Lisa vs. Edward

Remember when Twilight first came out? Everyone was all in a tizzy about the brooding predator-like vampire, Edward Cullen making quick work of the vestal delicate human, Bella Swan. His very existence as a vampire identified him to some as being evil, even though his clan chose to defy their very nature and avoid feeding on humans. The right leaning journalists compared the vampire bite, which would transform Bella from a fresh faced teenager into another predatorial vampire, to teen sex. It was obvious that those who believed this had never actually read the story, because the whole by line of the series related to purity, self control, and fidelity. It was quite the scandal.

Jump ahead to now. There exists a television show in which a race of lizardlike aliens is plotting an invasion upon Earth for the purpose of breeding a hybrid race, one of the main characters enacting this plot are Lisa, the daughter of the Alien Queen who is evolving into her "breeding skin" and gets a series of young men paraded before her for her to seduce, and Tyler, the teenage son of the resistance leader against the aliens. The show is rife with scenes in which Lisa's mother sternly commands her to "entertain" another young man when Tyler's phosphorus levels turn out to be too low for alien/ human compatibility.

What I don't understand is... where's all the fuss? I mean the show features two teenagers in which one is actively seducing the other for the purpose of impregnating herself. Not metaphorically, not symbolically, LITERALLY! Could it be that Lisa is a willowy blond with batting Anime Eyes and a whispery voice, but Edward Cullen is sports a furrowed brow, perma-scowl and can bend a car with his bare hands? Edward is an obvious threat, whereas Lisa is not. Are we really still so hung up on gender that we pigeon hole women into the victim role even when they are clearly the antagonists?

Earlier today the fam and I were out in the car and  we saw a bit of an altercation taking place along side of the rode. A young twenty something couple were having a shouting match. The guy was walking briskly away with his head tucked down and cell phone to his ear. The girl was shouting after him, red faced and pointing. He continued to walk away. She reached down to the gutter next to the sidewalk, picked up a rock and flung it at him. Hubby and I exchanged the notion that if the roles had been reversed everyone within view would have called 911.

For whatever reason, women are still seen as victims regardless of the circumstances. I'm not promoting the notion that women CAN"T be on the receiving end of unfortunate treatment. But the idea that women can't be the aggressors and aren't capable of wrong doing plays into a very dangerous stereotype. Truth is people of any gender are capable of both good and bad. Vampires can choose not to feed on humans, and an Alien Princesses can fall in love with a human.

Caster Semenya's Got Talent!

In today's world of sometimes blurred gender identity and ongoing discoveries of bizarre medical conditions, it can be confusing how to react to those around us who fall into these categories. But what does it say that when faced with a person of large build with short hair who turns out to be athletically talented, running for a female team, the assumption is made that something must be wrong. Surely someone who looks like this and is so very good at running can't possibly be all girl.

Can they?

Oddly enough, this is a true scenario. Recently, eighteen year old Caster Semenya was declared female after undergoing 'gender testing' the very same day that she smoked everyone in the 800 meter race in Berlin. She is broad shouldered, tall, stocky build and walks with a distinct sway that could almost be described as masculine. Oh, and she runs really fast.

What I can't help but wonder is why did the question arise. Granted, she was not accused of cheating in any way. Rather the testing she underwent had more to do with the possibility of her having a medical disorder which might blur her gender. But the outcome of that test just goes to show how ingrained and pervasive the ideas of what it means to be feminine can be. Was this testing done because of her appearance or because of her ability? Or both? It begs the question. A fellow blogger raised the question would this have been a scandal if she had been a svelte, blond Icelandic girl with long flowy hair and sculpted nails? And ran really fast?

She received a hero's welcome when returning home to probably the biggest show of "I told you so," in recent history. Which leads me to wonder then what if she looked the way she does and couldn't run really fast? What if she was just a regular non athlete girl? Would that diminish her worth in any way? Would she be expected to pretty herself up a bit for the sake of attracting a partner? Or fitting into some Westernized ideology of what a girl is 'supposed' to look like?

I can't help but be a bit outraged by this situation in that she obviously rose to the ranks of greatness within her field, but for whatever reason her gender identity was doubted causing the validity of her ability to come into question. More importantly the situation begs the question where do we perceive that a person's worth is held. Appearance? Ability? Talent? Does the answer change if the person is of a different gender? Apparently, it does.

I Can't NOT Say It.

Something has been nagging at me for the past week, ever since that tragic shooting in a fitness class in Pennsylvania, near Pittsburgh. It seems that for the most part, the story was reported by the news, a few snippets here and there have emerged about the shooter, but other than that there seems to be radio silence in response to the event. Where is the outrage that usually accompanies this sort of thing? Why is no one shouting their solidarity with the women who were horrifically victimized by this criminal, as we did during the Virginia Tech shootings? Why does it seem that no one is truly disturbed by the actions of this man?

