of them are very responsible (just as some teenage girls are very responsible) but aren't some of them quite silly as well? Aren't we all super silly all the time? But I digress. Basically, going along with the belief that teenage girls don't deserve to be taken seriously not only undermines all women, but also affects the way that we teach the teenage girls around us. If we don't believe that teenage girls should be taken seriously, we are going to treat them that way, and that is the message that they will receive. Some of them might even believe that message and internalize it. "Little" comments like Mr. Sliver's really do matter.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Looper
Sometimes I watch movies or TV and can't stop my brain from the broken record of "Ladies! What about the ladies? What are they doing with ladies?!" I do get tired of this. Frequently. But somebody needs to be thinking it until one day we stop having to (I'll let other people do the same thing with other problems, like racism, which is super important, but...my broken record drowns out most other noises a lot of the time. And other people talk about those things better than I ever could). In the meantime, I'm just gonna have to be That Girl. The one who's all "yeah, I guess that was pretty good, but what about the ladies?!" What a bummer. It's okay, my friends are mostly bummers in the same way. My mom is too. We can all be bummers together.
By the way, I'll warn you if serious spoilers come up, but this whole post is going to be mildly spoilery, so consider yourself warned.
Anyway, when I saw Looper, my brain wasn't really doing that. There were some blips, but the movie is so damn engrossing that I never really got the chance. It wasn't until I was walking out of the theater that something started stirring in the back of my brain. Something was wrong...terribly wrong. What was it? Before I really get to it, though, I should just say that I really did like Looper. It was smart and did lots of unexpected things and I had a fun time. That's a conversation for a different day, though.
Over coffee afterward my friend said something along the lines of "hey, do you wanna know when my feminist self got angry?" (okay she said something pretty different, but I can't remember what and it was basically that). Before I answered I ran a few moments through my head and realized what bugged me so much about the movie. Her moment wasn't the same as mine. Hers was when Main Female, Sara (Emily Blunt) is all "I'm a strong tough woman with a gun! But I need a man to save me! Save me, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, save me!" It's totally something to get grumpy about. But from thinking about this, I identified a more over-arching problem in the movie.
This paragraph is pretty spoiler-rific. Tread with caution, if you care.
I realized that all three female characters in the movie (that's right there are only three, no, nobody ever expected this movie to pass the Bechdel Test) are only identified in terms of motherhood, or their relationship with their children. Oh, my favorite trope of all time. One woman is a hooker but you know she's relatable because she's only doing it to make money for her kid. And the other is a Tough Woman With a Gun but then she saves everyone with the power of her motherhood. I am not joking, that really, truly happens. The last one we actually get ZERO details about except that she helps the Bruce Willis character get over a drug addiction and also wants kids but can't have them now because of Bad Stuff. She is supposed to be the love of Bruce Willis' life and his motivation for everything he does in this movie and that is all we know about her. My friend pointed out that the kid detail actually could be taken out with little emotional impact on the movie. But let's just leave it in because if a woman doesn't have children she must want them or else she can't be the nurturing lady you've always been looking for to save you from yourself, etc.
I'm sorry, I forgot, there's also a waitress who gets a couple lines of dialogue. Her name is Beatrice and she is basically just a humanoid plot device. We don't know if she has a baby or not, but I bet she wants one real bad.
I've been down this road before. The way that women must always want children is basically my favorite thing to moan about. But a new thought hit me this time that was so glaringly simple I was shocked I'd never had it before. Actually, I have had it before, as have many others, but I'd never really, truly thought about it.
I'm so used to thinking of women in movies in TV as tropes, as in "why can't we craft female characters that don't fall into these tropes?" This is somewhat true. We like to see characters in terms of tropes, going all the way back to commedia dell'arte (okay, probably even before that). So if we sometimes slip into those tropes, it's not The Worst Thing. Men get abused by tropes, too (see: stupid sitcom dad who can't do anything). The problem is that often that's all women get in a movie. There are the Token Trope Lady(ies) and then...nothing else. That's all. Men get their central figures, which may or may not be character types we recognize and then they also get...Everybody Else.
