A Post In Which I Review Dollhouse's "Haunted"

I will give "Haunted" this: it was much better the second time than it was the first.

Topher was, once again, brilliant. And I like Fran Kranz's hands. A lot. Actually, a big issue I had with "Haunted" the first time I saw it was the big knot of tension I had worrying over whether or not Topher was going to be yet another man to rape Sierra. I shouldn't have worried, but with Hearn and Nolan, and Adelle's use of Victor last week, it seemed like a distinct opportunity to make this particular show all the more stomach churning. Luckily, Topher remained his child-like, amoral self, and only wanted to build a friend to share his birthday with. That friend-building was sweetly sad; and yet, totally awesome. I loved Sierra's imprint; I loved Topher. And while there are still philosophical and moral and ethical issues with using people to house other people, created and not, I couldn't help but get drawn in from the opening exchange:

SIERRA: Tell me you got Speed Force 3.

TOPHER: And downloaded the bonus maps.

SIERRA: Pizza?

TOPHER: On its way. Beer in the fridge.

SIERRA: Dude!

Between that and:

SIERRA (tossing a football back and forth): Earth-identical gravity and atmosphere on other planets. Is that two?

TOPHER: I'll give you one.

SIERRA: That's fair. One ecosystem for a whole planet.

TOPHER: Good.

SIERRA: Human-alien cross-breeding without scientific intervention.

TOPHER: Nice.

SIERRA: Flame-y explosions and sound in a vacuum.

TOPHER: Yes! Good job!

SIERRA: Oh, but there's so much more. Light speed travel, space storms, and sexy, sexy aliens.

TOPHER: Ah, I said classic sci-fi errors. Now you're just attacking good storytelling.

I was hooked. It was wonderful to see Topher not expounding on his genius for one episode, and it was great to see him relax, have fun, and be himself. Although I don't approve of the Dollhouse in the least little bit, I must say it is an interesting tool to utilize in terms of storytelling; a quick fix to learning about even the most guarded of characters. Because each of them can build someone they can be wholly themselves around without risk of rejection or derision, we get glimpses into these broken characters we otherwise would have never been afforded.

Another thing I liked about the Topher-Sierra scenes, aside from the fact that I find the both of them charismatic, wonderful, and talented, is that it showed a more mature side to Topher. Sierra seemed to be based on Topher and Topher's own wants and needs and impulses. And so to have an exchange like this:

SIERRA: ...can we play with the sleepies?

TOPHER: No!

SIERRA: Come on, Topher. We could have them battle one another and bet on them like gladiators.

TOPHER: We can't play with the sleepies.

SIERRA: Or we could have them act out skits we write, film it, and see who gets more hits on YouTube.

TOPHER: That's not a bad idea, but no.

In the episode Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode "The Replacement", Xander gets split into two separate parts, and Giles remarks, "He's clearly a bad influence on himself." The opposite seems true here. With Sierra around to spout the random, immature impulses, Topher seems to experience less of them.

That isn't to say there isn't a disturbing element to the above; Sierra is, categorically speaking, one of the 'sleepies', there but for the grace of Boyd to be contemplated for gladiatoral use. Sierra may be one of the 'sleepies' next year, on Topher's next birthday. Sierra is still being used, and yet still sees herself as separate from the Dolls below. In a very real way, Sierra is still being violated by Topher's venture, and that doesn't get wiped away merely because Topher is achingly lonely, a year older, and adorable. With all of that said, though, the twinkie scene at the end did make me tear up more than a little.

Unlike Topher and Sierra, Ballard and Mellie's scenes did nothing to counteract the creepy vibe on the second watching. Mellie is, actually, adorabubble; and innocent. It sucked, in a well-written way, to see this woman, through no fault of her own and no idea why it was happening, be completely and totally shut out of her boyfriend's life. On the other hand, it was terrible to watch Ballard have to keep up the appearances of a normal relationship, to have to hide his investigation into the Dollhouse when his girlfriend innocently asks because she is being not-so-innocently used by an underground organization. It sucks for Ballard to become ever more complicit in the violation of another human being. And it demonstrates something very not good that Ballard lets go, lets himself be weak, and lets himself be persuaded by Mellie to use her. That Ballard uses Mellie for Angry Sex makes him actively complicit in the Dollhouse's victimization of the Mellie, instead of just passively complicit. As Ballard said at the end of the episode, he has found another client.

Mellie's (or rather, the person who Mellie's body belongs to) criminal record seems to be more than a little bit of a catalyst for Ballard's feelings of betrayal. Before he saw that, he was angry and withdrawn; but he seemed to recognize Mellie was a victim, was a missing person, was someone worth finding again. Afterward, he seemed even more betrayed, like his vision of the Perfect Victim disappeared from right in front of his eyes and left him with someone he may not typically feel sympathy for, left him with someone he may not be driven to save, someone he would have worked to put away. Mellie's reveal left Ballard seemingly on a ledge, but Mellie's possible record seems to have made him unhinged. It leads him to using her, and shows the audience that Ballard is also more than a little bit grey. He isn't going to be the dashing prince; he isn't going to be the hero of the piece. He isn't a bad guy, but he certainly isn't the best of guys either.

The part of the episode that was most uncomfortable was Margaret-in-Echo living after her death, though not for the same reasons Boyd was disturbed. It started out pretty awesome, what with:

MARGARET: Addy! Adelle. What's wrong? You look terrible.

ADELLE: Margaret. I'm so sorry to be the one to tell you. You're dead.

It seems unfair that such an awesome beginning could lead to so much uncomfortable badness. Part of it was Eliza Dushku. Her Margaret was uncomfortable to watch; and as much as I would love to chalk that up to an older Margaret trying desperately to imitate the manners, world view, and speaking patterns of someone 25 years younger than herself in a highly stressful situation, and as much as that did seem to sum up the nature of the awkwardness at times, almost as often it just seemed to be Dushku unable to fully get around the character. The scenes where she was good, she was very good. The scenes where she wasn't, she was pretty bad. But Dushku was not the the only problem. The other issue was this:

MARGARET: To see my own funeral? Who wouldn't want that?

Me. I wouldn't want to see that. I wouldn't want to know what my family and friends thought of me. I would rather die with the happy illusion that I was everyone's favorite person. It only now occurs to me that the very notion of having to live again in another's body in order to see one's own funeral and discern how everyone really feels is really the fantasy of the atheist. Presumably, those who believe in a higher power could simply look down - or up - if they were really that curious.

The other barrier was that I could see how that original premise - seeing your own funeral - could be an interesting one to explore, and so the addition of the murder mystery seemed unnecessary. It made for an exciting conclusion and a true bad guy (who was more than a little distracting, what with his name being Nicholas and his resemblance to Whedon alum Nicholas Brendon), but Margaret having to deal with the disappointments and regrets of her family without that crutch could have been incredible. Plus, she would have had to figure out another way to give Jack more than just the horses without the ease of "He's never going to use that money, because he's going to rot in jail".

And, of course, every episode of Dollhouse should have some Enver Gjokaj. Because I love him. And because he's one of the best damn actors on the show. Shame on the show for not giving us Enver!

Grade: B/B+

Racism in East Texas

If you have any time in the next couple of days, I highly recommend reading elle's piece entitled Officer Jack Sparrow. If you don't have any time, I strongly suggest making some.

