Don't let him call you crazy.
In my experience, I've found that guys LOVE to call girls crazy. Sure, we've all heard stories of truly bonkers things girls have done in relationships (and after them), but guys seem to label girls crazy for minor things too, or call a girl crazy for displaying any negative emotion when he doesn't think she has a "right" to feel that way.
Make no mistake, it's okay to get upset. It's okay to get angry. It's even okay to feel jealous. As long as those emotions don't lead to any violent or abusive actions, of course; it's important to know how to manage those emotions, and to say something when something first bothers you. It's tempting to say that something's okay when it's not, to keep the peace and seem easy-going. With all the relationship advice thrown at us by women's magazines and websites, it seems like the ideal girlfriend is someone who doesn't get annoyed at "guy behaviors," and someone who is passive and calm all the time. But it's healthy to tell your guy when something bothers you, rather than when you're fed up.
However, even when we do this, even when we do make an effort to manage our emotions and express them in a healthy way, things do occasionally bubble over. It's hard to handle frustration when you're already in a weakened state - tired, hungry, stressed out, PMSing, etc. When this happens, a good boyfriend will take the time to try to identify what's actually making you upset. A jerk will jump to conclusions, or worse, call you "crazy."
Don't take that shit.
You are not crazy. Say it with me - "I am not crazy." Now say it to him. You may be upset, you may be pissed off, you may be frustrated, you may be jealous, you may be a mixture of those very real and often very understandable emotions, but you are NOT crazy. Calling you crazy is dismissive, invalidating how you feel rather than trying to address the real problem that's upsetting you.
Now, if you start dating a guy and he says all his exes are crazy, beware. It's possible he's one of those jerks who's quick to call a girl crazy, and it's also possible that they were all "crazy" for the same reason - in other words, he kept pulling some dick move that upset a lot of girls. It's also possible that he's afraid they'll tell you something about him, something you don't want to know, and he thinks if he can convince you that they're not right in the head, you won't listen to them.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Friday, July 29, 2011
Legally Blonde: Femininity vs. Intelligence
Women are often advised to cut their hair short for better success gaining employment. Michelle Bachman is criticized for spending too much money on her appearance, as if caring that much about one's appearance makes one a poor leader. Hillary Clinton is mocked for being too masculine. And in the Legally Blonde movies, Elle Woods is assumed to be stupid, simple minded, and unable to succeed in law or politics because of her overt femininity.
Too often, if a woman shows her femininity, people assume she is stupid. I'm not immune to this thinking: sometimes I see a group of girls in super girly clothes, giggling and squealing together, and annoyed, I roll my eyes and think "please God, save me from the stupid." But it is problematic when we see femininity as being incompatible with the workplace, or at least most workplaces (often femininity is seen as compatible with working in industries such as fashion or wedding planning, which happen to be frequently recommended careers in young women's magazines). This is because the underlying assumption is that being a woman is incompatible with being successful in the workplace. Naturally, people still make jokes that PMS, and women's assumed emotional tendencies, interfere with a woman's ability to do her job.
Feminism isn't about eschewing femininity with a strong hand and encouraging women to be "like men," nor is it about compelling women to be "true to their gender" and embrace femininity. Rather, feminism is about believing that there is no right way to be a woman, that how feminine a woman is in her presentation should have no bearing on her perceived ability to be successful in her career. That a female politician's support should be based on her politics, not the length of her hair or the silhouette of her suits.
To me, the Legally Blonde movies don't idealize femininity, nor did they ever make me feel bad about the way I look. Rather, they taught me that whether I wear black or pink, I can kick ass in anything I choose to do.
Too often, if a woman shows her femininity, people assume she is stupid. I'm not immune to this thinking: sometimes I see a group of girls in super girly clothes, giggling and squealing together, and annoyed, I roll my eyes and think "please God, save me from the stupid." But it is problematic when we see femininity as being incompatible with the workplace, or at least most workplaces (often femininity is seen as compatible with working in industries such as fashion or wedding planning, which happen to be frequently recommended careers in young women's magazines). This is because the underlying assumption is that being a woman is incompatible with being successful in the workplace. Naturally, people still make jokes that PMS, and women's assumed emotional tendencies, interfere with a woman's ability to do her job.
Feminism isn't about eschewing femininity with a strong hand and encouraging women to be "like men," nor is it about compelling women to be "true to their gender" and embrace femininity. Rather, feminism is about believing that there is no right way to be a woman, that how feminine a woman is in her presentation should have no bearing on her perceived ability to be successful in her career. That a female politician's support should be based on her politics, not the length of her hair or the silhouette of her suits.
To me, the Legally Blonde movies don't idealize femininity, nor did they ever make me feel bad about the way I look. Rather, they taught me that whether I wear black or pink, I can kick ass in anything I choose to do.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
"Wildly Inappropriate" Episode of Dance Moms
I'm watching a re-run of last week's episode of Dance Moms, my new guilty pleasure, and the focus of the episode is on the girls wearing extra skimpy dance costumes and performing an extra sexy dance for a competition. Think the infamous "Single Ladies" dance that made headlines last year.
