Violent Femmes 2015

**Warning: This piece contains spoilers to Gone Girl.

In late 2014, Gone Girl, the movie adaptation of Gillian Flynn’s 2012 novel, hit theaters and caused quite a stir with the public. The plot involves main character Amy Dunne faking her own murder, elaborately framing it on her husband Nick as revenge for cheating, killing a man to create a kidnapper fall guy when her plans fall apart, and then forcing her husband to keep playing house with her after she returns as if nothing happened; of course, the movie got people talking.

But one of the biggest controversies raised among audiences has nothing to do with Amy’s extreme criminal actions. As Amy drives off into the sunset after “killing” herself, she introduces viewers to the idea of the “cool girl” to explain why her marriage didn’t work and how it all drove her to do what she did. The long version of her monologue is excerpted from Flynn’s novel in a separate post, but essentially, Amy tells the audience that she got her husband by playing the “cool girl,” tailoring her personality to be the woman that he wanted. For Nick, this was the stereotypical “cool girl” with the beer drinking, football watching interests of a bro and the body of a Victoria’s Secret Angel. However, the “cool girl,” Amy tells us, can be any variety of personalities depending on the man (a tree hugging animal rights activist for the vegan environmentalist, a World of Warcraft expert for the gamer guy) as long as she above all “likes every fucking thing he likes and doesn’t ever complain.” More importantly, this girl does not exist according to Amy. All “cool girls” would rather be someone else but keep playing along to keep their man around. After finding out that Nick is cheating on her with a “newer, younger, bouncier cool girl” despite all of her efforts to maintain the cool girl charade for him, Amy decides to get her revenge.

Anyone who has seen the movie or read the book can clearly tell from Amy’s actions that she is some sort of -path. Psycho-? Socio-? I don’t have the psychiatric expertise to properly diagnose her condition. The point is, audiences could have brushed past this diatribe as the ramblings of a mentally far gone character in a psychological thriller plot and let it go after finishing Gone Girl in the same way that they let go of all the impossible stunts they see in a good action movie. But the “cool girl” monologue has gained a lot of cultural stock as a topic for discussion. Some cheer Amy on through this speech while others decry her as a misogynist.

There is an element of misogyny to Amy’s logic. After all, you can’t really throw around phrases such as “awful pretender women” and say that “cool girls” are “even more pathetic” than the men they’re trying to please without sounding like someone who hates women and feels superior to them. It’s also very un-feminist to say that no woman could genuinely like sports and beer or that men should pretend to like Jane Austen and knitting to please women. But people shouldn’t take this as permission to dismiss Amy’s point entirely and “reduce [Gone Girl]’s message to ‘bitches be crazy'” (Dockterman). Despite Amy’s flaws (and clearly she has many), the “cool girl” monologue opens the door to an important discussion about the pressure on women to be palatable for others by fitting into certain molds.

Starting from a very young age, girls are bombarded with the message that they need to look and act a certain way so that they can gain acceptance from society. The media starts by telling them to dress and do their hair a certain way. As girls make their way into their teens, the messages also start addressing the need for flawless faces and perfectly toned bodies. Parents want their children to be liked, but they seem to place an extra pressure on girls to be particularly sweet and accommodating for others. As they mature, girls are flooded with tips for getting men’s approval specifically, starting with how to make boys in their class like them and then transitioning into how to please a man in bed. The underlying message of all this socialization tells girls that they need others to like them and approve of them in order to be a proper woman in society and the only way to get this seal of approval is to be perfect.

I’m not trying to deny that men feel their own social pressures to fit into certain molds. The popularization of certain male athletes, actors, and models sends the message that the ideal man has an attractive face, a chiseled jawline, and an eight pack of abs. The main character in most television shows and movies is often a “manly” man who has stereotypical masculine traits such as strength, dominance, and hardened emotion. While I don’t have any reliable insight on the male experience as a woman, I can surmise about the burdens that men experience when faced with these messages.

However, I’ve found that there is a lot more forgiveness and acceptance for your flaws if you’re a man than if you’re a woman. When considering body type representation in the media, I can think of many different male body types that are shown: guys on the short side and guys on the tall side; guys with abs and guys with beer bellies; guys with model faces and guys without. Women have a much smaller range when it comes to how their bodies are represented. Most of the women I think of as popular female icons look like they’re 5’9’ and do yoga. If a female icon is plus size (Let’s also note that we rarely feel the need to add body type labels like this to men.) or on the short side, she is still somehow drop dead gorgeous, even if she has been cast as the “ugly girl.” Additionally, our society’s “boys will be boys” attitude gives men a lot more latitude when it comes to how to act as a person. It seems like the most popular trope for male characters in television and movies these days is the lovable asshole. His questionable morality may feature sexist jokes related to his promiscuity and inability to commit (i.e. Barney Stinson on How I Met Your Mother) or some casual criminal behavior (i.e. Walter White in Breaking Bad). No matter what flavor of jerk he is, viewers can’t help but fall in love with this character as they overlook or rationalize unacceptable behavior with an “Oh, you!” Audiences tend to be less forgiving toward female characters with similar flaws. Some women become cutthroat to succeed in a male dominated work place while others lash out at others in response to a traumatic incident. Some audience members can appreciate these flaws for allowing women characters to be more complex and interesting than traditional female roles who are one dimensionally nice all the time. But sadly, most viewers refuse to see past the surface badness of a woman. If a female character does something bitchy, most people will just see her as a bitch and that’s it.

This is where the “cool girl” persona comes in. Since women have learned through socialization that they need to be perfect and that they’re probably going to be punished somehow for their flaws big or small, it really isn’t surprising that they’ve evolved this survival mechanism to help them get around that. I have no doubt that there are women who genuinely love sports, video games, and whatever other “cool girl” interests people think they might be faking. But I’ve also been the girly girl interested in ballet and musicals who boys weren’t interested in talking to, as well as the girl who drank beer and said “cool girl” statements like, “I hate other girls,” basking in the glow of the male approval I received. Additionally, women don’t put on the “cool girl” act strictly for men or romantic interests. Many women will tell you that the easiest way to get through most social situations as a female is to be the palatable, understanding sweetheart. For example, I went to a lecture on how to negotiate salary and benefits for a job offer. The presenter told us that men have leeway in how aggressive they can be in pushing for what they want, but women need to be “relentlessly pleasant” by smiling a lot and showing concern for the negotiator in order to get what they want.