Not to long ago a famous incident occurred in which music icon Rhianna was brutalized by her then boyfriend Chris Brown. The response to that occurrence seemed to have been "Well, what did she do to provoke him?" or whatever.

Jump ahead to: Old-what's-his-name decides to take an automatic weapon into a room full of women, shuts off the lights, and starts shooting, killing four and wounding many. One of which happened to be an ex-girlfriend. It has since been found out that he planned this for quite some time, even chickening out at one point, to the extent that he felt that women in general owed him the time of day because he was a "nice enough guy" and he was "clean cut and wore a touch of cologne". (Paraphrased quotes). One could conclude that if some one had expressed an interest in him to the extent that he was seeking that this would not have happened. By that conclusion one could deduce that somehow it was the women's fault. So what did the ex do to provoke this kind of response? I'll tell you what:

Nothing. Period.

The reason this happened is because one man made a choice. That choice had nothing to do with anyone else's actions or lack there of. Chris Brown made a choice. That choice had nothing to do with Rhianna's actions or lack there of.

Are we afraid to align ourselves with the victims of this shooting? Or is the hidden truth that we fell into the trap of thinking that certain things are owed to us if we do our part? Are we afraid to examine the motives and thoughts of this mass murderer lest we find something similar to our own?

The news of the shooting is disturbing. The shooting reflects the motives of one man, but the media silence reflects the possible motives of an entire society, and that is what I find truly disturbing.

What?

Was anyone else bothered by Miley Cyrus's performance during the teen choice awards? First, she rolls out on stage on a platform with a huge pole sticking out of it. Then she sashays around singing about the US of A, wearing hoochy shorts and a sassy little hat that she keeps flicking. Then as the song ends she sends a shout out to all of her fans for voting for her, a thank you to so-and-so who wrote "the Climb", and then she thanked God the Father for putting her on this stage. Then the camera pans over to the ever-so-proud Billy Ray who is beaming and clapping and standing. What?

Can we say mixed message anyone?

I don't know, I just found it a little disturbing.

Just to clarify, I wasn't actually watching the teen choice awards. We had just flipped it over to see if the Twilight stuff was on. =)

Weird Thing of the Day

So I just got back from Target to pick up a calculator for one of my classes, and I stopped over in office supplies to pick up a few items like post-it notes and what not. I followed the sign that said "Home Office". I don't know if it meant Home/ Office or actually Home Office, but it was the only sign for office stuff so that's where I went. The weirdest thing though was that once I got there and started looking around I noticed that everything was pastel or sparkly or covered in kittens or stars. So not only was it feminized, but it was also very child-like.

I stood there in mild confusion for a moment wondering if I had meandered into the wrong section. As a marketing student with a feminist bent I could not help but try to figure out the motivation behind this theme-ology.

My first thoughts were that since more women are starting home businesses now, the powers that be are marketing home office supplies towards women. Then I thought about that and I know for myself I still want to present a professional image and be surrounded by professional looking stuff as a student and WAHP (that's Work-At-Home-Parent), as we do need to interact with others in our profession. But the more I looked at the wares presented the more I couldn't help but wander why everything looked so child-like. It's something to ponder. The only notebooks I could find that looked plain, for example costs nearly twice as much as their sparkly counter parts, or they had TV characters on them. I'm all for whimsy in ones daily life but we should at least have a choice as to what kind of whimsy and how much, and when it comes to office supplies why are the non-whimsical items so hard to find?

Maybe there is a rash of 12-14 year old girls who are starting their own businesses that I don't know about.

In the end I walked out with a small spiral notebook covered in sparkly flowers, rainbows and butterflies. No kidding. I picked it because it cost less. But I was reeeeeeeally close to paying more for the plain one just for the principle of the matter.

More Harry Potter Perspective

Here is an article that gives a very eye opening view of the Hogwarts Gang. I have always found it curious why Hermione is perceived as "unpretty" merely because she's the smartest student at the school. I don't know if it is an American phenomenon or what, but the idea that a smart girl can also be naturally attractive seems to be an alien concept to many. I think part of the reason behind this is that we are inundated with images of attractive women who are one dimensional and oversexualized, in the media, advertising, movies, print, anywhere you turn. The concept of an attractive woman not using her looks (on purpose) to her advantage is simply not a reality to many people, which is unfortunate and lends itself to the school of thought that "women are.... (fill in the blank)", instead of accepting that women are each complex, individual humans, with separate goals, dreams, and motivations. It's really a simple concept, but for some it's still quite a head-scratcher.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/07/21/our-little-wizards-are-all-grown-up

It started with Carousel

I remember it plainly, the moment I evolved into a full fledged feminist. The day was warm, school was out for the summer. My emerging teenage intellect had decided it was time to expand my knowledge of movie history and I went through a phase of renting movies that I thought to be wildly grown up, scandalous and thought provoking. I was renting such films as A Clockwork Orange and the Graduate, watching with furrowed brow while examining the deeper meaning in all of it. This movie watching phase eventually expanded into genres with which I normally did not tread, and it was here that I watched Carousel, a popular jaunt by Roger's and Hammerstein.