Now, there were two conflicting opinions. Most of the dance moms thought the costumes and routines were extremely inappropriate. Personally, I agree with them. Then the choreographer and one of the dance moms made the point that a lot of successful dance groups wear that stuff, and do dances like that. To them, that level of sexualization is just necessary to be competitive in the dance world. And sadly, they're right.
Let's get one thing straight: I support dance, and I support cheerleading. I support any physical activity that can (potentially) teach girls to value their bodies for what they do rather than what they look like, or what they can do for men. Studies have shown that, statistically, girls who participate in sports and physical activities are less likely to participate in risky behaviors such as drugs and underage drinking; casual, unprotected sex; gang activity; and eating disorders. Not to mention, the endorphins from practices and success of doing well can boost a girl's confidence and test scores. This is why the Women's Sports Foundation launched its GoGirlGo! initiative, which gives money to programs that help underprivileged, at-risk girls get active, giving them a better shot at a bright future. Dance and cheerleading can be very good for girls and young women.
That said, there is a sexualizing element that needs to be addressed. My sister's an all-star cheerleader, and I've seen what a lot of the successful squads wear: short, short skirts, cropped tops, and lots and lots of makeup. These aren't just young women wearing skimpy outfits and pageant-level amounts of makeup, I've seen seven year-olds wear stuff like that, and it's a little disturbing. The dance world has the same problem. It's not just a few gyms and studios pushing the limits, it's a widespread problem that's often rewarded with top titles and trophies. Now, on Dance Moms the girls did not place, and the sexual nature of their routine was probably the culprit. But that was a single competition in Lancaster, a conservative area, if they had done the same routine at the Phoenix competition where the choreographer got the idea to do a steamy number, they might have won.
What message are we sending these girls when the teams when sexy equals success for so many teams?
I do understand that revealing uniforms make it easier to move. As a young woman, I get that girls probably get a boost of confidence from feeling sexy in those outfits. That is, the girls who have the "typical" cheerleader/dancer body (skinny). What about the girls who, despite the exercise they get from practices, aren't as skinny and don't feel comfortable, forget sexy, having to reveal so much of their bodies? Skimpy cheerleading uniforms may make some girls feel alienated from the sport because of their bodies. If being sexy is seen as a par for the course, a requirement for success in competition, girls who are unwilling to dance and dress in a suggestive nature might feel alienated as well. In fact, there was a six year-old girl who was kicked off her squad, not because she said anything, but because her mom expressed concern over a cheer where girls chant about shaking their booties.
Abby Miller, the owner of the dance studio in Dance Moms, does not take kindly to parents expressing concerns over their kids' dancing. She says that when a parent opens their mouth, they ruin their child. And yes, that is sometimes true. Doing theater in high school, the director made it clear that we were to ignore any notes our parents gave us about the performance. Overly involved parents have the potential to undo what is taught in the gym or studio. However, in this case, parents should be outspoken when they feel that something their daughters are being made to wear or do might be too sexual. It's a parent's responsibility to protect their daughter from early sexualization and exploitation.
This isn't about young women choosing to be sexy and exploring their sexualities. This is about girls having no choice but to be sexy, not realizing the implications of their actions. These girls are at risk of growing up with a manufactured sexuality, influenced by their dance moves and how they're dressed for competition, rather than an authentic one. The competitive environment can be toxic for the girls' sexualities and sense of self, overemphasizing the importance of being sexy in order to be competitive with other girls, not to mention the importance of being skinny enough to look good in belly-bearing tops and tiny skirts. Now, I'm not saying that it has this impact on all girls who compete, and it's certainly something that needs to be studied, but it really appears to magnify a lot of toxic cultural ideals.
So what can be done? Sadly, I don't have a fool-proof plan. The problem is that all-star cheerleading and competitive dance isn't exactly centralized. It seems as though every competition has its own rules and judging criteria, with lots of overlap but nothing established as a universal rule. The Varsity corporation does run a large portion of it, but even then, there is no one ruling body regulating the competition circuit, so there's no one office to write to in order to get judges to crack down on vulgarity or to implement rules regarding cheer uniforms and costumes. And of course, if skimpy costumes were banned or suddenly very much frowned upon, that means gyms have to get new uniforms, which may not be a problem for the rich, expensive gyms that frequently change their uniforms anyway, but might be an issue for lower income gyms that recycle their uniforms and can't afford to buy new ones to adapt to the rule change, putting them at even more of a disadvantage in competition. Still, change can come from the top down, if successful cheer gyms and dance studios can be persuaded to lead by example and wear uniforms with more coverage, at least for the younger squads.