Though Amy Dunne’s argument is somewhat problematic and is taken to the extreme by her mental delusions, some of the points brought up by the “cool girl” monologue have their merits. It’s time for society to really analyze and adjust the high standards that we expect women to live up to.

Sources:

Dockterman, Eliana. “Is Gone Girl Feminist or Misogynist?” TIME. 6 October, 2014. Web. 21 April 2015. <http://time.com/3472314/gone-girl-movie-book-feminist-misogynist/&gt;.

excerpted from Gone Girl (novel) by Gillian Flynn:

“That night at the Brooklyn party, I was playing the girl who was in style, the girl a man like Nick wants: the Cool Girl. Men always say that as the defining compliment, don’t they? She’s a cool girl. Being the Cool Girl means I am a hot, brilliant, funny woman who adores football, poker, dirty jokes, and burping, who plays video games, drinks cheap beer, loves threesomes and anal sex, and jams hot dogs and hamburgers into her mouth like she’s hosting the world’s biggest culinary gang bang while somehow maintaining a size 2, because Cool Girls are above all hot. Hot and understanding. Cool Girls never get angry; they only smile in a chagrined, loving manner and let their men do whatever they want. Go ahead, shit on me, I don’t mind, I’m the Cool Girl.

Men actually think this girl exists. Maybe they’re fooled because so many women are willing to pretend to be this girl. For a long time Cool Girl offended me. I used to see men  –  friends, coworkers, strangers  –  giddy over these awful pretender women, and I’d want to sit these men down and calmly say: You are not dating a woman, you are dating a woman who has watched too many movies written by socially awkward men who’d like to believe that this kind of woman exists and might kiss them. I’d want to grab the poor guy by his lapels or messenger bag and say: The bitch doesn’t really love chili dogs that much  –  no one loves chili dogs that much! And the Cool Girls are even more pathetic: They’re not even pretending to be the woman they want to be, they’re pretending to be the woman a man wants them to be. Oh, and if you’re not a Cool Girl, I beg you not to believe that your man doesn’t want the Cool Girl. It may be a slightly different version  –  maybe he’s a vegetarian, so Cool Girl loves seitan and is great with dogs; or maybe he’s a hipster artist, so Cool Girl is a tattooed, bespectacled nerd who loves comics. There are variations to the window dressing, but believe me, he wants Cool Girl, who is basically the girl who likes every f*cking thing he likes and doesn’t ever complain. (How do you know you’re not Cool Girl? Because he says things like: ‘I like strong women.’ If he says that to you, he will at some point f*ck someone else. Because ‘I like strong women’ is code for ‘I hate strong women.’)

I waited patiently  –  years  –  for the pendulum to swing the other way, for men to start reading Jane Austen, learn how to knit, pretend to love cosmos, organize scrapbook parties, and make out with each other while we leer. And then we’d say, Yeah, he’s a Cool Guy.

But it never happened. Instead, women across the nation colluded in our degradation! Pretty soon Cool Girl became the standard girl. Men believed she existed  –  she wasn’t just a dreamgirl one in a million. Every girl was supposed to this girl, and if you weren’t, then there was something wrong with you.

But it’s tempting to be Cool Girl. For someone like me, who likes to win, it’s tempting to want to be the girl every guy wants. When I met Nick, I knew immediately that was what he wanted, and for him, I guess I was willing to try. I will accept my portion of blame. The thing is, I was crazy about him at first. I found him perversely exotic, a good ole Missouri boy. He was so damn nice to be around. He teased things out in me that I didn’t know existed: a lightness, a humor, an ease. It was as if he hollowed me out and filled me with feathers. He helped me be Cool Girl  –  I couldn’t have been Cool Girl with anyone else. I wouldn’t have wanted to. I can’t say I didn’t enjoy some of it: I ate a MoonPie, I walked barefoot, I stopped worrying. I watched dumb movies and ate chemically laced foods. I didn’t think past the first step of anything, that was the key. I drank a Coke and didn’t worry about how to recycle the can or about the acid puddling in my belly, acid so powerful it could strip clean a penny. We went to a dumb movie and I didn’t worry about the offensive sexism or the lack of minorities in meaningful roles. I didn’t even worry whether the movie made sense. I didn’t worry about anything that came next. Nothing had consequence, I was living in the moment, and I could feel myself getting shallower and dumber. But also happy.

…

I was probably happier for those few years  –  pretending to be someone else  –  than I ever have been before or after. I can’t decide what that means.

But then it had to stop, because it wasn’t real, it wasn’t me. It wasn’t me, Nick! I thought you knew. I thought it was a bit of a game. I thought we had a wink-wink, don’t ask, don’t tell thing going. I tried so hard to be easy. But it was unsustainable. It turned out he couldn’t sustain his side either: the witty banter, the clever games, the romance, and the wooing. It all started collapsing on itself. I hated Nick for being surprised when I became me. I hated him for not knowing it had to end, for truly believing he had married this creature, this figment of the imagination of a million masturbatory men, semen-fingered and self-satisfied. He truly seemed astonished when I asked him to listen to me. He couldn’t believe I didn’t love wax-stripping my p-ssy raw and blowing him on request. That I did mind when he didn’t show up for drinks with my friends. That ludicrous diary entry? I don’t need pathetic dancing-monkey scenarios to repeat to my friends, I am content with letting him be himself. That was pure, dumb Cool Girl bullshit. What a cunt. Again, I don’t get it: If you let a man cancel plans or decline to do things for you, you lose. You don’t get what you want. It’s pretty clear. Sure, he may be happy, he may say you’re the coolest girl ever, but he’s saying it because he got his way. He’s calling you a Cool Girl to fool you! That’s what men do: They try to make it sound like you are the cool girl so you will bow to their wishes. Like a car salesman saying, How much do you want to pay for this beauty? when you didn’t agree to buy it yet. That awful phrase men use: ‘I mean, I know you wouldn’t mind if I …’ Yes, I do mind. Just say it. Don’t lose, you dumb little twat.