I don't know what else to add to it, other than the obvious; it is deplorable, it is despicable, and it should be one of the first pieces of writing pointed to when someone talks about our 'post-racial' society, or who claims that racism isn't that big a problem any more. I can't begin to imagine being treated like elle, her family members, and all of the others stopped by police in East Texas and probably elsewhere. I can't imagine fearing for one's health, one's life, and being treated like a criminal without cause. I can't imagine allowing an officer to search my car because the alternative could be devastating. And it turns my stomach that privilege of not fearing cops, of being confident in my ability to not sign a piece of paper forfeiting my property, is a privilege and not a given for all citizens.

A Post In Which I Review Dollhouse's "A Spy In The House of Love"

Dollhouse's "Spy in the House of Love" managed to demonstrate much of the show's strength while not doing the same with its weaknesses. It epitomized that "accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative" song; not only did it fully integrate each Doll's imprint into the overall story line, it also did something Joss Whedon had first proposed as something Dollhouse as a show could do, that the show itself could radically change in terms of genre from week to week, going from thriller to action to romantic comedy in terms of style while keeping the core of the show the same. It was an interesting idea, especially coming from the genre-bending Whedon, but it did not come to pass. "Spy", however, demonstrates what the show element may have looked like, albeit all at once.  In following the imprinted Dolls, we follow those different genres. For Sierra, it is pure Alias, down to the wig; For Victor, it is very much a romance a la Nicholas Sparks - with a twist; for Echo, it is a psychological thriller/mystery; and for November, she walks into Ballard's very own conspiracy theory, and then managed to shore that theory up.

The episode as a whole also revealed much about two of our favorite bad guys, Dominic and DeWitt. Dominic, we learn, obviously, is a spy - though I would venture that the spy in the house of love is a reference to November. But DeWitt, well, with DeWitt we learn that she is one of the "pathetic, self-deluding souls". We see what she needs, to be wanted, to be allowed to have doubts, to be allowed to be weak, to be allowed to show more emotion than the staunch Brit. It is sick, and probably an abuse of power (I'm not sure how the Dollhouse views employees utilizing the Dolls for their own personal edification, but I would bet it isn't in the handbook as a perk). Even with that on the moral side, we see more of her from the story telling side. We see her reaction to Dominic's betrayal, a reaction she denies Dominic the pleasure of seeing himself. We see a possible deeper - and more selfish - reason for her response to Victor's 'man reactions'. We know that she "used to head a division that grew replacement organs out of stem cells. I could tell people what I did for a living", and it seems as though she misses not only the open nature of her old profession but also - probably - the less ambiguous nature of it.

Dominic's reveal was, in a word, fantastic. It turned around all we knew about him - not that we knew much. What we did know was that he hated Echo, and was loyal to DeWitt. Even as the episode progressed, those were the constants. When discovering the chip, he intones, "If anything happened to DeWitt...", further throwing suspicion from himself that he was in fact the spy. The fact that he was, that he found it "embarrassing how naive" Adelle is, and his actual reason for spying all added more to the character. As did his casual acceptance of Topher and Ivy as casualties in his overall mission. It makes his reaction in "Echoes" to Victor being programmed as an NSA agent all the better. But what was incredible was his reaction to Echo at the end:

ECHO: What's in store for you - you don't have much to smile about.

DOMINIC: After you beat me to a pulp, they're going to erase me. But first, they're going to erase you.

ECO: I can take care of myself.

DOMINIC: I know. That's why I'm smiling. 'Cause one day, you'll be erasing them. And even after all this, they still won't see it coming.

At first, it looks like Dominic is merely getting pleasure out of the fact that the person who caught him will go first. But then, it shifts. Dominic may be an ass, but he doesn't seem to be holding anything against Echo here, in this particular instance. He's offering his own prediction, the prediction that allows him to go with satisfaction. The belief that he was right, and Adelle really is embarrassingly naive.

As well as being embarrassingly naive, Adelle also seems to be a bit of a hypocrite, what with Dominic telling her that the technology needs to be controlled and DeWitt shoots back, "By a clandestine organization with little government oversight?" She seems to forget that she runs her own clandestine organization with no government oversight, and that perhaps she shouldn't be throwing stones. There's more than a smidgen of a chance Dominic shouldn't be either, but he seems to be worried about the eventual economic gains the Rossum corporation could net by releasing the technology to the public. And in an odd twist, he wasn't there to bring down the Dollhouse or even subdue it under NSA control. He was there to contain it, and to keep the FBI from finding it. Making this particular government organization - and perhaps even higher up - one of the bad guys.

Another interesting character development is that of Topher. Often appearing to care about almost nothing outside of himself and his juice boxes, Topher proves that isn't exactly the case in an awesome exchange:

TOPHER: Boyd! In about two minutes, I'm gonna make a call to DeWitt. If you were to do something, maybe get some air, maybe run, I wouldn't know that you had done that.

BOYD: I have no idea what you're talking about.

TOPHER: You don't? I found this in the chair.

BOYD: And?

TOPHER: This chip lets someone access the primary imprint protocol, which means they could have altered my imprints. I make a cheerleader, they make a cheerleader that shoots people. Or an assassin that does cheers. Or any active, any time, with a parameter we don't know about!

BOYD: We have a spy.

TOPHER: Inside the Dollhouse.

BOYD: And you think it's me, you think I'm the spy?

TOPHER: Not in a bad way.

BOYD: They find out that you talked to me before you called DeWitt, they'll fry you.

TOPHER: Yeah, I didn't really think that through.

BOYD: Thank you.

TOPHER: Hey, I'm boned anyway.

Topher is by far becoming my favorite constant character on the show (my favorite varies week to week depending on what Enver Gjokaj is doing/being). He's completely amoral, but Fran Kranz brings something sweet to the character week after week. And his amorality apparently comes in handy, when it relates to warning a fellow traveler. If he were there for the whys instead of the hows, he might not have been inclined to give Boyd the ill-conceived out. There's another possibility, but I like Topher too much to even really bring it up; it is possible he really is a spy, just not the spy they caught. They caught an NSA spy wandering around the place, looking to reign in the technology. But the spy who used the chip, the one sending messages to Ballard, doesn't seem to be Dominic. Dominic's purpose was to protect the Dollhouse, albeit for a different set of masters than the ones DeWitt serves. But given that Topher is, well, Topher, and can't seem to keep more than one thought in his head at one time unless it relates to the science part of the fiction, I'm going to assume it was someone else. That being said, Topher is the person, behind whoever Victor is that week, who tends to get the best lines:

IVY: Should we help?

TOPHER: Yeah. I helped when I imprinted her with kung fu skills, but be my guest.

so I hope (if they get a second season) they keep him around.

He also seems to be on the brink of an actual moral discovery, what with his asking Echo, "Why would you want to?" when she offered to help, and his look of "oh shit" when she told him he made people different. 

The other insanely cool/twisted part of the show was Ballard. Ballard, now by knowing who and what Mellie is and having to play along, has become trapped into a complicit role in a Doll's exploitation. His face when kissing Mellie after the fact was amazing, all clenched. It was self-loathing wrapped in a pretty shell.

Dr. Saunders and her refusal to leave the Dollhouse was another interesting tidbit. It both furthers her assertion that the world is full of terror and chaos, and explains why she would continue to help the Dollhouse exist even if she believes "the system is flawed, perhaps irreparably".

That isn't to say there weren't some problems with the episode. Like, how does Victor's Roger get programmed to find DeWitt if even Topher doesn't know he's not supposed to have the hots for the octogenarian? How did Mellie get programmed with the underlying message to Ballard if the chip was found after she had her 'treatment'? How come Mellie didn't see Caroline and immediately freak the hell out? Plot holes, all. But overall? Second strong episode in a row. Go team!