I think the world of cheerleading and dance can be just as good, if not better, sans the skimpy outfits and suggestive dance moves that, by most people's standards, are not appropriate for the younger age groups. After all, the focus of cheerleading and dance should be what people's bodies can do, not what they look like.
Now, there were two conflicting opinions. Most of the dance moms thought the costumes and routines were extremely inappropriate. Personally, I agree with them. Then the choreographer and one of the dance moms made the point that a lot of successful dance groups wear that stuff, and do dances like that. To them, that level of sexualization is just necessary to be competitive in the dance world. And sadly, they're right.
Let's get one thing straight: I support dance, and I support cheerleading. I support any physical activity that can (potentially) teach girls to value their bodies for what they do rather than what they look like, or what they can do for men. Studies have shown that, statistically, girls who participate in sports and physical activities are less likely to participate in risky behaviors such as drugs and underage drinking; casual, unprotected sex; gang activity; and eating disorders. Not to mention, the endorphins from practices and success of doing well can boost a girl's confidence and test scores. This is why the Women's Sports Foundation launched its GoGirlGo! initiative, which gives money to programs that help underprivileged, at-risk girls get active, giving them a better shot at a bright future. Dance and cheerleading can be very good for girls and young women.
That said, there is a sexualizing element that needs to be addressed. My sister's an all-star cheerleader, and I've seen what a lot of the successful squads wear: short, short skirts, cropped tops, and lots and lots of makeup. These aren't just young women wearing skimpy outfits and pageant-level amounts of makeup, I've seen seven year-olds wear stuff like that, and it's a little disturbing. The dance world has the same problem. It's not just a few gyms and studios pushing the limits, it's a widespread problem that's often rewarded with top titles and trophies. Now, on Dance Moms the girls did not place, and the sexual nature of their routine was probably the culprit. But that was a single competition in Lancaster, a conservative area, if they had done the same routine at the Phoenix competition where the choreographer got the idea to do a steamy number, they might have won.
What message are we sending these girls when the teams when sexy equals success for so many teams?
I do understand that revealing uniforms make it easier to move. As a young woman, I get that girls probably get a boost of confidence from feeling sexy in those outfits. That is, the girls who have the "typical" cheerleader/dancer body (skinny). What about the girls who, despite the exercise they get from practices, aren't as skinny and don't feel comfortable, forget sexy, having to reveal so much of their bodies? Skimpy cheerleading uniforms may make some girls feel alienated from the sport because of their bodies. If being sexy is seen as a par for the course, a requirement for success in competition, girls who are unwilling to dance and dress in a suggestive nature might feel alienated as well. In fact, there was a six year-old girl who was kicked off her squad, not because she said anything, but because her mom expressed concern over a cheer where girls chant about shaking their booties.
Abby Miller, the owner of the dance studio in Dance Moms, does not take kindly to parents expressing concerns over their kids' dancing. She says that when a parent opens their mouth, they ruin their child. And yes, that is sometimes true. Doing theater in high school, the director made it clear that we were to ignore any notes our parents gave us about the performance. Overly involved parents have the potential to undo what is taught in the gym or studio. However, in this case, parents should be outspoken when they feel that something their daughters are being made to wear or do might be too sexual. It's a parent's responsibility to protect their daughter from early sexualization and exploitation.
This isn't about young women choosing to be sexy and exploring their sexualities. This is about girls having no choice but to be sexy, not realizing the implications of their actions. These girls are at risk of growing up with a manufactured sexuality, influenced by their dance moves and how they're dressed for competition, rather than an authentic one. The competitive environment can be toxic for the girls' sexualities and sense of self, overemphasizing the importance of being sexy in order to be competitive with other girls, not to mention the importance of being skinny enough to look good in belly-bearing tops and tiny skirts. Now, I'm not saying that it has this impact on all girls who compete, and it's certainly something that needs to be studied, but it really appears to magnify a lot of toxic cultural ideals.
So what can be done? Sadly, I don't have a fool-proof plan. The problem is that all-star cheerleading and competitive dance isn't exactly centralized. It seems as though every competition has its own rules and judging criteria, with lots of overlap but nothing established as a universal rule. The Varsity corporation does run a large portion of it, but even then, there is no one ruling body regulating the competition circuit, so there's no one office to write to in order to get judges to crack down on vulgarity or to implement rules regarding cheer uniforms and costumes. And of course, if skimpy costumes were banned or suddenly very much frowned upon, that means gyms have to get new uniforms, which may not be a problem for the rich, expensive gyms that frequently change their uniforms anyway, but might be an issue for lower income gyms that recycle their uniforms and can't afford to buy new ones to adapt to the rule change, putting them at even more of a disadvantage in competition. Still, change can come from the top down, if successful cheer gyms and dance studios can be persuaded to lead by example and wear uniforms with more coverage, at least for the younger squads.