So it had to stop. Committing to Nick, feeling safe with Nick, being happy with Nick, made me realize that there was a Real Amy in there, and she was so much better, more interesting and complicated and challenging, than Cool Amy. Nick wanted Cool Amy anyway. Can you imagine, finally showing your true self to your spouse, your soul mate, and having him not like you? ”

-=copied from http://www.freebooksvampire.com/mystery/Gone_Girl_by_Gillian_Flynn/30.html

Last month, artist Rupi Kaur posted a photo on Instagram that was removed not once but twice for violating community guidelines. The photo depicts a fully clothed woman who has bled through her clothes while on her period. The photo was allowed to remain on Instagram after the artist took to Tumblr to express her destain for Instagram’s misguided and misogynistic censorship and the story gained the attention of international news outlets. Warning: below is a picture of a woman is who bleeding from her vagina and has accidentally bleed through her clothes and on to her bed.

The fact that Instagram found this image too “graphic” to be shared on a social media platform speaks volumes on society’s attitude towards menstruation. Although nearly half of the world’s population have experienced or will experience periods, women have to act like it is a big secret or something that they should be ashamed of and hide. The thing that I found most disturbing is when this story was posted to reddit numerous users thought this was photo was of a woman who soiled herself in her sleep. User InternetStranger1985 commented; “I was going to come here to say that I felt embarrassed that, as a female, I thought that was poo; like someone shit themselves in their sleep… But then I realized I identified it as such BECAUSE of media censorship and the fact I am more likely to see (party) pics of people soiling themselves vs. menstruation”. If I had seen this photo out of context I probably would have thought the same thing because period blood is not something that is ever shown, even in commercials for feminine hygiene products. My fourth grade sex education class that was suppose to teach us all about coming of age and menstruation also failed to mention or illustrate that a period is composed of blood. In fact, it is easier to find nudes and dick pics on Instagram, which are actually against community guidelines, than it is to find similar pictures to this one. (I do not recommend searching for any of this things on Instagram, results may vary or be extremely disturbing).

The major problem with deeming period blood as mature content is that girls as young as 5 can start menstruating and by labeling what their body is going through mature, it indirectly labels them as mature beings. It reinforces the idea that when a girl starts menstruating she is now sexually available because she is ready to reproduce, which is the equivalent to saying a boy is sexually ready when he gets his first wet dream. This is a very disturbing thought process because although a child may be maturing, they are in no way mentally or physically ready to be considered in a sexual manner. The censorship also promotes the taboo that periods are a disgusting problem that only women have and should be kept private from everyone, especially men; even though there are whole Instagram accounts dedicated to people’s daily poop and you can see any number of graphic bloody images in the news. It seems that whenever it comes to women, there is a need to censor them when they fall outside of the catagory of sexy, like when a woman is using her breast to provide nutrients for her child instead of posing in a bikini. It tells women to be ashamed of their bodies when they cannot be viewed as sexual objects and makes periods disgusting because they rob women of their sexual availability to men.

Furthermore, this taboo that we have around periods creates so many issues for women, especially young women experiencing their periods for the first time. Personally, by the time I had my first period I had all the knowledge I needed to handle it on my own. I was the last in my friend group to get my period and between my very outspoken friends and fourth grade sex education, I took care of my first period all by myself. The only person I told was my father because he was a medical professional and I knew he would be able to handle it without a fuss, plus I needed him to take me to the store to buy feminine products. With me being his youngest daughter, the process was extremely cut and dry. This apparently was a huge mistake because my mother is extremely old- I mean old fashioned and she was appalled when she finally found out three months later that I had started menstruating by going through my trash one day. Unlike my sister who went straight to our mother when she got her first period, I had more education and did not need my mother’s help. I guess she felt betrayed that I neglected to tell her because “that is what women are suppose to do” and that I robbed her of her chance to fulfill her motherly duties to walk me through my first period (or embarrass me thoroughly). This also meant that my mother felt the need to make me sit on towels whenever she knew I was on my period so I would not get blood on the furniture and turn up her nose in disgust every time I mentioned tampons.

Although I thought my experience with my old fashioned mother was bad, many girls have it worse because of their family traditions towards periods. Sometimes when a girl gets her period for the first time she is totally on her own because she does not have the access to the appropriate information and her family offers her no help. In many cases the male figure in the family either wants nothing to do with the period because it is a girl problem and a woman should take care of it, or they are completely clueless on how to help. Usually it is the woman figure in the girl’s life to help her out but that does not mean they will be informative and supportive. This method was more effective when majority of women were stay at home wives and there was strong close knit community of women, however, now there are less chances of a girl having more than one woman figure in her life that she could turn to, limiting her options on receiving help. Many companies have formed in order to combat the first period cluelessness and awkwardness, like HelloFlo, by giving girls a period starter kit. This gives a girl everything she needs to get through her first period without teaching her to be ashamed of her body because it is a natural body function. It also allows for the menstrual conversation to be easily started between the girl and her parents.

Instagram’s response to Kaur’s photo is exactly the response she wanted to evoke. By posting a controversial photo, she wanted to generate conversation about society’s attitude towards periods and she has. She made us question why we view periods so negatively when nearly half have the population experience them.

---

The White House released this landmark video titled Supporting a Ban on Conversion Therapy on YouTube last week, which combines multiple narratives and various perspectives from both economic and political backgrounds on the issue. For the vast majority of Americans, conversion therapy is obscure and therefore completely overlooked. The issue of conversion therapy, however, is no enigma to Violent Femmes. Having seen Jamie Babbit’s But I’m a Cheerleader (1999), we recognize conversion therapy’s hazardous pitfalls and unintended consequences for its participants, which frankly cause more immediate harm than good. Conversion therapy is just not practical because individuals eventually learn to embrace their sexuality in our heteronormative society. But has America adopted the same way of thinking? Can the issue of conversion therapy, as perpetuated onto the media by our nation’s governing body, serve as a launch pad for society’s proper understanding of the transgendered community as well as the underlying LGBTQ experience?