Grade: A

A Post In Which I Review Dollhouse's "Needs"

One of the reasons why I haven't written about "Needs" before Dollhouse's season and probably series finale was breathing down my neck is because it makes my head hurt. I'll start off by saying that I think it was an incredibly strong effort, but that there was so much packed into such a short span of time that it is hard to make a cogent statement about the episode as a whole. So, I probably won't.

Lesson the First: The Actions Of A Small Group of People Is Not Enough To Change the World

Whedon seems to be veering wildly away from a theme that permeated much of his earlier work; unlike the small group of friends and colleagues who were able to defeat demonic threats, and - in another 'verse - weaken an authoritarian government, the 'awakened' Dolls still are controlled, still cannot escape the overarching reach of this dominant global force. Although Sierra declares, "We decide for ourselves now", nothing could be farther from the truth. The tragedy present is the hope these four have while exiting the Dollhouse, the hope that they are now free and autonomous beings who can do what they want and go where they want. Unlike Buffy, they haven't 'graduated'. They speak in Whedonesque terms about freedom and sacrificing to make a difference, but what makes the show so dark is how they aren't even allowed to fail; their success is part of reaffirming their place in the system. Their small victories only succeed in making them more compliant cogs in the machine, because they feel as though they have accomplished something. It is a much more negative view of the world, and all who happen to live in it. Several bloggers note that the whole structure of the Dollhouse can be read as a broad metaphor for the oppressive structures of our world, as well as examining our own false consciousness. What also seems to be addressed in show is how we can never fully escape these structural oppressions on an individual basis; we can attempt to battle them, we can recognize them, we can work to check our privilege, but we as individuals will never truly beat the system. It is an interesting reading, and one I'm more and more attracted to - though that does mean that Whedon and I will soon have a philosophical parting in this particular area. I may be naive, and I'm definitely an optimist; but while in my most cynical moments I may feel like this dystopian reading of society is in all probability right, I'm still going to hope beyond hope that we can each be Mal, or Buffy. That we can, individually, strike critical blows to these things that chain us.

Lesson the Second: Rape Does Not Diminish Personhood

This doesn't really feel like it should be a necessary lesson, but between Badger's FBI Guy in Man on the Street and Nolan here, it seems imperative to note that if nothing else, Dollhouse the show seems intent on demonstrating the Dolls' humanity; that humanity is important, because the Dollhouse as an organization can be a metaphor for sex work, and of course sexual slavery. I don't really want to delve too far into the ethical and feminist pros and cons of something like prostitution; I recognize there are women (and men) who choose of their own free will to be sex workers, who enjoy sex work, and who have not suffered whilst pursuing sex work. But there are many women and men who become sex workers because they are coerced, because they are forced to, or because of the economics of their particular situation. What is clear is that no matter the way in which one becomes involved in sex work, in many ways, one's worth in the eyes of many seemingly dissipates. Badger-FBI Guy represents one view about women who have been in sex work, either voluntarily or not, when he describes Caroline as "a mindless whore". The victim becomes the person to be looked down upon. Sierra's Dollhouse 'benefactor' goes another way, gaining satisfaction and power from the fact that they woman who turned him down can now turn down nobody. When Sierra tells him, "I'm more of a person than you", Nolan tries to strip her of her personhood simply by referring to the coerced sex acts he has forced upon her, boasting, "Honey, you're programmed to give me and - and anyone else whatever we want, whenever we want it. Which... you do, with pleasure. And sometimes you even beg". And yet, Sierra, and Victor, and Echo, and Mellie, do come across as being more of a person than the twisted Nolan. Although he now views her as less of a person, although Badger-FBI Guy sees Echo/Caroline as less of a person based on their "mindless whore"ing ways, that does not make it so. In a major way, Whedon both presents and discredits this idea.

Lesson the Third: There Is A Difference Between Needs & Wants

Topher tells Not-Caroline, "We help people become better people by giving them what they need". Except it is hard to see how Nolan becomes a better person by being able to - even if only in his own mind - humiliate Sierra. It's hard to see how Matt, the dancing and biker guy, becomes a better person. The Dollhouse deals mostly in want. Nolan wants Sierra; Matt wants the porntastic version of a school girl; Biz wants someone to take care of Rayna. Sometimes, the people may change for the better; Rayna is probably a good example, as are the people in the religious compound. But that seems to be more of a side effect of the main mission of making the whims of the rich and powerful come true. The idea that they are making better people, not by programming them but by giving them the programmed, is merely a rationalization. Which brings us to:

Lesson the Fourth: Rationalizations Are Weak

Topher's declaration that he is "just the science guy", after describing what the process is to make the Dolls comes off as incredibly craven and pathetic. Adelle telling Not-Caroline, "I eased your suffering" and making it clear all there are volunteers even though Not-Caroline has a pretty good idea at least one of them isn't comes off as simplistic, at best naive and at worst deceiving. Dr. Saunders, when she says, "She wasn't leading them to freedom. She was leading them to a world of terror and chaos that would have destroyed them" employs yet another. We have at least one example how the world of terror and chaos is not guaranteed to destroy the Dolls; it may or may not, just like the world may or may not destroy anyone. But only from adversity and conflict comes growth, as demonstrated in Gray Hour. The Dolls aren't really living in the world because they are denied that ability to develop, to grow. The fact that Dr. Saunders is employing her own technique of 'hide and the world will go away' to the well-being of the Dolls may indicate how badly scarred - internally - she really is.

  

Random Observations:

Sierra's "I trusted him. Why did I trust him?" was heartbreaking for many reasons, one being that most rape victims know their attacker.

Topher remains fairly adorably kiddish, even with his amoral ways.

There was way too little Boyd.

Enver Gjokaj, and Victor sort of by proxy, is incredible. His recitation of the Mets' line up, his "We're gonna die" reaction to "I like pancakes", his face when he discovered the Sex Pants of Doom, all wonderful. If only he were our main Doll! Or Sierra; I could handle Sierra.

Grade: A-/A

Wow, Am I Behind On My Dollhouse Posts

Seriously. First one week slipped by, then two, then five! How do five weeks slip by (with four episodes) and me not analyze anything Whedon-related? It's like a travesty! There was that one post about saving Dollhouse, but that was really just recognizing someone else's creativity. In order to rectify this whole issue, I'm going to take the next four days and review each episode I missed reviewing in its week, leading up to what is in all probability the series finale on friday. Wish me luck in my ambitious endeavor!

Girls, Playgrounds, and Girliness

When I was six, there was a hierarchy on the playground. It was not only a grade hierarchy, with the 5th graders at the top of the pyramid and the first graders at the bottom, but a gendered one as well. Boys would torment the girls who liked hop scotch, who liked jumping rope, who were girly and wore skirts. After it rained (and I live where it likes to rain), they would pick up the engorged worms and throw them at the girls who were considered too girly. The way to avoid that? Well, it was pretty simple. Show no fear, point out the girls who would screech and cry, and every once in a while 'attempt' to pick up a worm yourself. Truth is, the last thing I wanted was to get a worm in my hair, and so I did the cowardly thing. I colluded with the more powerful, the ones who were obviously better than those pink wearing, pig-tailed, girly girls - because no one was throwing anything at them, and no one sought to put them in the time out box for their trespasses. Because this was just what kids do. There were a couple of other girls in the group I hung out with in elementary school, but it was mostly a pack of boys. We'd beat on each other, play tag and a primitive version of war where two competing sides would fight minor skirmishes on the outskirts of what could be considered the playground and sometimes capture prisoners. It felt good to be in with the A-team, with the people who didn't get picked on simply because they were who they were. And so, there I stayed.