I think the world of cheerleading and dance can be just as good, if not better, sans the skimpy outfits and suggestive dance moves that, by most people's standards, are not appropriate for the younger age groups. After all, the focus of cheerleading and dance should be what people's bodies can do, not what they look like.
Friday, July 1, 2011
On Waiting Periods
In the wake of a judge overturning a law that would mandate a 72-hour waiting period for women seeking abortions in South Dakota, I thought I'd write a little something about my problem with these waiting periods in general.
The waiting periods are put in place so women have some time to think over their decision before going through with the procedure. Or so these lawmakers say. I don't disagree with the idea of wanting women to think things through, it's an important decision that shouldn't be taken lightly. However, what these rich white men in Congress and state legislatures fail to realize, is that women already DO think long and hard about that decision.
It's safe to say that most sexually active women do have a game plan, or an idea of what they would do if they ever got pregnant. Many of these women discuss that plan with their partners, to make sure there's no conflict, should the situation ever arise. I know that when my period is even an hour or two later than expected, I immediately start thinking about what I would do. It's fair to assume that when a woman goes in for her abortion consult, she has already thought a great deal about her situation and she's made up her mind.
Go to imnotsorry.net. Go on, I'll wait here. Notice how many of the stories mention how hard the decision was, that the women and their partners thought it over, going back and forth. They mention how scary it is go undergo the procedure, and how painful it is. That there were times when they weren't sure they were making the right decision. The sad thing is that many women who get abortions wouldn't do so if they had the means to become mothers, but they knew they couldn't in their situation.
Now, I do think women should make informed decisions as well. The problem is that when the state steps in to make sure they're informed, the information they are mandated to receive is biased, emotionally based propaganda aimed at making sure she "knows" she's about to do something "evil." Most women in the country are misinformed about the procedure, but not in the way the anti-choice movement says they are, claiming that women who get abortions don't know what they're doing. Rather, too many people think all abortions are the horrible, gory procedure associated with late term, emergency abortions; or that what's being aborted is a small infant that can think and feel pain (and talk, sing, and narrate, according to one propaganda video); or that abortion will cause breast cancer and infertility, or that it will lead to depression and suicidal thoughts. If anything, busting those anti-abortion myths and promoting unbiased, science-based information to all women will help women decide what to do with their pregnancies.
Some see waiting periods as a necessary roadblock, out of fear that abortion shouldn't be too easily accessible. This is also a condescending sentiment, thinking women will get abortions without thinking if there's nothing in their way. What waiting periods actually do is make women take a lot of time off work, and force many women in rural areas in middle America to stay in a hotel for 2-3 nights - so while she's losing a chunk of her paycheck, she also has to pay out the ass to put herself up in a hotel, because the nearest clinic still takes hours to reach by car.
If a woman does take getting an abortion lightly, she probably shouldn't be having kids anyway. However, most women who experience unexpected pregnancies do give their decisions a lot of thought without any government intervention. The waiting periods imposed on women in several states are unnecessary and paternalistic.
Now to get really political: it's ludicrous that Republicans claim to want less government, yet try to pass these laws that interfere with women's personal lives. I suppose "less government" only means fewer laws interfering in the lives of rich, white men, but women still need restrictions on their lives, because clearly they can't be trusted.
The waiting periods are put in place so women have some time to think over their decision before going through with the procedure. Or so these lawmakers say. I don't disagree with the idea of wanting women to think things through, it's an important decision that shouldn't be taken lightly. However, what these rich white men in Congress and state legislatures fail to realize, is that women already DO think long and hard about that decision.
It's safe to say that most sexually active women do have a game plan, or an idea of what they would do if they ever got pregnant. Many of these women discuss that plan with their partners, to make sure there's no conflict, should the situation ever arise. I know that when my period is even an hour or two later than expected, I immediately start thinking about what I would do. It's fair to assume that when a woman goes in for her abortion consult, she has already thought a great deal about her situation and she's made up her mind.
Go to imnotsorry.net. Go on, I'll wait here. Notice how many of the stories mention how hard the decision was, that the women and their partners thought it over, going back and forth. They mention how scary it is go undergo the procedure, and how painful it is. That there were times when they weren't sure they were making the right decision. The sad thing is that many women who get abortions wouldn't do so if they had the means to become mothers, but they knew they couldn't in their situation.
Now, I do think women should make informed decisions as well. The problem is that when the state steps in to make sure they're informed, the information they are mandated to receive is biased, emotionally based propaganda aimed at making sure she "knows" she's about to do something "evil." Most women in the country are misinformed about the procedure, but not in the way the anti-choice movement says they are, claiming that women who get abortions don't know what they're doing. Rather, too many people think all abortions are the horrible, gory procedure associated with late term, emergency abortions; or that what's being aborted is a small infant that can think and feel pain (and talk, sing, and narrate, according to one propaganda video); or that abortion will cause breast cancer and infertility, or that it will lead to depression and suicidal thoughts. If anything, busting those anti-abortion myths and promoting unbiased, science-based information to all women will help women decide what to do with their pregnancies.