Jay Davis of the Environmental Protection Agency, Amanda Simpson of the Army of Energy Initiatives, and the U.S. Chief Technology Officer Megan Smith – all individuals in positions of power and national influence – strongly believe in sexual freedom and equality as important social fabrics of America. In their words, permitting conversion therapy would seriously undermine the nation’s beliefs and inhibit its cultural progress. Amanda Simpson summarizes their beliefs perfectly when she said “it’s not just about trans issues, but also about race and economics.” However, these are only individual voices with impressive credentials. What does our modern society, which ultimately has the greatest influence on its own people, actually believe?

Modern society often requires a direct and intimate connection with other people surrounding large issues like conversion therapy to garner attention. As such, the U.S. military is a relatable case because all citizens heavily rely on its efforts for security and is also a dynamic environment for transgendered individuals today. Although the military policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ended in September 2011, allowing gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members to serve openly, medical policies still exclude transgender people from service. What about soldiers who are still transgender? In a study conducted by the Williams Institute in UCLA, it determined that approximately 15,500 transgendered individuals are serving active duty—an overwhelming number that cannot be overlooked.[1] Moreover, there are over 130,000 transgendered veterans who have dedicated their lives to serve. Perhaps educating the public further about these numbers could change its perspective on equal opportunities for the LGBTQ community.

Sargent Shane Ortega is currently part of the Army’s 25^th infantry division and is serving his third combat tour as a transgender. He was born a female, served at least two tours spanning a decade, and admits wanting to serve the rest of his life as a man. Since the U.S. military characterizes transgender-ness as a medical disorder, Ortega is constantly at risk of being removed from service. Conversion therapy has been extensively used to promote the military’s “straight” environment. Is this a proper display of equal opportunity, let alone rational decision making by the government? Are individuals expressing their sexuality unnecessarily bound by regulatory structures as they are under heteronormative social structures? According to a 2014 study conducted by the Palm Center, a nonpartisan national commission comprised of medical and psychological experts, the doctors found “no compelling medical rationale for banning transgender military service, and that eliminating the ban would advance a number of military interests, including enabling commanders to better care for their service members.”[2] There is an unsettling disconnect between what society thinks is correct and what is proven to be true.

In an interview with the Washington Post, Ortega eventually shared his feelings publicly about his experience: “Administratively, I shouldn’t exist. But I do exist, so that’s still the problem.”[3] The irony in his statement is remarkable: why is Ortega’s freedom at risk when he is providing freedom to those denying it to him?

In lieu of these current events, we ought to be thinking about shaping the future for all human experiences. If America is truly to be redeemed as the land of equal opportunity and equality, it has to act that way by serving the interests of its people, which includes transgendered individuals. Shane Ortega’s experience as a transgender created shockwaves in the LBGTQ community, which is part of an even greater human rights story in America. Fortunately for the military, erasing this discrimination is only repealing one medical code away—but in order for it to work in the long term our societal culture must change. Without doubt, it will certainly be a difficult challenge to contest the cultivated idea of America’s heteronormative environment.

There is light at the end of the tunnel—slow but steady progress has been made. Supporting a Ban on Conversion Therapy has done the job of putting faces to the issues that people have voiced for years. With over 120,000 signatures, a petition following the video to ban all LGBTQ+ conversion therapy has propelled LGBTQ youth issues onto the national spotlight and elicited the government’s administrative priority.[4] In responding to that petition, President Obama made the following inspiring statement:

 “Tonight, somewhere in America, a young person, let’s say a young man, will struggle to fall to sleep, wrestling alone with a secret he’s held as long as he can remember. Soon, perhaps, he will decide it’s time to let that secret out. What happens next depends on him, his family, as well as his friends and his teachers and his community. But it also depends on us — on the kind of society we engender, the kind of future we build.”

I believe that America is on the right track towards that future as President Obama suggested in his statement. But, as with all goals, planning out subsequent steps is crucial in successfully obtaining it. This is where a transformation in our thought process relating to this blog’s sexuality issues is significant, and needs to be vocalized beyond the extent of the internet to stimulate further action. We are, at least, moving forward.

[1] Gates, Gary J. Transgender Military Service in the United States. N.p.: n.p., n.d. May 2014. Web. 16 Apr. 2015. <http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Transgender-Military-Service-May-2014.pdf&gt;.

[2] “Report of the Transgender Military Service Commission.” (n.d.): n. pag. The Palm Center, Mar. 2014. Web. 16 Apr. 2015. <http://www.palmcenter.org/files/Transgender%20Military%20Service%20Report_0.pdf&gt;.

[3] Eilperin, Juliet. “Transgender in the Military: A Pentagon in Transition Weighs Its Policy.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, 9 Apr. 2015. Web. 16 Apr. 2015. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transgender-in-the-military-a-pentagon-in-transition-weighs-its-policy/2015/04/09/ee0ca39e-cf0d-11e4-8c54-ffb5ba6f2f69_story.html&gt;.

[4] “Response to Your Petition on Conversion Therapy.” The White House, Apr. 2015. Web. 16 Apr. 2015. <https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/response-your-petition-conversion-therapy&gt;.

Being an avid consumer of all types of popular media – from films, to TV shows, to newspapers, and magazines – I personally believe that the trend of ‘coming out’ of the closet and announcing ones homosexual or bisexual nature is becoming more and more common these days. I feel that this phenomenon is especially prominent in large, western, popular media-creating countries that I have lived in – namely the U.K and the U.S.  From late 90s news about politicians coming out to athletes in major sports stepping out of their cramped locker room closets throughout the 2000s to today’s blatant coverage of LGBT topics on front pages worldwide, whether it’s the first transgender mens magazine cover model or Jaden Smith’s clothing choices, media channels worldwide have definitely shown an increase in coverage of celebrities or popular figures ‘coming out’ in public and proudly wearing their sexuality on their sleeve. I believe that the influence of celebrity role model figures coming out and the mental imprint that media consumption of LGBT related footage or press definitely opens the door a bit wider for members of society at large to feel more comfortable in identifying with their true sexuality and sharing it with others around them. Of course, it is not merely an issue of identification but also a process that involves exploration with a complicated combination of nature and nurture being involved. Ultimately however, my hypothesis is that the presence of popular LGBT role models and the availability and acknowledgement of LGBT subjects in popular media reflects the general trend we are seeing in society at large on openness to LGBT relationships and behavior. To explore this point further I decided to take a dive into some statistics for different forms of popular media.