Part of this was because I was horribly bad at jump rope, but a lot of it was because I didn't want to get that worm - or whatever the worm equivalent was on a sunny day - on me. I hated girly things, and I wasn't overly fond of the girly people either. They were weak, as evidenced by their continued torment. And it was much easier to get cootie shots when I was touched by one than to actually admit that those girls and I had something in common; the second I stopped wanting to play war and picked up a jump rope, I would be just one of the masses who would be wormed. I don't remember boys having it all that bad, though they must have. There had to be a couple of boys who didn't want to throw worms, but felt like they had to. There had to be a couple of boys who would have preferred to play jump rope but couldn't, because not only was that something girls did, it was something those icky girls did, girls who you needed to be inoculated against to ensure you wouldn't develop some of those icky girly traits.

I imagine that this wasn't the case everywhere, that there were playgrounds where girly girls weren't tormented by the boys. The couple of playgrounds I've been in, though, both as a student and then as just a witness to the goings on, suggest otherwise. By the time I moved to a different town and a different playground, the game was no longer throwing worms but snapping bras. Nevertheless, the game pretty much remained the same. The girls who were girly had their bra straps snapped, and the girls who eschewed girly behavior were pretty much left alone. The fact remained, though, that girliness was something to avoid, to mock, and - as a girl - to fear. Which brings me to this point: girliness is in the eye of the beholder. I am, in certain respects, excessively girly. I like clothing, I like shoes, I like romantic-comedies, and as much as I like playing in the snow or waves, I'm also happiest curled up in a chair reading a book. But even with girliness being in the eye of the beholder, girliness is devalued more than girls are. Which is a problem, because I didn't start liking shoes until after I gave up my belief that a worm could come flying at my head at any second or that my bra was subject to snapping.

Marjorie Bell sums up this anti-girly bias best when she says,

I’ve noticed that lots of folks with only one daughter sound like, well, me, when I only had one daughter: “Golly, we have no idea how she got so girly! It’s crazy!” Alter-nately, parents of glitter-indifferent girls can sound self-righteous and self-congratulatory: “Oh, we consciously provided our daughter with toy cars and Legos to nurture her adventurous courageous spirit, thus providing the fertile soil in which a fearless gender warrior could grow! More lentil-quinoa loaf?”

The thing that strikes me about this quote - aside from the fact that my own mother told me that she would kill me if  I became a cheerleader and then told me she would kill me if I joined a sorority - is how it fits in with the greater narrative of society. My father, who has three girls and wanted four girls, has received condolences many times for a lack of son. Professions that are coded as feminine generally pay less. And while we simultaneously deride the princess for doing nothing while her prince comes to rescue her, we also - as Amy Wilson demonstrates - expect girls to be that way, to be the princess who has a love of pink and ponies. We expect it so much that I think we do what Bell states; we see behavior through the prism we've already constructed. So, for Bell, Josie initially comes off as intrinsically feminine even though she - like her sister - is "in the middle of the bell curve of girliness". It is kind of like how we see cars. I recently bought a car, and I swear I now see it everywhere after seeing it nowhere before. I doubt everyone in the world ran out and bought a car simply to fuck with me (my self-centeredness doesn't extend that far), and so it is just a matter of being attuned to this whole new model of vehicle. The same applies to gender, and how we picture the 'tells' of each gender.

I'm pretty sure that there is no answer to the great nature-nurture debate; I'm pretty sure that, like most things in life, there's a healthy mix of both nature and nurture in how each person develops. Likewise, I don't think there's a definitive answer to the individual-society debate. My constantly quoted friend seems to think that I'm more on the side of nurture, and more on the side of society, but that's not really true. I don't think that society creates every impulse, but I do think it influences us in ways we oftentimes fail to recognize; part of that is probably due to us as a society believing that we are individuals and autonomous, and having that be the ideal. That being said, it doesn't matter much to me if Amy Wilson came to her conclusions that a daughter would love princesses and ponies and princess parties, and how princessy girls are bad, all by herself or in conjunction with society telling us all that princessy girls are bad.

The fact remains that regardless of how Wilson herself came up with the idea that girls are "whine and mope, manipulate and triangulate", it could still be published as a viable idea on a mainstream news organization's website. Frankly, I do think that Wilson has been at the very least influenced by society's belief about girls and girly behavior, just like I am and the boys who threw worms at the girly girls on my playground were. But even if she came to these ideas independently, I still think it tells us something about society that this work could be published where it was published, without someone saying, "Boys don't mope or whine? Boys are never manipulative?", without someone recognizing that disliking girliness and devaluing girly girls is socially acceptable and maybe that's a bad thing for all of the girly girls out there.

An addendum:

Further reading: Why 'Tomboy'  Remains a Loaded Word. There are a couple of observations I really like in this article, primarily:

It's much better, contends Mullin, to be a tomboy than a sissy.

"We are more comfortable with girls exhibiting supposedly masculine traits than with boys exhibiting supposedly feminine traits. I suspect this is partly due to greater fear that a boy who transgresses gender norms will be homosexual, and to the idea that a girl is `trading up' when she is boyish, since masculinity tends to be more highly valued in our culture than femininity."

Feminism has done a great many things, and it has broken down the doorway for women into the field of what would have been traditionally men's work; but we as a society have a lot longer to go in order to recognize the value of what we see as traditional women's work and what we see as 'women's roles', and in allowing not only women to be valued while doing them but also allowing men access to those roles without being considered less of a man because of it.

Saturday Sesame Street

The audio's a little off, but it combines two of my favorite people, Big Bird and Waylon Jennings:

And though this isn't technically part of the show Sesame Street, I still think it counts.

Sexism Creeping In

There is a somewhat sickening article on CNN about a mother-to-be, and how she doesn't want a girl after having two boys. Her reaction to discovering she was having a girl? Well, it was something like this:

This child I was just starting to feel stir inside me was a girl? I waited for the excitement to wash over me. It didn't come. Not only was I not thrilled -- I was disappointed. I'm still not sure whether I was more bummed by how I found out or what I found out. Either way, I was shaken.

The reason she was shaken? Well, that one goes something like this:

Even before I had sons, I worried about having a daughter. I could handle boys, with their cut-and-dried needs, but girls were so much more complicated. Girls have elaborate hairstyling requirements. They whine and mope, manipulate and triangulate. How was I going to deal with that?

I could feel my face getting hot as I read through that. But I nearly blew my stack when I got to this:

I fear I won't know how to protect my child from a world that may often tell her that she's not good enough as she is.

Because it is obvious that it isn't just the world who thinks she's not good enough as she is, even though she's never been born yet. It is her own mother. This little girl may one day grow up and play the game many of us like to play from time to time, and that is to Google her name or the name of her loved ones. And when she Googles her mother's name, she may stumble upon this very article, telling her that her conception wasn't a joy - because she was a girl. And even if she doesn't, or even if she Googles and there are so many other Amy Wilsons out there she never stumbles upon this particular article, that sentiment - that girls are yucky, and so is pink! sentiment - is still present in this mother's mind. That is just all manner of sad.

I also want to know why this woman, a woman who herself has no interest in pink or princess or tutus, automatically expects a girl who will be. I want to know why this woman doesn't anticipate how having two older brothers will help shape this particular girl. How having that older niece who loves to get dirt underneath her nails will affect how this particular girl views being a girl. I'm not denying that this little girl may become inalterably in love with the shade of pink, but I find it all the more ironic that a mother who is protesting pink then goes and buys her daughter pink outfits instead of dressing the kid in the gender neutral outfits her boys were dressed in. In this case, I fear this little girl may very well suffer from mixed messages regarding pink and its attributes - and probably other girly things and their attributes, as well as the attributes of being a girl.