Some see waiting periods as a necessary roadblock, out of fear that abortion shouldn't be too easily accessible. This is also a condescending sentiment, thinking women will get abortions without thinking if there's nothing in their way. What waiting periods actually do is make women take a lot of time off work, and force many women in rural areas in middle America to stay in a hotel for 2-3 nights - so while she's losing a chunk of her paycheck, she also has to pay out the ass to put herself up in a hotel, because the nearest clinic still takes hours to reach by car.
If a woman does take getting an abortion lightly, she probably shouldn't be having kids anyway. However, most women who experience unexpected pregnancies do give their decisions a lot of thought without any government intervention. The waiting periods imposed on women in several states are unnecessary and paternalistic.
Now to get really political: it's ludicrous that Republicans claim to want less government, yet try to pass these laws that interfere with women's personal lives. I suppose "less government" only means fewer laws interfering in the lives of rich, white men, but women still need restrictions on their lives, because clearly they can't be trusted.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Something Positive: Miss America
Now, I'm not a huge fan of beauty pageants in general. The swimsuit portion alone is enough to make me gag. Overall, I have a problem with giving women scholarships just for being pretty and feminine. But I have noticed one thing about the Miss America pageant that I actually like:
The question portion has become political.
No more "what's your favorite book?" stuff, no more vague questions that can be easily answered with "world peace" or "help feed the starving orphans." This year's questions focused on specific political issues, and were actually a little tough to answer. Our new Miss America came out in support of medicinal marijuana, and didn't outright oppose recreational use - she said she didn't know whether she supported it because it is addictive and causes problems for some families, which is fair enough, but the fact is she did not say something blatantly anti-drug. Last year's Miss America said birth control should be free and available to all women. I've been happy to see that at least one part of the pageant makes women use their brains rather than just their tits and smiles to win over the judges.
Of course, I would probably get really pissed off if, in the future, they crown a girl who rails against gay marriage or abortion. But in the past two years they've crowned women who have expressed liberal sentiments, and that's saying something. I'm also glad that, in the past, the question portion has helped to expose and draw negative attention to the ignorant, and often downright moronic answers some of the girls have given, which shows that we do, in fact, want a Miss America with a brain as well as beauty. Now if only her intellect was more important than her appearance.
The question portion has become political.
No more "what's your favorite book?" stuff, no more vague questions that can be easily answered with "world peace" or "help feed the starving orphans." This year's questions focused on specific political issues, and were actually a little tough to answer. Our new Miss America came out in support of medicinal marijuana, and didn't outright oppose recreational use - she said she didn't know whether she supported it because it is addictive and causes problems for some families, which is fair enough, but the fact is she did not say something blatantly anti-drug. Last year's Miss America said birth control should be free and available to all women. I've been happy to see that at least one part of the pageant makes women use their brains rather than just their tits and smiles to win over the judges.
Of course, I would probably get really pissed off if, in the future, they crown a girl who rails against gay marriage or abortion. But in the past two years they've crowned women who have expressed liberal sentiments, and that's saying something. I'm also glad that, in the past, the question portion has helped to expose and draw negative attention to the ignorant, and often downright moronic answers some of the girls have given, which shows that we do, in fact, want a Miss America with a brain as well as beauty. Now if only her intellect was more important than her appearance.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Dichotomies of Femininity in American Musical Theater
Since the birth of the American musical in the 1930's, there have been many shows which demonstrate dichotomies between female characters, mainly those relating to femininity and sexuality. The shows that come to mind first, at least for me, are Anything Goes, Once On This Island, and Avenue Q. In each show, two female characters are portrayed as being vastly different in terms of their behavior and personality traits, and these differences are often highlighted by gaps in socio-economic status, race, and the pitch and range of their singing voices.
I'll start with Anything Goes, the oldest of the three; this analysis is going off what I remember of my experience with the 1962 and 1987 versions. The show it set in the 1930's, and two leading ladies in the show are Reno Sweeney, a night club singer with a shady past, but who now uses her act to evangelize with her troupe of "angels;" and Hope Harcourt, a wealthy young woman engaged to Lord Evelyn Oakleigh. The two women are connected through Billy Crocker, a friend of Reno and Hope's former lover. Reno expresses that she has feelings for Billy, but Billy only sees her as a friend - perhaps because she lacks dainty feminine qualities most men found desirable in that time period. Reno is, in fact, loud, has an attitude, and despite her evangelical activities is the sexual character in the show; whereas Hope is the virginal one, the innocent, feminine one, and the one destined for marriage. The two vocal styles are vastly different as well, Hope's voice is more traditional, almost operatic, and her range is much higher than
Reno's, who still hits some high notes but in a more modern, belting style (bear with me, I'm not a theater major).