Film

GLAAD, a media monitoring organization for LGBT representation in popular media publishes a yearly ‘Studio Responsibility

Index‘ that examines the representation of LGBT characters in major hollywood studio releases throughout the past year. An infographic summary of some of their findings to the right shows some of the statistics for the previous year that the organization found. The 17.5 % inclusion rate for 2014 was higher than the 16.7% of films (from the same set of studios) that were found to be inclusive in the previous year. Additionally, some qualitative findings were that comedies were the most likely major studio films to be LGBT-inclusive and that the majority of LGBT depictions in major feature films were minority roles (less than 5 minutes of screen time).

In the context of the studio-system and the Hollywood film industry as a whole, these findings begin to make more sense as the popularity of the ‘gay male comedian’ trope in recent days has seen many studios invest money behind the concept, resulting in more comedies featuring gay male characters. I have personally seen popular actors such as Seth Rogen, Dwayne Johnson, Channing Tatum, Adam Sandler, and James Franco all playing comedic roles involving gay or LGBT themes in films over the past year. However, due to the very fact that comedy is the genre, it is not surprising that GLAAD found evidence of a large amount of self-deprecating jokes scripted for such characters.

Humor is a tricky game but I feel that this tactic was employed primarily for the heterosexual audience who are now more accustomed to not feeling uncomfortable towards LGBT depictions on the big screen due to the growing ubiquity of the concept. Playing into Judith Butler’s theory of gender being essentially performative, one can definitely see the potential for comedy in the unorthodox yet familiar representation of an outright gay male relationship or even ‘bromancing’ on the big screen, tapping into the heart of what makes us laugh. The sense of subtle superiority that heterosexual audiences feel when viewing such performances combined with the distancing from the behaviors exhibited – as the homosexual audience is the minority – naturally serves the studio’s purpose to make the majority laugh and drives revenues.

Television

GLAAD also does a similar report to the one above, for television, called ‘Where we are on TV‘ that summarizes LGBT representation in television. A summary of some of their findings are shown below:

We can see some similarities to the Film report in that transgender numbers are close to zero and that gay characters are the majority among LGBT representations. 2014-15 also shows the highest numbers of LGBT characters when compared to the previous 5 years although there doesn’t seem to be a clearly linear trend of growth. According to Adrienne Shaw, the presence of motivated producers and the existence of a clear market is essential to the production of LGBT content in media. Although we already know there is a reasonably large market for LGBT comedic content (as is evidenced by the major Hollywood studio film releases featuring such content), the presence of LGBT scripted series regulars displays a “dominant discourse” in the industry according to Shaw. The presence of ‘regulars’ on cable and broadcast television proves that the social role of an LGBT character has officially become entrenched in the ‘everyday’ life of both heterosexual and homosexual viewers who live vicariously and identify with the relatable characters in these shows. The tremendous success of shows such as Orange is the New Black and Looking  and talk show hosts such as Ellen have undeniably led to more acceptance of LGBT tropes on the small screen.

Pornography

Apart from Film and TV, one other medium that is not often brought up under the umbrella of ‘popular media’ but definitely represents a large portion of ‘public sentiment’ is pornography. To show the depth and breadth of sway that pornography has on the ‘masses’, the infographic below provides some statistics on pornography in general:

 Although traditionally a taboo topic in public spheres, pornography usage worldwide is simply too massive to ignore. With such a large audience and many repeat visitors, Pornography and it’s creators definitely have a significant amount of power in molding how society collectively views sexuality and what is deemed pleasurable in regards to sexual relations. Although the mise-en-scene, casting, stories and tropes that are displayed on porn videos are ultimately up to the creative discretion of porn directors and producers, it can also be said that investment naturally would flow into the production of media that works – in other words, content that draws audiences and eyeballs. To examine what audiences prefer when it comes to their sexual viewing palate, I decided to look into the yearly report for Pornhub, an internet porn website that received over 18 billion total visits over the past year:

 

Looking at these statistics from Pornhub and accounting for the fact that far more males visit the site than females, it is interesting to note that ‘lesbian’ is the second most searched term globally and that it had jumped 7 spots from the previous year’s ranking. Even amongst purely male search categories, ‘Lesbian’ outpaces ‘Gay (male)’. This contrast between the ‘feel good’ vibe given by gay males in popular films and TV shows and the more basic, hedonistic pleasure given by lesbians in pornographic material shows the attractiveness of the Lesbian trope as a sexual concept and the Gay trope as more of a social concept. I believe part of this trend may have to do with the ‘invasive’ factor involved in gay porn with male masturbation behavior not normally involving anal penetration while female masturbative practices often involve external vaginal stimulation. However, there is also ‘word-of-mouth’ evidence for more and more gay porn(a significantly searched category, even solely amongst males, as seen above) viewers beginning to question their sexuality and to develop a sense of curiosity to explore their homo-erotic desires.

Culture Creation

When exposed to media from so many angles on daily basis, whether it is TV, Film, Youtube, or PornHub, all of us are deeply influenced by the tropes and representations we witness. Instead of being purely reactive actors to market demands, media creators also actively push creative boundaries and create a market for their content, echoing the same sentiment as Steve Jobs did with Apple. As such, we can realize that popular media is essentially a culture creator as well as a cultural mirror. Representing the current state of society is essential for popular media to relate with audiences and draw viewers, and when viewing the above statistics for film, TV, and pornography, one can definitely see the niche that LGBT content has carved for itself in audiences’ consciousness and the slowly increasing relevance of LGBT tropes and characters on these mediums.

Some questions to think about when pondering the future of media creation and the inclination of more and more hidden LGBT individuals to ‘come out’ are whether western society is still very much patriarchal in nature – relegating gay relationships to comedic roles while fetishizing lesbianism in the sexual arena? Although the LGBT community has definitely been brought to the ‘mainstream’ in recent years, does there have to be a critical mass reached with the LGBT population globally in order to push LGBT representations into the realm of the ‘norm’ and not merely as a comedic or marginalized role? Are LGBT relations truly ‘normalized’ in the public conscience today or will they ever be (despite the ardent efforts of pro-LGBT producers and directors)?  Assuming that media creators have a responsibility to enforce social norms through the representations in their creations, the normative argument of whether creators should produce more LGBT content (thus possibly inspiring more LGBT sentiment amongst otherwise heterosexually identified individuals) also arises. I am quite interested in actively playing a part in this debate and would love to hear your thoughts and arguments as readers in the comments!