EVERYBODY ELSE!
In Looper there are a bunch of ensemble characters, some of whom have names, some of whom do not. They run around, waving guns and shouting. Some of them are loopers like the Joseph Gordon-Levitt character (I'm sorry I'm not calling him by name...his name is Joe, so you might understand why I don't bother. Besides, with Joes running around I figure I'll just use actor names.) Any of these other loopers, or the other men with guns, could have been a woman. Here's a shocking thought: they wouldn't even have to be a super sexy badass woman. They could have just been a pleasant looking, well-dressed woman with a gun, the same way that Joe is a pleasant looking well-dressed man with a gun. It would have been easy. Hire some actress, give her a pantsuit or whatever and a gun. Done. You don't even have to change the script. Crazy, right? And don't even try to tell me that women wouldn't run around with guns. Have you seen that Sarah Palin reality TV show? She effing loves guns and lots of people think she's a totally normal woman (we won't address the issue of whether or not she's actually a normal woman).
So here's the thing I finally realized, the thing that others have been pointing out for so long that never quite stuck: women are half of everybody. Sure, maybe we show up in some places more than others, but we still show up. Don't tell me that in the not-so-distant future there are zero ladies with guns. Especially not in the dog-eat-dog world that the future seems to be in Looper. It almost looks like you've got to have one.
So why not just throw a few women in there? I can't say, I don't work in the movies. Maybe there's one guy whose job is to stand in the corner and say things like "Ladies hate guns! They could never be hit-men...women! That is so unrealistic!" Maybe. I just like to think it's sheer laziness.
By the way, I'll warn you if serious spoilers come up, but this whole post is going to be mildly spoilery, so consider yourself warned.
Anyway, when I saw Looper, my brain wasn't really doing that. There were some blips, but the movie is so damn engrossing that I never really got the chance. It wasn't until I was walking out of the theater that something started stirring in the back of my brain. Something was wrong...terribly wrong. What was it? Before I really get to it, though, I should just say that I really did like Looper. It was smart and did lots of unexpected things and I had a fun time. That's a conversation for a different day, though.
Over coffee afterward my friend said something along the lines of "hey, do you wanna know when my feminist self got angry?" (okay she said something pretty different, but I can't remember what and it was basically that). Before I answered I ran a few moments through my head and realized what bugged me so much about the movie. Her moment wasn't the same as mine. Hers was when Main Female, Sara (Emily Blunt) is all "I'm a strong tough woman with a gun! But I need a man to save me! Save me, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, save me!" It's totally something to get grumpy about. But from thinking about this, I identified a more over-arching problem in the movie.
This paragraph is pretty spoiler-rific. Tread with caution, if you care.
I realized that all three female characters in the movie (that's right there are only three, no, nobody ever expected this movie to pass the Bechdel Test) are only identified in terms of motherhood, or their relationship with their children. Oh, my favorite trope of all time. One woman is a hooker but you know she's relatable because she's only doing it to make money for her kid. And the other is a Tough Woman With a Gun but then she saves everyone with the power of her motherhood. I am not joking, that really, truly happens. The last one we actually get ZERO details about except that she helps the Bruce Willis character get over a drug addiction and also wants kids but can't have them now because of Bad Stuff. She is supposed to be the love of Bruce Willis' life and his motivation for everything he does in this movie and that is all we know about her. My friend pointed out that the kid detail actually could be taken out with little emotional impact on the movie. But let's just leave it in because if a woman doesn't have children she must want them or else she can't be the nurturing lady you've always been looking for to save you from yourself, etc.
I'm sorry, I forgot, there's also a waitress who gets a couple lines of dialogue. Her name is Beatrice and she is basically just a humanoid plot device. We don't know if she has a baby or not, but I bet she wants one real bad.
I've been down this road before. The way that women must always want children is basically my favorite thing to moan about. But a new thought hit me this time that was so glaringly simple I was shocked I'd never had it before. Actually, I have had it before, as have many others, but I'd never really, truly thought about it.