These women represent a classic virgin/whore dichotomy, which is best illustrated in two duets: "It's DeLovely," sung by Billy and Hope; and "Let's Misbehave," sung by Reno and Evelyn. Reno is also used as a sexual pawn in order to break up Evelyn and Hope, so Billy can be with Hope. There is another related dichotomy, and that is between ladies who are marriage material (Hope), and women who are just seen as dating prospects or objects of sexual desire (Reno).
Fast forward to Once on This Island, a show that opened in the early 1990's, but it's a little unclear when the story is supposed to take place. Or where, for that matter. My guess would be the 1950's, and I'm fairly certain it takes place on the island of Haiti and the Dominican Republic. What is clear is the racial and economic tension between the two sides of the island: on one side, the people are poor and "black as night." On the other side, the people are rich and have lighter skin, as they descended from the French colonists and their slaves - one song, summarizing the history of the island, mentioned a rich white man who married a pale, blonde woman but had sex with the black peasant girls who served him.
The protagonist, Ti Moune, is a young, black girl on the poor side of the island. She is sweet, innocent, and naive, and longs to travel beyond her village. When Daniel, a rich man from the other side of the island, crashes in her village, she tends to him, keeping him alive, demonstrating that she is also very loving and selfless. When Daniel returns to his side of the island, Ti Moune decides to journey there herself to be with him. The two of them have a relationship, and people gossip about them, implying that she is a slut. While she is sweet and innocent, she is assumed to be inherently sexual by the townspeople, and it is implied that she is, in fact, having sex with Daniel. It is true that intersectionality theory is critical to the full analysis of gender within this show, because the racial differences skew the sexual dichotomies. While pure of heart, Ti Moune is arguably sexualized because of her race, and the virginal woman is Andrea, Daniel's wealthy and fairer-skinned fiancee. Before Ti Moune meets Andrea, Daniel sings to her about how wonderful and fascinating she is - and that "some girls you marry, some you love." Again we see the marriageable vs non-marriageable dichotomy illustrated in this musical. Daniel loves Ti Moune, but he must marry a certain "type" of woman.
Again we see class coming into play. Both Hope and Andrea are both the wealthy, asexual, and marriageable characters in their respective shows.
Finally, there's Avenue Q, the most modern of the three shows. This show is also a special case because of its satirical nature, and the fact that two vastly different female roles are played by the same actress - when the two characters are on stage she'll operate one of them, but do the dialogue for both. It's a little bizarre to see her switch between the two roles so rapidly. The female lead is a sweet kindergarten teacher named Kate Monster. Then there's Lucy the Slut, whose name says it all. While Kate Monster does have sex with Princeton (the male protagonist) once, she still mostly embodies the innocent side of the sexual spectrum, opposite Lucy. Lucy is not only easy, but she's sexually aggressive, whereas Kate is more passive - she's drunk the one time they have sex. Lucy is also kind of a bitch, who deliberately tries to keep Kate and Princeton apart during the second act.
In this we see more modern dichotomies, which may be in a satirical context, but are rooted in real ways in which we label women. There's the bitch/sweetheart dichotomy, which was sort of in Once on This Island to a lesser extent, and basically means that if a woman isn't a perfect angel, she must be pure evil. There is a virgin/whore dichotomy, though Kate embodies a less extreme part of the "pure" spectrum - she's not chaste and asexual, but again, she only has sex once, and she's very passive. We see another dichotomy, and that is where a woman is either extremely emotionally invested in a guy, or she's cold to him and just using him for her own benefit.
There's another reversal in Avenue Q: hair color. In shows such as Chicago and Grease, the more innocent character is typically blonde, whereas the more sexual character is brunette. We even see this in modern pop culture, such as Taylor Swift's "You Belong With Me" video (don't get me started on that one). In Avenue Q, Lucy the Slut is blonde and Kate Monster is brunette. The hair colors of these characters are used to instead highlight (no pun intended) Kate's down-to-Earth personality against Lucy's identity as the male fantasy.
Of course, the shows analyzed above are in no way the "best" examples or the most classic, they really were the first that came to mind and the relevant shows I happen to know best. I almost covered Wonderful Town as well, as the two women being sisters makes it another interesting case, but I figured 3 was a good number. I've only seen the movies for Chicago and Grease, both of which are somewhat different from the original Broadway shows, but those two definitely have virgin/whore, bitch/sweetheart, feminine/not-so-feminine, etc. dichotomies in them. Wicked is another great example, with Glinda being blonde, rich, feminine, desirable, "sweet," and of course Popular, but the complete opposite of Elphaba. If you look hard enough, you can even see the polarization of femininity between Grace and Miss Hannigan in Annie. You don't, however, see these dichotomies in every show, especially shows that focus on male characters and don't have a lot of female characters, such as the Book of Mormon; or shows with more then two leading ladies such as A Chorus Line, or even American Idiot, where there are multiple female archetypes.