And then there's this: kids are always going to be interested in things their parents don't give two flying leaps about. One of my sisters is, at the moment, psychotic about remaining in her number 1 position in academic rankings; my other sister loves soccer, to watch it and to play it; and I was obsessed with dance and dance classes. My parents? Not really that interested in any of those things. But one of the things about parenting is in enduring activities you would rather not simply because it makes your kids happy, and because it doesn't hurt them. So, my parents go to parent-teacher conferences and soccer games, and went to at least one dance recital a year for about 17 years. The other thing is that kids are, generally, also interested in some stuff their parents actually do like; in my parents' case, that covers a wide range of subjects including but not limited to politics, history, animated films, games of frisbee, and Apples to Apples. So this girl may turn out to be a pink-wearing, princess obsessed girly-girl who also loves to roughhouse and play Matchbox cars. Stranger things have happened. Almost as strange as worrying about the world devaluing your daughter, as if you haven't spent an article doing just that.

Related reading on the devaluing of girl babies via FeministGal.

A Long Explanation For Some Reading Recommendations

I've been reading a lot of Sadie's work on Judd Apatow at Tiger Beatdown and her guest post on Shakesville. Now, I have to admit that I have a love-hate relationship with Judd Apatow. I love his films' trailers. I hate his films. Seriously; I see every movie trailer in the Apatow oeuvre, and I think to myself, "I want to see that!" And then I forget about it for a year or three, and catch it when it is on HBO - and then I hate myself for having ever wanted to see it in the first place.

I think my favorite post of Sadie's is her Because, Um...? post. Because it's true. I have been a romantic comedy fan from way, way back. Mostly because I'm a big wuss who really does love a happy ending. This is my reason for also loving action films, and one of the reasons I have for disliking westerns. And yet, the romantic comedy has begun to wear thin, for the reason Sadie highlighted. Too many of the romantic comedies I have seen - movies that are purportedly chick flicks, mind you - employ the Because, Um...? girl. A lot don't; I can definitely see why Sally ends up with Harry, and why almost every woman ends up with Hugh Grant across his multitude of films. It's because even though Harry and every guy Hugh Grant has played recently are assholes, they've got some redeeming quality - even if that redeeming quality, in Hugh's case, is simply being as cute and charming as Hugh Grant. But too many romantic comedies end with me scratching my head thinking, "Why is she interested in him?" Movies like 29 Dresses; movies like Knocked Up; even movies like Juno (seriously, Juno says Paulie Bleeker is the coolest person she knows, and all I can think is that Juno needs to meet some more people). The Because, Um...? phenomenon is incredibly annoying, and I'm glad it has been named.

I liked her other posts as well, though I took some umbrage at the maligning of a puppet Dracula musical throughout the Forgetting Sarah Marshall post. But that's really because I'm a big fan of puppets, musicals, and vampires, and because I could totally see Joss Whedon being able to pull off a Dracula puppet musical about eternal love and having it be edgy and cool and artistic and fun.

Really, though, Sadie does a great job pointing out why these films make me so incredibly, Hulkishly, angry. It's because the films are based on the belief that sex is cool but girls are not; that the vagina is a thing to be pursued, and that the woman who that vagina belongs to is pretty much worthless. It is because the bromance aspect of Apatow's movies directly correlates to an inability to form actual romances with women. I'm actually a huge fan of the idea of a bromance; my favorite bromance writer is Aaron Sorkin, and part of why I love his work so much is the deep, passionate, platonic love many of his sets of male characters hold for one another. But the Apatow bromance is damaging, because it too often keeps the bros of the 'mance in an enforced childish state. There is no encouragement of growth within these bromances; the bromances exist in part as a way of preserving the legitimacy of the man-child life, as a way of insulating themselves from the corrupting influences of those women who want actual partners to share in the joys and responsibilities of domesticity.

So, I highly recommend the multiple Apatow posts. And her Dollhouse post, which - aside from her dislike of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, my favorite show of all time - is beyond awesome, and probably deserving of a whole post on its own.

Important Announcement

If NBC's Chuck gets cancelled, I will cry.

Save Dollhouse PSA

I love the guy with the signs:


He's so cute!!

Saturday Sesame Street

It has been a couple of weeks since my last Sesame Street post, because I fell off of the posting bandwagon. I'm (hopefully) back on now, so here's a classic clip featuring James Taylor:



I like how excited the kids are to help with the refrain.

Why She's My Best Friend:

"Many of our appliances don't work in tandem."

- My best friend, explaining that due to faulty wiring, she had to wait to make cinnamon toast until after the dishwasher finished.

This could have fallen under "My Night So Far" status, but I didn't get to post it when it was happening in my night.

A Patriarchal Metaphysical Conundrum

I love this Jay Smooth video:

And as much as I love Miss Congeniality (and I do - I watched it Wednesday night instead of writing a blog post; I know, I know), I was also in agreement with this:

Watching this clip raised a lot of questions for me. Questions such as: Why do beauty pageants still exist? This whole ritual just seems so out of place to me in 2009. It feels like watching a Renaissance Faire. My twitter friends pointed out that beauty pageants are a leading source of scholarship money for young women, which is something - but I mean, if that scholarship's coming along with such crazy messages about how women are supposed to be valued, that's kind of like we're pulling you up as a reward for letting us push you down. Do you really come out ahead at the end of that? It's like a patriarchal metaphysical conundrum.

I'm sure there are women out there, like Gracie Hart from Miss Congeniality, who do find pageantry to be a freeing and wonderful experience. I'm sure there are a lot of women in the pageants, like Cheryl Frasier from Miss Congeniality, who are in highly complex fields of study. But that doesn't really change the fact that the scholarship opportunity is built upon conforming to certain standards of feminine beauty, that the beauty in question almost always equals white or close to it, and that looking good in a swimsuit is mandatory. I'm sure that all of these contestants do want to bring about world peace and are, as Gracie Hart put it, just trying to make a difference in the world. That really doesn't change, as the wonderfully insightful and funny Jay Smooth puts it, the "patriarchal metaphysical conundrum" of it all.

This American Life

If anyone gets a chance to see the encore theatre presentation of This American Life's live show on May 7, I would highly recommend it. 

A Gilmore Girls Moment

While poking around NPR's website at some point in the past two weeks, I stumbled upon this article:
"A Social Experiment: Communes In Cul-De-Sacs"
The first time I saw the article, the issue didn't really jump out at me. The second time I glanced at it, it suddenly hit me:

Someone at NPR needs to watch more Gilmore Girls. If only someone there was an obsessive Gilmore Girls fan, NPR would have never made such an obscure spelling error!

On another note, I'm going to start referring to yo-yos as yos-yo. Just for yucks.

The Problem with PETA

The thread on the latest PETA post has gotten long. Very, very long. And then I fell off of the grid for about a week, and no longer feel compelled to post my thoughts there. That doesn't mean that I'm not compelled to answer the questions my continually hounded friend asks, though, so I'm going to once again use him as a jumping off point to write a blog post. My friend ponders,

I was wondering if you think it's equally offensive when Peter Singer compares animals to black slaves, or when he compares apes to the mentally handicapped (another traditionally marginalized group).