I'm so used to thinking of women in movies in TV as tropes, as in "why can't we craft female characters that don't fall into these tropes?" This is somewhat true. We like to see characters in terms of tropes, going all the way back to commedia dell'arte (okay, probably even before that). So if we sometimes slip into those tropes, it's not The Worst Thing. Men get abused by tropes, too (see: stupid sitcom dad who can't do anything). The problem is that often that's all women get in a movie. There are the Token Trope Lady(ies) and then...nothing else. That's all. Men get their central figures, which may or may not be character types we recognize and then they also get...Everybody Else.
EVERYBODY ELSE!
In Looper there are a bunch of ensemble characters, some of whom have names, some of whom do not. They run around, waving guns and shouting. Some of them are loopers like the Joseph Gordon-Levitt character (I'm sorry I'm not calling him by name...his name is Joe, so you might understand why I don't bother. Besides, with Joes running around I figure I'll just use actor names.) Any of these other loopers, or the other men with guns, could have been a woman. Here's a shocking thought: they wouldn't even have to be a super sexy badass woman. They could have just been a pleasant looking, well-dressed woman with a gun, the same way that Joe is a pleasant looking well-dressed man with a gun. It would have been easy. Hire some actress, give her a pantsuit or whatever and a gun. Done. You don't even have to change the script. Crazy, right? And don't even try to tell me that women wouldn't run around with guns. Have you seen that Sarah Palin reality TV show? She effing loves guns and lots of people think she's a totally normal woman (we won't address the issue of whether or not she's actually a normal woman).
So here's the thing I finally realized, the thing that others have been pointing out for so long that never quite stuck: women are half of everybody. Sure, maybe we show up in some places more than others, but we still show up. Don't tell me that in the not-so-distant future there are zero ladies with guns. Especially not in the dog-eat-dog world that the future seems to be in Looper. It almost looks like you've got to have one.
So why not just throw a few women in there? I can't say, I don't work in the movies. Maybe there's one guy whose job is to stand in the corner and say things like "Ladies hate guns! They could never be hit-men...women! That is so unrealistic!" Maybe. I just like to think it's sheer laziness.
Monday, August 13, 2012
At Last
Well I haven't done anything here in quite some time, have I?
I think part of the reason for this is that the last semester that I spent in Vietnam seemed so darn normal that I couldn't think of anything to really say, but it's also unjustifiable because I did do quite a bit of traveling outside of Vietnam, and that was definitely worth commenting on. Worst. Travel blogger. Ever.
My last post reported from Cambodia, and I'm sad to say that after that I went to many many other countries that I did not write about. I went on to Singapore and Malaysia after that. A few weeks later I would go to Thailand and then Hong Kong. Before I left South East Asia I would also go to Laos and then finally return to Cambodia, fly to Seoul for the longest but most pleasant layover I've ever had, and then finally reach Hawaii where my brother was living at the time. I then visited friends in California before reaching New York at last. Whew. And I wrote about none of this?! The scandal!
Perhaps the top question I get from people, after they say "what was it like?" with a slight look of embarrassment because everybody knows that is the worst question ever, is "what was your favorite place?" This question, while at least a little bit more specific, is only slightly better. I don't think I could ever choose! I do have some memories that I cherish more than others, but a favorite place? No no no.
To appease others and to make up for my blogging gap, I will now list my top five memories from outside of Vietnam.
1. The weekend market in Bangkok. Okay, just my entire weekend in Bangkok. Most people I talk to are not fans of Bangkok at all. Words I often hear are crowded, dirty, smelly. All of these things are probably true. But spend a few weeks in HCMC and then go to Bangkok, and I think you'll feel pretty differently. Heck, I was just happy to be on public transportation that wasn't a craaaazy bus ride. I'm not a huge bus fan to begin, so I was psyched when I found out that Bangkok has a subway and a sky rail. Yes!!!! It also helped that my friend Jun and I had consciously decided that for our sanity we needed to have more of an "expat" experience than a tourist one. Yes, we still had delicious street food (oh man...duck) but we treated ourselves to expat-y (as in, more western style) cafes and massages at a fancy fancy spa. And a jazz club. Oh yes. But the highlight was definitely a surprise lurking in the depths of the weekend market. This market is known for having everything. There's a section for anything you could think of, including pets. But one area has a really cool cross section of local Thai designers who are turning out some awesome stuff. I bought two t-shirts, both of which are quite strange but totally awesome. One features a giant red eyed cow drinking from a lake, the other primary colored origami dinosaurs. Jun bought a ring that looked like a ring pop. Some cool stuff is coming out of Bangkok, that's for sure.