I'll start with Anything Goes, the oldest of the three; this analysis is going off what I remember of my experience with the 1962 and 1987 versions. The show it set in the 1930's, and two leading ladies in the show are Reno Sweeney, a night club singer with a shady past, but who now uses her act to evangelize with her troupe of "angels;" and Hope Harcourt, a wealthy young woman engaged to Lord Evelyn Oakleigh. The two women are connected through Billy Crocker, a friend of Reno and Hope's former lover. Reno expresses that she has feelings for Billy, but Billy only sees her as a friend - perhaps because she lacks dainty feminine qualities most men found desirable in that time period. Reno is, in fact, loud, has an attitude, and despite her evangelical activities is the sexual character in the show; whereas Hope is the virginal one, the innocent, feminine one, and the one destined for marriage. The two vocal styles are vastly different as well, Hope's voice is more traditional, almost operatic, and her range is much higher than
Reno's, who still hits some high notes but in a more modern, belting style (bear with me, I'm not a theater major).
These women represent a classic virgin/whore dichotomy, which is best illustrated in two duets: "It's DeLovely," sung by Billy and Hope; and "Let's Misbehave," sung by Reno and Evelyn. Reno is also used as a sexual pawn in order to break up Evelyn and Hope, so Billy can be with Hope. There is another related dichotomy, and that is between ladies who are marriage material (Hope), and women who are just seen as dating prospects or objects of sexual desire (Reno).
Fast forward to Once on This Island, a show that opened in the early 1990's, but it's a little unclear when the story is supposed to take place. Or where, for that matter. My guess would be the 1950's, and I'm fairly certain it takes place on the island of Haiti and the Dominican Republic. What is clear is the racial and economic tension between the two sides of the island: on one side, the people are poor and "black as night." On the other side, the people are rich and have lighter skin, as they descended from the French colonists and their slaves - one song, summarizing the history of the island, mentioned a rich white man who married a pale, blonde woman but had sex with the black peasant girls who served him.
The protagonist, Ti Moune, is a young, black girl on the poor side of the island. She is sweet, innocent, and naive, and longs to travel beyond her village. When Daniel, a rich man from the other side of the island, crashes in her village, she tends to him, keeping him alive, demonstrating that she is also very loving and selfless. When Daniel returns to his side of the island, Ti Moune decides to journey there herself to be with him. The two of them have a relationship, and people gossip about them, implying that she is a slut. While she is sweet and innocent, she is assumed to be inherently sexual by the townspeople, and it is implied that she is, in fact, having sex with Daniel. It is true that intersectionality theory is critical to the full analysis of gender within this show, because the racial differences skew the sexual dichotomies. While pure of heart, Ti Moune is arguably sexualized because of her race, and the virginal woman is Andrea, Daniel's wealthy and fairer-skinned fiancee. Before Ti Moune meets Andrea, Daniel sings to her about how wonderful and fascinating she is - and that "some girls you marry, some you love." Again we see the marriageable vs non-marriageable dichotomy illustrated in this musical. Daniel loves Ti Moune, but he must marry a certain "type" of woman.
Again we see class coming into play. Both Hope and Andrea are both the wealthy, asexual, and marriageable characters in their respective shows.
Finally, there's Avenue Q, the most modern of the three shows. This show is also a special case because of its satirical nature, and the fact that two vastly different female roles are played by the same actress - when the two characters are on stage she'll operate one of them, but do the dialogue for both. It's a little bizarre to see her switch between the two roles so rapidly. The female lead is a sweet kindergarten teacher named Kate Monster. Then there's Lucy the Slut, whose name says it all. While Kate Monster does have sex with Princeton (the male protagonist) once, she still mostly embodies the innocent side of the sexual spectrum, opposite Lucy. Lucy is not only easy, but she's sexually aggressive, whereas Kate is more passive - she's drunk the one time they have sex. Lucy is also kind of a bitch, who deliberately tries to keep Kate and Princeton apart during the second act.
In this we see more modern dichotomies, which may be in a satirical context, but are rooted in real ways in which we label women. There's the bitch/sweetheart dichotomy, which was sort of in Once on This Island to a lesser extent, and basically means that if a woman isn't a perfect angel, she must be pure evil. There is a virgin/whore dichotomy, though Kate embodies a less extreme part of the "pure" spectrum - she's not chaste and asexual, but again, she only has sex once, and she's very passive. We see another dichotomy, and that is where a woman is either extremely emotionally invested in a guy, or she's cold to him and just using him for her own benefit.
There's another reversal in Avenue Q: hair color. In shows such as Chicago and Grease, the more innocent character is typically blonde, whereas the more sexual character is brunette. We even see this in modern pop culture, such as Taylor Swift's "You Belong With Me" video (don't get me started on that one). In Avenue Q, Lucy the Slut is blonde and Kate Monster is brunette. The hair colors of these characters are used to instead highlight (no pun intended) Kate's down-to-Earth personality against Lucy's identity as the male fantasy.
