The Silliness of "Strong Female Characters"

Hello again! I know that I haven't posted in ages, and that you've all been foaming at the mouth, waiting for my next dispatch. I'm sorry to have disappointed you. It's summer, so I'm working full-time, hanging out with my family and my partner, and being generally lazy. I've also been playing Portal 2, which is a massive timesuck a terrific game.

I enjoy video games immensely, but I didn't grow up playing them (and I enjoy other things more), so I get easily frustrated playing games where every second is spent in motion, either shooting at or ducking from hostile things. I did, on the other hand, grow up with logic puzzles and situations that called for extreme attention to detail-- two ingredients critical to success in the Portal series. (If you're looking for a shorter, simpler game that values thinking over accuracy with rifles, check out Limbo).

The way the game works isn't the only reason I like Portal and Portal 2 so much. I'd be lying if I said I didn't love their protagonist, Chell (the "ch" is pronounced like "church"). Why? Well, first of all, Chell looks like this:

In case you can't tell, Chell is biologically female and wearing a decidedly un-sexy jumpsuit. Second, her sex has absolutely nothing to do with the storyline. At no point does she seduce anyone, dress in anything other than the standard Aperture Science uniform, or behave in a gendered way. At a few points, GLaDOS (the antagonist) makes reference to Chell's weight and appearance, but this is because GLaDOS is a robot who understands that weight disparity is something humans are often concerned about. There is no reason why Chell had to be female. The test subject could easily be male. But that's not what Valve (Portal's developer) chose to do, and for that, I thank them.

There are many, many people responsible for producing media who seem to think that a female protagonist (any female protagonist) will silence those whiny feminists who are always complaining that they rarely portray women as anything other than objects to be won by male characters. "Ha ha!" they say, as they create scantily-clad female characters like those in Tomb Raider, Aeon Flux, and Sucker Punch, "this will show them!" But these characters are almost always murderous, gun-toting hardasses who end the lives of enemies with crazy explosions and devilish seductions and who would rather die than be seen crying. If this kind of description seems familiar, it's because it is. "Strong female characters" are, more often than not, simply a Male Action Hero with big boobs and a revealing costume.

Pictured: my impressive MS Paint skills

I'm clearly not the only one who has noticed this. Carina Chocano just wrote a great piece for The New York Times Magazine in which she bemoans the need for diversity in the personalities of quote-unquote "strong female characters:"

"Maybe I’m a cream puff, but few cultural tropes get under my skin like “strong female character,” and it still surprises me when like-minded people use it. Maybe the problem is semantic. Maybe what people mean when they say “strong female characters” is female characters who are “strong,” i.e., interesting or complex or well written — “strong” in the sense that they figure predominantly in the story, rather than recede decoratively into the background. But I get the feeling that what most people mean or hear when they say or hear “strong female character” is female characters who are tough, cold, terse, taciturn and prone to scowling and not saying goodbye when they hang up the phone."

Chocano rightly points out that these kinds of characters "reinforce the unspoken idea that in order for a female character to be worth identifying with, she should really try to rein in the gross girly stuff. This implies that unless a female character is 'strong,' she is not interesting or worth identifying with." An example of this that immediately comes to my mind is Megan Fox's character in the first two Transformers movies. She's lean and sexy, but is also deemed "cool" and dangerous because she's a lean and sexy car-thief-turned-mechanic. 

The problem (well, one of them) is that identifying and portraying "lean, sexy, and dangerous" as the only "strong female characters" doesn't pay proper respect to more realistic representations of strong females. You probably already know that I consider Kristen Wiig's character in Bridesmaids to be a strong female character. Chocano agrees, explaining that, "We don’t relate to her despite the fact that she is weak, we relate to her because she is weak" (emphasis mine). 

Of all the women in my life, only one of them has a permit to carry a concealed weapon (or maybe I just don't know about the others). So, according to the Hollywood, my mother, my grandmother, many of my favorite teachers and professors, and most of my friends couldn't be defined as "strong." (I say "most" of my friends not because I have more female than male friends, but because my friend Arianna is the one with the concealed weapon. Watch your back.) This definition is, however, incredibly flawed, because every one of these (smart, funny, kind) women has survived difficult challenges with strength that can't be measured in ammunition expended or expensive cars destroyed.

And now Kate Beaton, the wonderful and talented illustrator, will elucidate in several panels what I just tried to explain with several hundred words.

Find the whole hilarious comic here.

Are there any female characters in movies/videogames/comics that you love or that drive you crazy? Tell me about them in the comments!

Rihanna, "Man Down," and Double Standards

If, like me, you have a junk food relationship with pop music ("I know it's gross and bad for me, but it's so much fun!"), you've probably seen the video for Rihanna's "Man Down" by now. And if you have a masochistic relationship with media watchdog groups, you've probably heard how it's violent and terrible and ripping apart the very fabric of our society. Why? Because in this video, Rihanna shoots and kills a man for fun.