In keeping with this week’s theme of literally violent femmes, Maroon Five’s music video, “Misery,” portrays a sadomasochistic, heterosexual relationship in which the female character physically abuses her significant other. The physical violence occurring within the context of heterosexual relationships demonstrates the role masochism plays in relationships that are inherently unequal. In light of the over-the-top physical abuse occurring in the music video, we are prompted with the questions: Is masochism a necessary element of heterosexual relationships? And what does the female character have to gain from asserting her dominance through means of violence?

The physical violence in the music video provides a visual representation of the power struggle that exists between women and men. Due to the social and economic inequalities that exist between men and women, heterosexual relationships inherently contain a masochistic element. Women experience this masochistic element as a result of loving the person who benefits from society’s imposition of limited social roles and unequal economic status on women. “Misery,” however, inverts the expectation of female masochism and instead presents a femme fatale, who refuses to play the role of devoted wife and loving mother that society prescribes. This angle on heteronormative relationships differs from the usual heartbroken-girl-crying-over-bad-boy trope in which the female character continues to return to a painful relationship even though she knows it will hurt her. By putting the female character in control of the relationship, she preserves her independence and frees herself from having to rely on her significant other for emotional and sexual fulfillment. To demonstrate her liberation from reliance on her significant other, the female character in the music video rejects all of the male character’s sexual advances, returning each advance with a violent parry. She asserts her dominance violently causing the relationship to be a source of both love and pain for the male character.

Despite the knowledge that the femme fatale other will inflict pain, the male character continually submits to the physical abuse. The repetitive lyric “I am in misery,” in conjunction with “Girl you really got me bad,” demonstrates the male character’s acknowledgement that his significant other causes him pain. However, the subsequent lyric, “I’m gonna get you back/ Gonna get you back,” shows that he willingly pursues the emotional and physical pain because of his attachment to her. Thus demonstrating that masochism and love walk hand in hand with another in the relationship.

I am in misery
There ain’t nobody
Who can comfort me
Why won’t you answer me?
The silence is slowly killing me
Girl you really got me bad
You really got me bad
I’m gonna get you back
Gonna get you back

In this shot, the male character watches with a blank expression as the femme fatale plays the “knife game,” quickly stabbing the blade in between each of his fingers on the table. The femme fatales’ intent gaze on the male character’s expression (frighteningly not watching the destination of each stab of the knife) demonstrates the satisfaction she experiences as the person in the relationship who can inflict the pain. The physical abuse continues to occur up until the point that the male character refuses to engage anymore and gives up on the relationship, prompting the female character to walk away.

Due to the apparent failure of the relationship, did the female character gain from asserting her dominance through means of violence? She certainly succeeded at protecting herself from sliding into the submissive role that patriarchal society imposes upon women. However, the inevitable end of the relationship implies that women and men cannot peaceably coexist. The cycle of receiving and inflicting pain ultimately fails to correct the inequalities that exist between men and women and instead provides additional fuel to the fire by creating more conflict within heterosexual relationships.

http://livestream.com/thenewschool/slave 

Introduced as an “esteemed visionary leader, radical thinker, poet, writer, and cultural critique”, bell hooks, along with Janet Mock, Shola Lynch, and Marci Blackman, sat on a panel entitled “Are you still a slave? Liberating the black female body” at The New School last May. The panelists discussed the black female body and its relation to sexuality, beauty, identity, creativity, and creating an image all the while being constantly policed and politicized by outside hegemonic forces. Because the video is very long (almost two hours,) in this piece I will focus on specific topics that resonated with me most and I will include the corresponding times. I would urge you to listen to the panelist introductions at the start of the video, if only just to get a short background on each woman.

7:25

bell hooks begins the discussion the topic of black female bodies in the film “12 Years a Slave.” hooks describes Patsey, a slave woman in the film played by Lupita Nyong’o, as voiceless throughout the film. Her only role was as a sexual servant, a victim, a woman whose only duty was to satisfy the needs of others. She says that not many critics commented on Patsey’s sexualized presentation because as an audience, we are so use to viewing the sexualized black female body as a non-issue, as normal, even. hooks mentions that some of the sex scenes in the movie are fictive, in that they were not included in the novel. She argues that if the director had the artistic and directive power and imagination to create any fictive scene to include in this true story, why not make it a scene that shows black women as empowered instead of degraded?

While I agree with hooks that too many images of the black female body we view in the media are oversexualized and oftentimes confined to that role, I think the director’s choice to depict the sexualized black female body, even if not true to Northup’s biography, was critical in understand how brutally horrible slavery was, and specifically how much black women had to endure. Several scenes in that film, including women being raped on the slave ship, Patsey’s rape by her master, and even Northup himself raping another slave (fictive!), show the truth in how both white and black men have brutalized, used, and demoralized the black female body throughout history. The director’s choice to include these scenes are significant in expressing where the legacy of the degraded black woman’s body comes from, and unfortunately also in showing those who are implicit in causing this legacy to persist. It is also important to note the distinction between a woman’s willingness to have sex, and a woman being raped. I think that part of hooks’ frustration and indignation toward how black women are portrayed by others, (and how they portray themselves, which I will get to next,) stems from her wondering why anyone would possibly want to continue to view black female bodies as sex objects subject to rape, vulnerability, and powerlessness. It will always be tricky to decide how much of a violent history, such as black women’s subjugation to rape and other terrors, to continue to portray in media as a didactic tool, without having that violence persist into today’s world.

31:00-32:15

This portion of the discussion shifts to talk about Beyoncé’s TIME Magazine cover. hooks describes Beyoncé as looking like a deer in headlights, and in a panty and bra set that some of us may have worn when we were 10 or 12—basically summing Beyoncé up to be sexualized, but childlike, going back to the ways in which black female bodies are oversexualized but also easy to control. hooks says that it is “interesting that she’s being held up as one of the most important people in our nation, in the world, and yet…what is that cover mean to say about the black female body?”