I haven't read Peter Singer since sophomore year of college; without the text in front of me (or a strong memory of that text), I'm unprepared to make a judgement about whether or not it is equally offensive, or even offensive in its own right without needing a comparison with PETA. I would hazard to guess that Singer's own comparisons would in all probability be at the very least slightly offensive, for the same basic reason as the PETA ads: it takes a group of people, a group traditionally thought of as deficient or less in some shape or another, and turns them into objects in the course of furthering one's own cause. It is at best a "greater good" argument, and I'm not a big believer in the "greater good"; utilizing some populations for the greater good still leaves those populations being treated as simply tools, and that is unacceptable. It is unacceptable because in order for there to be a workable greater good, then the individual must be recognized as being a vital part of that good. It can't just be the individuals liked best by one organization or another, or the individuals fought for by one organization or another. The greater good is simply not a moral 'good' if individuals or groups are left behind in order to facilitate that victory. In the paraphrased words of one of my favorite characters, "Me and mine gotta be objectified so you can live in your better world?" I don't think so.

This is a problem that has been present in political and social organizations probably since the start of political and social organizations. That does not excuse the practice. Again, I have no recollection of Singer's allusions. But the problem with PETA is that while it may be true, as my friend contests, that:

Often, PETA’s goal in producing these ads is to compare the objectification of people to the objectification of animals – trying to link racism or sexism to “species-ism,

PETA is utilizing that objectification to further its own cause. The problem is that PETA is taking advantage of already present social inequities in order to make their point. This is an issue, because although their goal may be to link racism and/or sexism to species-ism, they are still complicit in creating and distributing sexist and racist images. They are still playing upon those social ills with no conscious - or at the very least public - recognition that by doing so, they are perpetuating those same social inequities. Their goal may be to draw more feminists and anti-racists into the fight against 'species-ism' - ignoring, for a moment, that feminists and anti-racists are more likely than not to have at the very least pondered these connections even if they have not accepted those connections' veracity - and their intent may not be to directly contribute to the continued sexist and racist images and lines of thought that are present in society; nevertheless, intention has very little impact on what is actually imparted. They create racist and sexist imagery, and there is no disavowals present in regard to those images. Which leads directly to this question:

Is there something about the nature of advertisements that makes these comparisons more offensive?

Without comparing the images or advertising to anything else, the medium - and how that medium is used - does go a long way to making the advertising offensive.

PETA's ads are like when hipsters (or others) 'ironically' use racist terminology; it is cloaked in the idea that because the person or organization using the terminology is 'progressive' or 'with it' or 'hip' or 'cool', then somehow the meaning behind the original terminology or image simply fades away or becomes unimportant. The opposite is more true. Being 'progressive' or 'with it' or 'hip' or 'cool' means recognizing the power of those images and that terminology, recognizing how intent does not shape the work independent of the societal reading of such a work, and recognizing how utilizing that terminology or image for one's own ends is the very opposite of progressive, or hip, or with it, or cool. And in both the hipsters' case and PETA's case, I suspect that knowledge is very much present - but that they feel they can play both sides of the fence on the issue.

While PETA claims to be drawing a line between racism and sexism (as well as racialized sexism) and their pet project of species-ism, they are also happily trading in on the titillation of those very images. In short, they are trying to pull in the progressive groups they are objectifying, as well as those who will not see the images as sexist or racist in the first place - or who won't care. A good friend of mine (heretofore known as My Good Friend - or MGF for short) put it best when he said, "When I see the ads of the lamb with leprosy, I want to help. When I see the ads of the hot women, I want to help to meet hot women". Like hipster racism (using racist words/imagery ironically disparage others' racism but to also get away with being racist), PETA is involved in activist sexism/racism. And that is the problem.

Part of it is definitely a media problem; it would be hard to both use a naked body to draw parallels to one's own cause and also disparage the use of such a body as well in a 8 1/2" by 11" glossy. That doesn't mitigate the problem, though. PETA chose the format; PETA chose the message; PETA chose, through certain ad campaigns, to further degrade their cover of simply trying to draw that line between oppressions. PETA chose to use the pictures they use, with no evidence of even trying to deconstruct the traditional pin-up model. Instead, they play quite cogently into that image with nary a hint that isn't exactly what we as the audience are supposed to take away from it. PETA designed the campaigns like PETA Striptease Quiz. My friend (not MGF, though I certainly consider him a good one), continues with this:

You have to place the ad in the context of PETA's larger argument, and that argument isn't racist by any means. In fact, it's an argument against marginalizing and dehumanizing certain groups. PETA is holding up the dehumanization of black slaves as an example something that's wrong - and that we should all recognize as wrong. That's the starting point.

Where is that point in the Striptease Quiz? When has PETA ever tried to continue the conversation past its original, sexualized, imagery? Where is the progress of thought? PETA's larger argument is flawed for a myriad of reasons, but none strike quite so quick as the fact that there is no larger argument presented in their images, in their ads, or in their demonstrations. They begin and end with the exploitation of marginalized bodies; without a continuation of that idea - in the places everyone sees - the 'larger argument' isn't one. The 'larger argument' loses its viability. Because the larger argument then becomes just a skirt to hide behind. If PETA's end goal is to broaden the conversation, then it is also partially PETA's responsibility to keep moving that conversation forward. They have continually failed in that duty; they have continued to simply pay lip service to the idea that the argument is "against marginalizing and dehumanizing certain groups" while marginalizing and dehumanizing the same groups that are and traditionally have been among the most vulnerable. That is PETA's problem. I doubt they are going to solve it any time soon.

Why I Should Take The Time To Watch Television:

Exhibit A:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I discovered this awesome song featured on the Rachel Maddow Show while I listened to both last thursday's and friday's shows at work in an attempt to maintain my sanity, and because I had a meeting that ran long on friday preventing me from listening to thursday's show then. What this means is that I missed out on this greatness, and was unable to respond to it in a timely fashion. However, I do think the song is terrific.

An Atheist Among Us

Okay, it has been around 10 days on no posts and no real explanation other than I couldn't write anything, didn't want to write anything, was perpetually dizzy, and had the house to myself - which never happens. So, I bought a car and watched Made of Honor 3 times. One of those things is a good and the other is a really, really big bad. I'll leave it up to you to decide which is which; but if you fail to discern between the two, there's obviously a problem. I also took a couple of days off from the interweb to do things vitally important, like cut myself off from almost all of my friends and inch a little to the left of the grid. Meaning, I slept a lot. The other thing was that Rebekah suggested an episode of Family Guy for a posting topic, and I had to wait for it to come up on Hulu to really look at it. This is that post.

First things first, though. I'm at best apathetic toward Family Guy, and at worst I really dislike it. At the same time, though, I love Brian and Stewie. I think they are awesome, and if the two of them ever had a television show dedicated solely to them, I would watch every episode with awe. However, the rest of the Griffin clan, along with the rest of the show's characters, are particularly loathsome and I don't really like any of them. When I tell people this, they generally think it is because of one of two reasons: (a) the show has too many pointless segments that lead to no greater understanding of the episode on an individual level or for the show as a whole (a former coworker thought that might be it, which confused me as that never even entered my mind), or (b) it is sexist and racist and a whole lot of other -ists, and as a feminist it would drive me insane. To that I say, "Hey, I watch romantic-comedies and some mainstream television!" Well, I don't really say that, but it would be a good rebuttal. No, the reason I don't like Family Guy is because it contains opposing family dynamics of The Simpsons. Peter doesn't give a damn about any other member of his family, and they don't really seem to give any damns about each other either. If Lois ever left Peter, he probably wouldn't notice until he ran out of socks - or food. Even episodes dedicated to showing how Lois and Peter care about one another (I'm thinking specifically of the one with Jennifer Love Hewitt), what is demonstrated is a weirdly possessive but in no way loving relationship. Contrary to the name, Family Guy mostly centers around a bunch of people who share DNA also living together, but having no common cause or theme or concern for the other members of their household.  Standing in contrast is The Simpsons, which manages to truly be about a cohesive, if dysfunctional, family. And we get plenty of episodes demonstrating that fact (like Bart and Lisa being on different hockey teams *sniffle*). As someone who becomes enamored with television shows precisely because they're about family, biological or otherwise (Gilmore Girls, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Firefly, The West Wing, Sports Night, etc.), Family Guy was never going to make the short list.