It started out innocent enough. Boy meets girl. Boy loves girl. Then it started to veer off into some strange territory. During one scene in which the two romantic leads are having what seems to be a "heated discussion" regarding his tendency to gamble or run around with ne'r-do-wells or what not, he grabs her and lightly hits her on the arm. She retorts wildly that she is pregnant and he should not do that and suddenly the mood of the scene shifts. He drops to his knees and coos at her to sit down, fawning over her, asking if she is feeling alright, yadda, yadda, yadda. Even this scene if I am remembering it correctly had an air about it that the apologies somehow made up for his previous actions.

But this was not the moment in which my epiphany occurred.

Towards the end of the film, the male lead has died and gets granted one day to visit Earth. During this time he comes across his 12 year old daughter on the beach. Not realizing he is the spirit of her dead father coming back to make amends, she shuns him when he tries to give her a gift. She pulls away from him when he takes her arm and in the scuffle he lightly hits her. She runs off home to her mother.

Even this was not my epiphanic moment.

Once the girl returns home she is recounting the event to her mother. The dialogue is as follows:

Louise Bigelow: I didn't make it up, Mother. Honest, there was a strange man here, and he hit me hard. I heard the sound of it, Mother, but it didn't hurt. It didn't hurt at all. It was just as if he kissed my hand.
Julie Jordan: Go into the house, Louise.
Louise Bigelow: What's happened, Mother? Don't you believe me?
Julie Jordan: I believe you.
Louise Bigelow: Then why don't you tell me why you're actin' so funny?
Julie Jordan: It's nothin', darlin'.
Louise Bigelow: But is it possible, Mother, for someone to hit you hard like that - real loud and hard, and it not hurt you at all?
Julie Jordan: It is possible dear, for someone to hit you, hit you hard, and it not hurt at all. [they embrace]

And their it was.

The light went off.

I had always known on some level that women in the past have had it worse then women today, but it never occurred to me that the moral statement of a very popular musical would be that it's okay to hit your wife as long as you are sorry for it later. The ramifications were staggering. My mind had been stretched further than it had been. This moment was the beginning of a path which would eventually lead me to seek out the meaning behind the phrase "rule of thumb", to examine the possible motives held by Emily Wilding Davidson when she flung herself onto an active race track, to pursue theatre with the hopes of injecting each character with a dose of reality, avoiding stereotype and caricature. It led me to allowing myself to realize on some level that no matter what I do, say or accomplish I would always be seen by somebody, somewhere as "just a girl".

Eventually, I decided that I was okay to live in such a world. I could handle it. However, Now that I have a daughter and a son I realize that I must do more. I cannot let them grow up in a world where labels are constantly thrown at them, saying here is how a girl or boy behaves. This is what's expected of you. Anything different is wrong or wierd.

The epiphanic moment that I experience that summer afternoon years ago has stretched accross my lifetime and I carry with my the outrage that I felt in that moment. Now I realize it is not enough just to feel that outrage. I must act on it. We must all challenge the notions handed down to us by faulty thinking. Examine why things are the way they are and what we can continue to do to change them.

Why I love Susan Boyle.

Here is an object lesson. This humble woman who has lived most of her life in a small village in Scotland decided that she wanted to be a professional singer and went to audition for Britain's got Talent. She didn't say I'm not pretty enough, I'm not young enough, I'm past my prime. No, she stepped onto that stage and gave the audience what they had coming to them, a good solid metaphorical kick in the pants! They judged her by her appearance at first. Sure, she doesn't look like a singing star. Where is the gangly thin physique, or the glittery midriff? Where is the bleach blond hair and choreographed dance routine? Here is a woman who presents ridiculous talent unapologetic with no agenda towards being made over. Nor should she. And what peaks my feminist victories is not that no one cares what she looks like. It is that everyone I have spoken with does care what she looks like and celebrates it. The consensus seems to be that she should pursue her singing career without plucking or dyeing a single hair on her head. She has released a statement that she does not intend to be made over, that that would be dishonest. I can only say good for her. We should take the lesson to heart. Instead of scrutinizing hairline wrinkles, or cellulite which only our husbands will see (and I guarentee they don't care) we should take a good solid look at ourselves and embrace our talents, our strengths, and more importantly we should act on them, regardless of what preconception is being thrown our way from the world at large.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lp0IWv8QZY&feature=related

And finally...