37:15-41:40

The Beyoncé topic returns a couple minutes later, when hooks asserts that this image of a super rich, very powerful female is used in the service of imperialism, white supremacy, capitalism, and white patriarchy, and that Beyoncé had no control over this. Mock disagrees, saying that Beyoncé surely had control over what she wore, and as manager she had the agency to create an image she wanted. From her “deconstructive point of view,” hooks contends that Beyoncé is then colluding in the construction of herself as a slave, because that image is not a liberating one. Blackman argues that Beyoncé is using the images used against herself and against other black women to reclaim and in turn makes money off of her own image. hooks brushes this off as fantasy, saying that we cannot use a violating image to reclaim ourselves. She says, “the master’s tool will never dismantle the master’s house,” meaning “we cannot destroy an imperialist patriarchy by creating our own versions of it.” hooks also challenges people to consider if the fascination with Beyoncé would be the same if she were not rich. hooks argues that the combination of Beyoncé’s physical appeal mixed with her wealth and celebrity cause her to be even more eroticized.

I wonder if hooks’ viewpoint and its contrast to the other women on the panel has something to do with generational differences. The other women on the panel are younger than she, and they all seem to think that Beyoncé’s image is overall empowering. I have to say that I agree with the other women: Beyonce’s image on the cover of TIME exudes confidence along with sex appeal (even though she probably could have still been sexy in something other than underwear). Considering that along with all that I know about her music and power as an artist, her choice to break away from her father’s management in order to really become her own artist, and the fact that she does all this while being a black woman makes her a role model, not someone who is colluding in the construction of slavery.

32:20-35:15

After hooks posed the question about Beyoncé’s TIME cover and the image of the black female body, Lynch introduces a term called symbolic annihilation. She defines symbolic annihilation as “1) not seeing yourself, and 2) only seeing yourself denigrated, victimized, etc.” The psychological and emotional effects of constantly seeing those who look like you in a denigrated position are enough to cause serious damage. Lynch gives an anecdote about her daughter, describing how after her daughter saw the trailer for Lynch’s film about Angela Davis, specifically after her daughter saw Angela Davis’ afro, she was then happy to have “big and puffy Angela Davis hair.” Lynch tells this story to support the assertion that creating positive images in the media that black women can relate to and feel uplifted by has more importance than it may appear.

In a similar vein, I want to share some thoughts about relatively new hashtag on twitter, called #blackoutday. Blackoutday usually occurs on Fridays, and it is simply a time and space created by “black twitter” to post pictures of themselves being black and beautiful/handsome. The pictures can literally be of anything, but the purpose is to demonstrate the beauty in blackness and to support and celebrate ourselves and our culture. I searched the hashtag, and I found a tweet from white man that said, “so blacks can have #blackoutday and whites can’t have #whiteotuday? Talk about injustice…smh.” The simple fact that this user is too blind to see that every day is #whiteoutday is frustrating, to say the least. This is not to say that there are not white people who may not feel affirmed, loved, and celebrated on a daily basis. However, generally speaking, white culture dominates, and this tweet is an example of how more often than not white people (in general) refuse just let other cultures celebrate themselves and their importance, without having to have a say in it (a recent example: #blacklivesmatter –> #alllivesmatter. Especially because black people often have more negative stigma than positive imagery attached to their being, celebrations of self, even in small ways such as posting pictures on Twitter, have endless potential to build the self esteem and pride necessary to uplift a race of people who are constantly told they are not pretty enough, not smart enough, not _____enough. If we do not celebrate ourselves, who will? Rather than exclusionary, creating black spaces is a method that we use to create self love in a nation which is structured to, oftentimes literally, erase us. I challenge my readers to search the hashtag on Twitter to witness the overwhelmingly positive images of black and brown people who choose to partake in this uplift, paying attention to the responses, and to then look at the hashtags that are trending around it (for example #blackoutday white people, #blackoutday racist, #blackoutday ugly).

In conclusion, I am glad that I finally got a chance to watch this discussion, as I have come across it many times within the last year. As a black woman, there is no way that representation of the black female body will ever not be important to me, so I embrace the opportunities to listen to and learn from other black female perspectives, academic or otherwise.

Everyone has heard the song “Take Me to Church” by the Irish musician Andrew Hozier-Byrne, known as Hozier, at least one time. The grammy nominated song has topped the charts over the past two years since its release in September of 2013. Shortly after the release of the track, Hozier released the music video. The music video, shot in grey-scale, displays the relationship between a same sex couple and the violent homophobic backlash by the community as they learn of one of the man’s sexuality. The video itself references visual references to widespread anti-gay sentiment in Russia, where filmed attacks on homosexuals are not unusual.

The music video is a way for Hozier to take a stance against hate and human rights. In an interview with Fuse, the musician walks through the meaning of the music video.

“Take Me To Church’ has sparked a lot of conversation, I guess,” he tells Fuse. “I didn’t write the song to provoke any kind of negative reaction or anything like that. The song, to me, is about what it is to be a human, what it is to love someone as a human being, and organizations that would undermine that, and undermine the more natural parts of being a person. If you feel offended or disgusted by the image of two people kissing, if that’s what it is, but you’re more disgusted by that than the actual violence…I think you should take a look at your values, maybe. I don’t think there really should be a controversy when we’re talking about a basic human right and the equal treatment of people. Electing a person in the place of an organization, like the church, as something that is worth worshiping and something that is worth loving, something tangible and real…There’s a lot to the song, but if I need to stand up and swing from the corner, I’m happy to do that.” 

http://www.fuse.tv/videos/2014/08/lollapalooza-2014-hozier-interview#sthash.mxOTgOlc.dpuf

In the recent month, Hozier released his video for “Work Song,” another track on his debut album. The video is simple and takes place in a small concert hall with a dance-centric visual to accompany it. To some though, the video was a disappointment in that it only featured heterosexual couples and does not stray past a heteronmorative narrative.

With such a powerful message that the “Take Me to Church” music video provides, I agree that it is a disappointment to just drop the notion of homosexuality altogether in “Work Song.” Although it would have been nice to see some reference to a same sex relationship in the music video, Hozier does not need to be the main person spotlighting gay couples. Hozier’s message is not to be the main figure fighting for LGBT rights. If you look at artist Sam Smith, he is an openly gay musician that states his music is about his own love affairs with other guys. But if you watch the music video for “Not the Only One,” he uses a heterosexual couple to represent his own relations.