Of course, the shows analyzed above are in no way the "best" examples or the most classic, they really were the first that came to mind and the relevant shows I happen to know best. I almost covered Wonderful Town as well, as the two women being sisters makes it another interesting case, but I figured 3 was a good number. I've only seen the movies for Chicago and Grease, both of which are somewhat different from the original Broadway shows, but those two definitely have virgin/whore, bitch/sweetheart, feminine/not-so-feminine, etc. dichotomies in them. Wicked is another great example, with Glinda being blonde, rich, feminine, desirable, "sweet," and of course Popular, but the complete opposite of Elphaba. If you look hard enough, you can even see the polarization of femininity between Grace and Miss Hannigan in Annie. You don't, however, see these dichotomies in every show, especially shows that focus on male characters and don't have a lot of female characters, such as the Book of Mormon; or shows with more then two leading ladies such as A Chorus Line, or even American Idiot, where there are multiple female archetypes.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
"Women DO Lie!"
Today I found this article highlighting the problem of women lying about rape. Not a new sentiment, it's something that's become increasingly prevalent since the Duke case. It's the reason a former friend of mine basically disowned me, he thought I must be lying and abusing the legal system because my situation didn't follow the classic formula for a sexual assault case. I hate articles like these, and my first reaction is usually unintelligible rage followed by feeling totally depressed.
It's really hard to articulate why articles and blogs like that piss me off, but I'm going to try. First, I have to point out that the person writing the above article is the mother of a boy who was accused of rape. Of COURSE she's going to think he's innocent, of COURSE she's going to instinctively think the girl is just a lying psycho bitch, because there's no way her son could do something about this, she raised him better. The reality is, an abuser is hard to spot, and most people who commit abuse pass themselves off as perfect angels, fine upstanding citizens, men who would never hurt women either. And it's easy to pretend to be a "feminist's dream," we're kidding ourselves if we think misogyny is always obvious.
Not that I think the boy mentioned in the article was guilty. I have no idea. I'm not an idiot, I know false rape accusations do happen, every crime can be falsely reported. BUT it doesn't matter, even if there are cases where a man is falsely convicted of rape, that's no reason to start demonizing every woman who says she was raped.
Once again we've become a culture of extremes. It seems people either think the victim should always be believed, or that the legal system needs to take the man's side and be very skeptical of every accusation, because women are evil lying bitches who shouldn't be taken seriously.
And I will say, for the record, that I am sympathetic to men who have been falsely accused. As in, they've done nothing at all. It does make me angry when false accusations are made because they chip away at the validity of real rape reports. The more false rape accusations are made, the less people will believe real victims. The more women know about the growing cultural skepticism surrounding rape, the less likely they will be to report sexual assault should it happen to them. Skepticism may result in victims of rape or sexual assault being unfairly labeled as liars and losing their support networks.
It also saddens me that this whole "too many women lie about rape" mentality is causing people to demonize feminism as a whole, especially its work regarding rape prevention. It's a shame that people think female empowerment is to blame for every evil crime committed by a woman.
It's really hard to articulate why articles and blogs like that piss me off, but I'm going to try. First, I have to point out that the person writing the above article is the mother of a boy who was accused of rape. Of COURSE she's going to think he's innocent, of COURSE she's going to instinctively think the girl is just a lying psycho bitch, because there's no way her son could do something about this, she raised him better. The reality is, an abuser is hard to spot, and most people who commit abuse pass themselves off as perfect angels, fine upstanding citizens, men who would never hurt women either. And it's easy to pretend to be a "feminist's dream," we're kidding ourselves if we think misogyny is always obvious.
Not that I think the boy mentioned in the article was guilty. I have no idea. I'm not an idiot, I know false rape accusations do happen, every crime can be falsely reported. BUT it doesn't matter, even if there are cases where a man is falsely convicted of rape, that's no reason to start demonizing every woman who says she was raped.
Once again we've become a culture of extremes. It seems people either think the victim should always be believed, or that the legal system needs to take the man's side and be very skeptical of every accusation, because women are evil lying bitches who shouldn't be taken seriously.
And I will say, for the record, that I am sympathetic to men who have been falsely accused. As in, they've done nothing at all. It does make me angry when false accusations are made because they chip away at the validity of real rape reports. The more false rape accusations are made, the less people will believe real victims. The more women know about the growing cultural skepticism surrounding rape, the less likely they will be to report sexual assault should it happen to them. Skepticism may result in victims of rape or sexual assault being unfairly labeled as liars and losing their support networks.
It also saddens me that this whole "too many women lie about rape" mentality is causing people to demonize feminism as a whole, especially its work regarding rape prevention. It's a shame that people think female empowerment is to blame for every evil crime committed by a woman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)