Spoiler Warning: The following entry may contain spoilers for all books in the Twilight Saga, including Twilight, New Moon, Eclipse, and Breaking Dawn. If you have not read this series run, do not walk to your nearest bookstore or library and sign up to get them because in all likelihood the books will be on back order or on a waiting list.

Now, I have enjoyed reading this series as much as the next person, and there is a great deal to like about the story. It has a strong and well written female lead character, a well rounded cast so to speak, plenty of dramatic tension and surprising plot twists. I must admit I have not been so riveted by a series since Stephen King's Dark Tower series. That being said there are some quite disturbing elements to this particular set of books, and I don't mean all the vampires and killing and such. The first book seems fairly straight forward: girl meets vampire, girl loves vampire, yadda yadda yadda. But even so I began to detect a few tendencies towards something deeper. I could not help but notice that most of the main vampires became so at the brink of death and were turned for the sake of saving their lives. What I found interesting was the pattern of having to be in a death like stupor for three days and then emerging as a new and reborn creature. Hm. Who else in history was dead for three days and came back all shiny-like? Related to this the vampires also have intentionally chosen a life against their nature in that they have committed themselves not to harm or take the life of any human. So even though they are constantly craving human blood, they sustain themselves on large wildlife like mountain lions and elk and what not. I found it mildly amusing that they also choose to live in areas with animal population control problems, so they don't mess up the eco system. So not only are they good vampires, they are eco friendly environmentally conscious vampires. He he. I digress. But the lifestyle choice seemed to be a parallel to persons of faith, who are choosing to deny their human or "sinful" nature and strive to be a better, more enlightened person. It is later revealed that this lifestyle choice permits the vampire family to create stronger relationship ties being more like a family than other groups of vampires. I also couldn't help but notice that the main character, an ordinary girl with a tendency towards clumsiness, has the name of Bella Swan, Bella being the Italian word for "beautiful". As the books progressed I did begin to see a bit of an 'ugly duckling' parallel in the arc of the overall story. I am curious to compare the meanings of the other names involved, specifically Edward Cullen and Jacob Black.

What disturbed me specifically about the first book, and became more apparent in the following books, was the tendency for Edward to be so very protective towards Bella. At the begining he wants nothing more than to stay away from her for the sake of saving her life. He seems to be over come with a pesky desire to kill her whenever she is around. Then out of the blue for some reason he decides then that he is in love with her, touching again on the theme of denying ones baser desires. As the story progresses, Edward exhibits behavior which would be nearly criminal in real life to the point of following Bella to another town when she goes shopping with some girlfriends. This of course is revealed when he swoops in to rescue her from a random group of thugs. His protectiveness teeters between sweet and cloying as the story continues. In later books he actually puts down an edict that she cannot be friends with certain people because they might be a danger to her, since they are werewolves and all. This coming from the vampire who is constantly struggling not to kill her. In one case, when Edward is out of town on a 'hunting trip' he even goes so far as to pay off his sister to kidnap Bella for a girls night sleepover, to prevent her from visiting said friends. All of this behavior is painted in such a way as to be a reflection of the great concern he has for her safety and evidence of how much he loves her. His affection for Bella is used as a way to justify the possessiveness and authoritative manner that he perpetually exhibits. Though, to the credit of Stephanie Meyer, Bella does stand up to Edward's behavior to the extent that she is able, but the result is usually that she is won over by his crooked smile, his smoldering gaze, and vampiric charm, which is described ad nauseum.

There are quite a few redeeming qualities in the story as a whole, and many points that I have been curious about for a while regarding vampire lore. For example, the question of what happens to a vampire's soul or what happens if they decide to try to live as a good vampire as the characters in this book do. I have been surprised that no writer has addressed these issues so far. (To answer my mother's inevitable question "Because I don't have time,"). Stephanie Meyer's take on the vampire legends is certainly unique. It is unfortunate to me at least that the characters have these questionable qualities, and I wonder now what effect the actions of the characters are having on the young female teen readership of these books. I heavily encourage parents of young girls (and boys for that matter) to read these books if your children are and be aware enough to discuss the actions with your children. My own daughter is only two but I am already hyper aware of societies brainwashing into what behavior she is supposed to exhibit. But that is fodder for a post on a different day... and I will continue my review of the Twilight Saga as well.