That doesn't mean I don't enjoy some individual episodes of Family Guy, and "Not All Dogs Go To Heaven" is one of those. Though, strangely, not for the atheist-Brian moments. The end scene where Stewie deals with the cast of Star Trek: Next Generation is classic, as is when he explains how Picard's choice to embrace the baldness made him a better captain than Kirk. I also almost died at the scene where Peter put on LaVar Burton's visor.

At the same time, there were aspects of the Brian-atheist storyline I truly enjoyed. I loved the town's reaction; I love the Griffins' reaction. Well, 'love' may be the wrong word, but I was particularly gratified by the contrast between Meg's newfound religiosity and Brian's atheism. Meg's religious faith actually imposed upon the Griffin family (even if it was just in the form of a television sermon), but Brian just existing in the same space was what caused the biggest uproar. I also thought it was telling that when Brian was being harassed and assaulted and ostracized for his atheism, Lois responded to it not by wishing others would learn to be tolerant but by hoping "he finds faith of some kind". That same sentiment has been expressed several times to me throughout my life. During a particularly surreal two weeks in 9th grade, when almost everyone I knew stopped talking to me, one of the girls I had previously considered my friend told me that she would be happy to start talking to me again once I found "my path". I was stunned, because I was already on "my path". It was just an entirely different one from her own. I also found it particularly telling that Brian's admission caused not only an uproar but seemed to offend the Griffins, as if Brian had been deceiving them simply by not believing in a god. I also know that feeling well. 

I think that feeling of being deceived is what caused most of the people in my high school to stop talking to me for those two weeks; because I hadn't "come clean" sooner, because their idea of me was built upon a false belief that I was a believer when I wasn't, it seemed to them that I had lied to them. The truth was (and is) somewhat more complicated. In high school, I didn't lie; I just didn't come out and proclaim my atheism, because it honestly has never been a huge part of my own personal identity. In college, I did frequently proclaim my atheism, partially due to the odd reaction that discovery had provoked in high school. Now, though, I'm back to not articulating it, because I work in a very religious office where a majority of my coworkers are practicing Catholics (and conservatives) and because I don't want to be a Brian. It is just easier for me to allow them to believe I'm a Catholic, rather than to deny it or to assert my atheism. And until they ask me outright what I am, I don't really feel like I'm lying; at the same time, I'm sure they would be about as thrilled as the rest of the Griffins were with Brian's pronouncement. I don't want to be pelted with Priuses, and I do have to be able to make my car payments so I'm tacitly accepting that being perceived as religious is sometimes a necessity - kind of like Brian did.

At the same time, I disagree fundamentally with some of Brian's proclaimed reasons for being an atheist, along with his arguments at the end to Meg about why she shouldn't believe in God. I felt Brian hit the nail on the head when he told Meg,

You don't need an outside voice to feel those feelings. They're inside you. What you call God is inside you, all of us.

He lost me when he said:

I just hate to see people hating and killing each other over their own interpretations of what they're not smart enough to understand.

That isn't my atheism. My atheism recognizes that religion is not the reason for violence, but the excuse. My atheism recognizes that the world would still be a place of atrocity and hate and hatred and marginalization even if the thought of a supernatural being had never entered the minds of men. My atheism recognizes that if the reason a person doesn't believe in God is because of the horrors committed in his name, then that same person should also not believe in political parties, in countries, in culture, in race, or in gender. My atheism recognizes that hating and killing isn't a product of religion, but that people who hate and who kill often express that through religion. Human beings are the problem; the institutions we make and the ideologies we follow are flawed because they flow from us, but to become a Bill Maher and declare that the religious are idiots is to miss a huge chunk of the picture. Yes, the guy who truly believes the world was created in six days scares me; but it isn't his belief that scares me. It is what else he comes to understand he can do and should do because of that belief. If a guy (or girl) wants to believe that the world was created in six days and s/he also leaves me the hell alone and accepts that I do not, then I am more than fine with that belief.

Brian is wrong because his argument against God rests firmly on the ills of mankind. It decrees that religion and God is the problem, but that argument can be readily combated by the many times religion and God are part of the solution. For every Pat Robertson, there is a soup kitchen being run by a church. For every incident of violence, there is a commitment to nonviolence. For every cretin who hides behind his or her book while spewing hate, there is another person who uses that same book to promote tolerance, love, and peace. Religion has brought us some incredible things. I happen to be extraordinarily fond of church architecture, and gospel music. But that doesn't mean that there is a God, any more than death and disease and hate is an argument for why there isn't a God.

I'm not an atheist because religion and God are fairy tales; I majored in literature. I know the power of a good story. A fairy tale can still be used to impart some truth; in fact, I am of the belief that stories are one of the best ways to spread truth. Stories are how we frame our world; stories are how I became a politically minded person. Stories are how my personal philosophy was born and how it started to take shape. Belief in God and in a religion and a particular story can be an awesome force for good, just as nonbelief can be channelled into a force of badness.

I'm an atheist; I'm an atheist not because I hate humanity but because I love it. I am an atheist because I believe in people. I am atheist because I am whole without god. I am an atheist because I believe mankind is a powerful force, an inventive force, and I don't believe in granting any credit for humanity's triumphs or shortcomings to a supernatural body. I'm not an atheist out of hate, but out of love. That is what was missing from Brian's atheism.

And yet, I understand his frustration. It is hard to continue to love humanity and to believe in its goodness when you feel demeaned and diminished and bullied, to see some spark of light present in the organizations most directly responsible for that bullying and inhumane treatment. I think Brian's anger stems from a real place of marginalization, and his assertion that being an atheist is smarter than being a believer comes from that same place. In a way, "Not All Dogs Go To Heaven" demonstrates a coping device I see a lot; it is the "well, I may not be cool but at least I'm not dumb enough to want to be" syndrome. But while I understand it, that doesn't mean I endorse it. It could hardly be a Family Guy episode if it wasn't lampooning everything in sight, but I can't help but feel as if Meg's reason for finding religion is a great deal more sympathetic than Brian's reason for rejecting it. After all, I continue to be a proponent for that old adage:

Who's Number 1?!

UCONN!

"We are not Guantanamo"

I've been busy watching my men's team getting their asses handed to them, my women's team making it to the National Championship game undefeated (We're #1!), and the team that took down my men's team being decimated. Though to be fair, that last one hasn't really concluded yet. Let's just say that it isn't looking good for Michigan. In the course of all that, though, is this incredible take down by Rachel Maddow from friday:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

This is righteous anger at its finest. Maddow manages to come off as both hopping mad and coolly analytical. Emotional, yet logical. And the points she makes are the points that should be drilled home in regard to national security and international policy for years to come. The Dick Cheneys of the world only make it harder for the United States to not only be the great nation we can be - one that actually abides by its own rule of law - but they also make it harder for us as a nation to protect our own citizens. They make it harder for us to truly make a difference in the world.