2. Chinese New Year in Hong Kong. Yes, the fact that it was the new year meant that I missed out on a ton of othe rHong Kong attractions because lots of things were closed. But there were fireworks! And a parade! I love parades! And I also just loved Hong Kong. even if I was chilly and damp the whole time. Mountains and the ocean right next to each other? Yes please!
3. Elephants in Chiang Mai. Chiang Mai seems to be one of the places to go if you're looking for elephants. Just a warning if you ever go there, please be careful about which elephant "sanctuary" you visit. Many of them are not legitimate or treat their elephants poorly. Often places that have extensive elephant shows where they force the animals to do tricks, or places that let you ride on the elephants are also places that abuse their animals. Please look into any organization carefully before financially supporting it. I went with the Elephant Nature Park. Most of the elephants there are rescues, the only ones that aren't are the ones that were born there. If you spend a day there you can help feed the elephants, bathe them, and pet their trunks, but you cannot ride them, which I think is a good thing (elephants are often injured by being forced to carry too many tourists in a day). I just enjoyed spending time around them and hearing stories about them.
4. Food in Laos. I don't really know that much about Lao cuisine, but basically I find it to be delicious and I really can't tell you why. All I know is that I'd never had it before and that I want more of it always. I feel like it is the forgotten cuisine of SEA because the country is hard to get to and does not have a very large population, so the food doesn't get spread as much to other countries. Laap might be the most well-known dish and involves ground meat, mint, lime, chilies...and...other things, but it's only the beginning. If I'm ever back in Laos, you can be sure that I'm taking a cooking class.
5. I really don't know what to say for this last one. I looked up at my list and realized that none of the items on it reflected all of the hiking and other outdoorsy activities I did, even if there were so many amazing experiences to be had in that realm . I also haven't listed any beaches. Oh man. I would rethink this whole list but then where would I be?!?!? The problem really is that I can't pinpoint one hike, one cave, one beach, and single it out as "better than the rest". Although I will say that the beaches north of Sihanoukville, Cambodia, were beautiful, I also never got to visit a Thai beach, so there's that. I could say that kayaking in Laos was great, but what about all of the other places to kayak? What about kayaking in Halong Bay in Vietnam? And how can I really pick one Buddha in a cave over another Buddha in a cave? Yeah.
So basically when it comes to comparing the natural beauty of one place over another, I will fail every time. This is true no matter which countries we are comparing. I feel just as incapable of comparing natural beauty among South East Asian countries as I am saying that the towering hills of Laos are more beautiful than the Perito Moreno glacier in Argentina. Or one of the Greek islands. Or even the Catskills in the Fall. Everything's different, and it's all incredible.
I think part of the reason for this is that the last semester that I spent in Vietnam seemed so darn normal that I couldn't think of anything to really say, but it's also unjustifiable because I did do quite a bit of traveling outside of Vietnam, and that was definitely worth commenting on. Worst. Travel blogger. Ever.
My last post reported from Cambodia, and I'm sad to say that after that I went to many many other countries that I did not write about. I went on to Singapore and Malaysia after that. A few weeks later I would go to Thailand and then Hong Kong. Before I left South East Asia I would also go to Laos and then finally return to Cambodia, fly to Seoul for the longest but most pleasant layover I've ever had, and then finally reach Hawaii where my brother was living at the time. I then visited friends in California before reaching New York at last. Whew. And I wrote about none of this?! The scandal!
Perhaps the top question I get from people, after they say "what was it like?" with a slight look of embarrassment because everybody knows that is the worst question ever, is "what was your favorite place?" This question, while at least a little bit more specific, is only slightly better. I don't think I could ever choose! I do have some memories that I cherish more than others, but a favorite place? No no no.