In conclusion, I feel that Hozier is not in the wrong for displaying heteronormative relationships in “Work Song” after using a same sex relationship in “Take Me to Church,” even if it is disappointing.

I love comedy, and as a member of a sketch comedy group, I spend a great deal of time writing, performing, watching, and discussing comedy. However, I’ve noticed a disturbing trend: double standards for male versus female comedians.

At the start of each semester, the Cornell comedy groups host a two-day comedy festival, which kicks off with a night of standup comedy. After this semester’s standup comedy night, I remember talking with a friend about the fact that several of the comedians had adopted (what I like to call) an “I’m lonely” stand-up persona. We discussed the fact that when male comics make self-deprecating remarks, the jokes are received as significantly funnier than when female comics do so. For instance, when a guy confessed to being single and lonely, it was met with lots of laughter, but when a girl talked about the fact that she couldn’t seem to get a boyfriend, the laughter was quieter and clearly laced with pity. There appears to be something innately uncomfortable to us about a woman admitting her loneliness.

A second double standard I’ve noticed is that of the “fat comedian.” Similar to the “I’m lonely” humor, the “fat comedian’s” humor is often based in self-deprecation. In both cases, the overarching rule for women can be stated as: Please don’t show any signs of insecurity. It’s not funny; it’s just sad.

When male comedians joke about the fact they love to eat and hate the gym, people think it’s funny. But I have generally found it to be true that when a female comedian tells a fat-joke, it has to either be:

• Not true. In other words, she has a few curves, but calling her fat would certainly be a stretch. This way, the audience avoids the discomfort of listening to an actually heavy woman talk openly about her body. Phew! And if she really is as heavy as her jokes imply (God forbid), then her weight defines her, and fat jokes become her primary shtick.
• For instance, she will talk about having copious amounts of sex and fighting off hoards of suitors. The audience loves the irony of a situation in which a conventionally unattractive person is the object of sexual desire. Also, the audience assumes by default that heavy women are ashamed of their body, so a heavy female comedian must assure her audience that such is not the case before her audience feels that it can laugh at her jokes.

There is also a double standard on the level of raunchiness that people feel male and female comics should have in their sets. Some people may not enjoy raunchy humor to begin with and that’s fine. It’s okay to say you don’t like a comedian’s humor because it is too raunchy, but it’s not okay to say that you don’t like comedian’s humor because it’s too raunchy to come from a woman. For example, Variety’s television critic Brian Lowry wrote an article called “Sarah Silverman’s Bad Career Move: Being as Dirty as The Guys,” in which he argues that “she’s limited herself by appearing determined to prove she can be as dirty and distasteful as the boys.” Lowry does not have a problem with “dirty and distasteful” jokes, but when a woman is the one telling those dirty and distasteful jokes, they offend him. Unfortunately, Lowry is not alone in his opinion.

Nevertheless, I would argue that there are definitely female comics out there that have overcome these double standards. I am going to point to one female stand-up comedian in particular: Tig Notaro, who has found immense success in telling jokes about her emotional and physical tribulations and insecurities.

Tig Notaro is a 44-year-old writer and Grammy nominated stand-up comedian. I had the honor of seeing her perform at the Skidmore College National Comedy Festival over Fall Break. Notaro’s comedy is both highly relatable and remarkably nuanced. Although her look is androgynous, she does not shy away from declaring her womanhood. And she’s definitely not afraid of showing a little skin. In 2012, Tig was diagnosed with stage two, bi-literal invasive breast cancer. Two days later, she began to turn tragedy into comedy, opening her set with, “Good evening! Hello. I have cancer! How are you?” She opted not to undergo reconstructive surgery after a double mastectomy. And then in November 2014, she performed at the New York Comedy Festival completely topless.

Notaro jokes about loneliness, and defies the double standard that says lonely-women jokes aren’t funny. She talks about being single and her issues with dating. As you hear the recording above, she also explains that when she learned that she had cancer, her mother had just died in a freak accident, and her long-time girlfriend had just broken up with her. Talk about loneliness! “It’s tough times. You can’t stick around for that,” Notaro says in masterful deadpan. Despite the fact that she is woman acknowledging her own loneliness, it’s clear from the audience’s laughter that her jokes land.

The “fat comedian” double standard may appear to be non-applicable for a woman as slender as Tig is. Tig does, however, challenge this standard in that she comments on her body and unapologetically points out the parts that many might consider unsexy, unfeminine, or flawed. As The New York Times described her topless set, “she showed the audience her scars and then, through the force of her showmanship, made you forget that they were there. It was a powerful, even inspiring, statement about survival and recovery, and yet, it had the larky feel of a dare.” During her standup set at the Skidmore Comedy Festival, Notaro told us a hilarious story about the bewildered reaction that a female airport security agent had while giving her a pat down. Another example of Notaro’s hysterical self-deprecating jokes is in a blog post on her website. Notaro writes, “Whenever I tour thru middle America, inevitably 3 people a week tell me I look EXACTLY like award show host favorite Ellen Degeneres, to which I respond, ‘Oh, so basically you can tell that I don’t have a boyfriend.’”

Although I don’t consider Notaro’s comedy to be particularly raunchy, she is clearly comfortable discussing her sexuality. In addition to talking so candidly about her breasts, she is also openly gay. Furthermore, Notaro has often said that Sarah Silverman is one of her major influences. Notaro admires the way that Silverman goes head-to-head with her male peers on the subject of sex and the fact that Silverman always does so on her own terms. Notaro also used to be a writer for Amy Schumer’s “Inside Amy Schumer,” a hit show with notoriously dirty jokes.

Notaro is not the only female comic that defies the standards that we have come to expect. Aparna Nancherla, who I just saw perform at the Brown University Comedy Conference over Spring Break, and Maria Bamford are masters of self-deprecating comedy. I think that Nancherla’s self-deprecating jokes about both her loneliness/lack of a love life and her physical appearance landed with the audience as well as they would have if they had come from a man. Maria Bamford jokes about her depression, anxiety, and family issues, and she is open about the fact that she suffers from bipolar disorder. Yet Bamford has found great success, and she is one of my favorite comedians.