PETA: Turning Over A New Leaf?

PETA as an organization has a repeated and varied history of being sexist, racist, and classist (and oftentimes combining two or more of those), along with being generally unsympathetic to humans in their epic quest to save the animals. They are an example of a "Greater Good" organization, seeming to believe that turning women into sex objects (again and again - and again), dressing up like the Klu Klux Klan, linking murder and cannibalism to slaughterhouses, and equating factory farming with the Holocaust is justifiable in seeking to codify the ethical treatment of animals. A huge problem with this type of campaign is that it equates people who already occupy a lower position in society, people who have historically been considered or compared to animals, people who in many cases still are, with animals - and expects this to be revolutionary and educational.

And yet, there is a recent PETA ad that isn't controversial, that doesn't seem to be sexist, and that is almost... cool. Cloris Leachman is featured in a new PETA ad, clad in a fabulous cabbage dress:

While I don't know that this ad will make anyone suddenly become a vegetarian, I do think it is beautiful, and beautifully done. Leachman looks strong, and powerful. The dress itself looks like a work of art. As an individual ad, I think this is a win. It is a good use of a celebrity; it isn't outwardly sexist, or racist, or classist. It is noncombative, and still visually interesting. It has the added benefit of being reminiscent of Austin Scarlett's Corn Husk dress from the first seaon of Project Runway (only less dried out):

And yet, Ophelia over at Feminocracy wonders whether or not this ad is an example of ageism:

Placing Cloris in a lettuce dress reaffirms the sentiment behind their previous ads–that the female body is meant for consumption, and when that body begins to show age, it must be covered to protect our sensibilities (however, it is worth note that the dress conforms to her figure–so they’ve got to have their sexy factor in there).

In terms of PETA's history, I think the hypothesis is worthy of examination. As much as I love this ad for its individual merits, its place within the pantheon of PETA ads warrants extra attention. After all, PETA has called women 'hags' before, and with every other sexist and racist action, questioning why Cloris Leachman in particular - out of all of the women featured in PETA ads - gets the full body cover is valid. It isn't that I want Cloris Leachman to be objectified or nude in the ad; I suspect Ophelia does not want that either. However, while this may seem to be a way a marginalized body wins out when it comes to objectification, it instead reinforces the idea that after a certain age women become undesirable or asexual. It plays into the way we view how women age; how women become undervalued as their skin wrinkles and their hair grays. Men become 'distinguished' and women become 'old'. It is a familiar trope in everything from business to film; Nicholas Cage can be a viable romantic partner for Jessica Biel, but a friend of mine had a problem with Cher being considered a viable romantic partner for Cage when a mutual friend attempted to show her Moonstruck. The difference between Nicholas Cage and Jessica Biel? 18 years. The difference between Nicholas Cage and Cher? 17 years. This isn't to pick on that friend, because the older man being a logical love interest is fairly common. After all, Sean Connery was a leading man through 1999, when he played opposite Catherine Zeta-Jones in Entrapment; she is 40 years his junior. Meanwhile, women in films become mothers. Sally Field played Tom Hanks' mother in Forest Gump; she is only 10 years his senior.

However, ageism doesn't seem to be the case in this instance with Cloris Leachman. A couple of other ads similar to Leachman's were also made by PETA, one featuring Alyssa Milano:

and Pippa Black:

Both dresses show a bit more skin than Leachman's. They're both more flirtatious (and I kind of covet that pepper necklace Black is wearing), but all of the cabbage dresses are reminiscent of formal wear. 

The problem comes with the promotion featuring Alicia Mayer:

While the others are stylized ads, this one does just seems to be a candid photo much in the vein of PETA's usual publicity protests. The others are of white women. This ad is of a Filipino woman. I don't think we can ignore that aspect of the overt and specific sexualization contained in this image versus the sexy but not exploitive pictures of the other three. This could just be a product of the different environments. But this isn't the only picture treating women of color differently than their white counterparts. The same kind of ad as the Cloris Leachman, Alyssa Milano and Pippa Black ads features the model Kadra:

Her outfit is once again in a different league than the white women who are also focused upon. This demonstrates a similar kind of distinction between the ads Ophelia was concerned with in regard to the Cloris Leachman ad. Different categories of women are being treated differently by PETA. And that difference is incredibly problematic. It is again a reminder of the different ways women are sexualized, and how minority women are oftentimes over sexualized. The ads are a serious issue, no matter how much I like the Leachman, Milano, and Black ads. In the light of other PETA ads, these seem to recognize that their treatment of white women was an issue; but they continue to pull the same old sexist crap in relation to women of color. And it leads to this question: if the way white women are portrayed is changed, why continue framing other women in the previous fashion? Why create a series of ads with different visual stimuli? Why not place all of the women featured in vegetable formal wear, or all of the women in vegetable bathing suits? I doubt PETA could offer a cognizant explanation for the differences.

"The Bullet Was This Guy"

I love Sarah Haskins!

My mother has a theory that Lifetime, far from being a channel for women, was actually developed to keep women scared and complacent. Don't step out of your house! You might attract tons of murderers like Heather Locklear! You might enter into a relationship with a guy who beats you! I don't know what Lifetime and their movies are like now, but back when I was a kid, every movie was like a horror film. I had a babysitter who liked Lifetime (and soap operas! And the Beatles before they became all drug-crazed and hippie-like.), and I don't think I ever saw one actually uplifting film. I saw women get beaten to death. I saw women go to jail for killing the guy who molested their children. I saw women get raped. And although I didn't see any victim-blaming moments and these sorts of goings-on should have more of a mainstream presence, the titillation factor was extremely high. It was like more sensationalistic episodes of Law & Order: SVU, except this was meant to be for women. In other words, good on Sarah Haskins for taking on Lifetime!

Plus, the Smesa Guy just reminded me of all love songs that are really just extraordinarily creepy, the kind that promote stalking as a healthy component in any relationship. The kind of songs that promote making movies like Management. Billed as a romantic comedy, it is just creepy. If any guy followed me across the country and then wouldn't leave me the hell alone, I would be terrified. I would also, and this is just a guess, never date him. What makes these movies so gross is that they set up only two guys as potential love interests, with the nonstalker being worse than the stalker - making the stalker seem like an acceptable choice. Because when your choices are 'bad' and 'worse', of course you would pick 'bad', instead of remaining celibate or joining a nunnery or moving to a different city without telling either of them and attempting to meet some new people.

And because I've been so remiss recently, here's some more Sarah Haskins, this one sans the rant:

Except to say that I'm weirdly disgusted how they kept describing the girls as "cute" and "petite".

The Song I Have Stuck In My Head

It makes getting to sleep a little bit more difficult than I'd like. And if anyone wants to know why I even know this song, it is because it is on the Bend It Like Beckham soundtrack.

In other news, In Bruges is a really weird film. I can't figure out if it is a good film with some bad parts, or a bad film with some good lines. I'm not watching it again to see though.

Glenn Beck's Tears

I'm working on a rather large project, inspired by the SXSW band statistics. This may or may not work; it may or may not come to pass. In the interim though, while I'm still full of boundless optimism, watch Colbert take on Glenn Beck:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The 10/31 Project
comedycentral.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor NASA Name Contest

I have one question. Well, I have many questions. But the main one is this: How did this man become a conservative icon? He starts crying all the time! That isn't manly. How can one be considered a conservative manly man if you're tearing up every five seconds?