To appease others and to make up for my blogging gap, I will now list my top five memories from outside of Vietnam.
1. The weekend market in Bangkok. Okay, just my entire weekend in Bangkok. Most people I talk to are not fans of Bangkok at all. Words I often hear are crowded, dirty, smelly. All of these things are probably true. But spend a few weeks in HCMC and then go to Bangkok, and I think you'll feel pretty differently. Heck, I was just happy to be on public transportation that wasn't a craaaazy bus ride. I'm not a huge bus fan to begin, so I was psyched when I found out that Bangkok has a subway and a sky rail. Yes!!!! It also helped that my friend Jun and I had consciously decided that for our sanity we needed to have more of an "expat" experience than a tourist one. Yes, we still had delicious street food (oh man...duck) but we treated ourselves to expat-y (as in, more western style) cafes and massages at a fancy fancy spa. And a jazz club. Oh yes. But the highlight was definitely a surprise lurking in the depths of the weekend market. This market is known for having everything. There's a section for anything you could think of, including pets. But one area has a really cool cross section of local Thai designers who are turning out some awesome stuff. I bought two t-shirts, both of which are quite strange but totally awesome. One features a giant red eyed cow drinking from a lake, the other primary colored origami dinosaurs. Jun bought a ring that looked like a ring pop. Some cool stuff is coming out of Bangkok, that's for sure.
2. Chinese New Year in Hong Kong. Yes, the fact that it was the new year meant that I missed out on a ton of othe rHong Kong attractions because lots of things were closed. But there were fireworks! And a parade! I love parades! And I also just loved Hong Kong. even if I was chilly and damp the whole time. Mountains and the ocean right next to each other? Yes please!
3. Elephants in Chiang Mai. Chiang Mai seems to be one of the places to go if you're looking for elephants. Just a warning if you ever go there, please be careful about which elephant "sanctuary" you visit. Many of them are not legitimate or treat their elephants poorly. Often places that have extensive elephant shows where they force the animals to do tricks, or places that let you ride on the elephants are also places that abuse their animals. Please look into any organization carefully before financially supporting it. I went with the Elephant Nature Park. Most of the elephants there are rescues, the only ones that aren't are the ones that were born there. If you spend a day there you can help feed the elephants, bathe them, and pet their trunks, but you cannot ride them, which I think is a good thing (elephants are often injured by being forced to carry too many tourists in a day). I just enjoyed spending time around them and hearing stories about them.
4. Food in Laos. I don't really know that much about Lao cuisine, but basically I find it to be delicious and I really can't tell you why. All I know is that I'd never had it before and that I want more of it always. I feel like it is the forgotten cuisine of SEA because the country is hard to get to and does not have a very large population, so the food doesn't get spread as much to other countries. Laap might be the most well-known dish and involves ground meat, mint, lime, chilies...and...other things, but it's only the beginning. If I'm ever back in Laos, you can be sure that I'm taking a cooking class.
5. I really don't know what to say for this last one. I looked up at my list and realized that none of the items on it reflected all of the hiking and other outdoorsy activities I did, even if there were so many amazing experiences to be had in that realm . I also haven't listed any beaches. Oh man. I would rethink this whole list but then where would I be?!?!? The problem really is that I can't pinpoint one hike, one cave, one beach, and single it out as "better than the rest". Although I will say that the beaches north of Sihanoukville, Cambodia, were beautiful, I also never got to visit a Thai beach, so there's that. I could say that kayaking in Laos was great, but what about all of the other places to kayak? What about kayaking in Halong Bay in Vietnam? And how can I really pick one Buddha in a cave over another Buddha in a cave? Yeah.
So basically when it comes to comparing the natural beauty of one place over another, I will fail every time. This is true no matter which countries we are comparing. I feel just as incapable of comparing natural beauty among South East Asian countries as I am saying that the towering hills of Laos are more beautiful than the Perito Moreno glacier in Argentina. Or one of the Greek islands. Or even the Catskills in the Fall. Everything's different, and it's all incredible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)