Paul Porter, a spokesman for one of three councils calling for its ban, says that, "'Man Down’ is an inexcusable, shock-only, shoot-and-kill theme song. In my 30 years of viewing BET, I have never witnessed such a cold, calculated execution of murder in primetime. Viacom’s standards and practices department has reached another new low.”

He's right. Never before has anyone ever sung about killing someone for literally no reason at all. And that's just what Rihanna does in this video.

Oh wait, just kidding. It's because the man she shoots raped her the night before. This fact, combined with the uproar over the video, begs the question:

Are you fucking kidding me?

I know that I'm far from the first blogger to discuss "Man Down," but I am extremely angry about the backlash against it. This demonstrates a preposterous gender double standard for music videos. To cite one particularly gruesome example, I'd like to point out that Kanye West's "Monster" video is about a million times more offensive than this. I refuse to link to it because it's a disgusting piece of garbage, but suffice it to say that it's filled with lingerie-clad, fully made-up women hanging by nooses and laying in bed with Kanye, as well as a segment in which the rapper does his thing while holding the head of a decapitated woman by the hair. And yet very, very few people talked about its obvious misogyny, possible racism, and what effect that might have on viewers. In fact, some people are even buying Kanye's "it's art" line whole-heartedly. This video has only been edited for (not banned from) MTV.

Of course, it's not just a simple double standard. It would be only that if "Man Down" was about Rihanna coolly hanging around a house filled with the objectified bodies of the men she had murdered. It's not. It's about her character's reaction to her rape: a single incident of violence in response to violence first perpetrated upon her. I will never advocate violence as a universal means of ending violence, but there is a definite difference between Rihanna's character killing her rapist and Kanye decorating his house with beautiful murdered women. There's complexity in this video, just as there is complexity in real life.

Some critics have missed the nuances of the violence and its motive so extravagantly that they try to focus on the non-existent "double standard" that binds male performers. Paul Porter is again quoted in the PTC statement saying, “If Chris Brown shot a woman in his new video and BET premiered it, the world would stop. Rihanna should not get a pass and BET should know better."

Paul Porter is an asshole. Seriously. Just take a second to think about what he said. It's unbelievably stupid to make this comparison for a few reasons. First, I doubt we'll ever see a video in which Chris Brown shoots the woman who raped him. Female-on-male rapes do happen (they account for less than 1% of all reported rapes), but I doubt that Brown would ever stoop so low as to portray such a man, since popular culture would consider that emasculating. Second, the use of Brown for comparison is unwise. In case anyone has forgotten, Chris Brown beat the shit out of a woman (this woman) in real life. And when that happened, not only did the world continue to spin, but his career continued. He just released a new album.

Melissa Henson, one of the directors at the Parents' Television Council, remembers the issue of Rihanna's abuse, but slimily attempts to use it to push the video's ban. “Rihanna’s personal story and status as a celebrity superstar provided a golden opportunity for the singer to send an important message to female victims of rape and domestic violence." Henson insists that Rihanna should be "telling victims they should seek help" instead of taking violent action, and she has a point. But the truth is that when rape victims seek help, they are often faced with shame, ridicule, victim-blaming, and negligence. Sometimes, even when they have the courage to prosecute, their attackers are set free (I am convinced that those officers are guilty, but that's another story). If Rihanna's character had gone to the police and brought her case to court, it's likely that her "provocative" outfit would've led to her rapist's acquittal; in 2005, Amnesty International found that 27% of people believe that a woman is totally or partially responsible for her rape if she is wearing ‘sexy or revealing’ clothing.

One of the great things about this video is how strongly it articulates that sexy clothing or participation in sexy behavior do not equal consent to sex. In the video, Rihanna wears a short skirt to a sweaty dancehall where dozens of men and women dance in ways that would make grandmothers cry. She even briefly dances with the man who later rapes her, but then clearly pushes him away and shakes her head "no." When she leaves soon after, he follows her, pushes her against a wall, covers her mouth, and (it's implied) rapes her. While Rihanna expresses doubt about the morality of his murder ("'Cause I didn't mean to hurt him/ Coulda' been somebody's son") never does she blame herself in any way for her rape. This is such a big deal, and something for which Rihanna should be praised. There are far too many people in the world who claim that women who look or act attractive are at fault for their rapes, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If you know anyone like this, please show them this brief sheet on sexual assault myths and facts.

That positive aspect of the video was lost on Melissa Henson, who went on to say that "A graphic portrayal of the singer getting back at an attacker by shooting him in cold blood in a crowded train station and then fleeing the scene is potentially the worst possible message that could be sent." Really? That's the worst message that could be sent? Although in this particular case it's understandable, I'll admit that murder is inexcusable. There are, however, much more damaging messages that could be sent by this video, such as the victim "deserving" her rape, or not telling anyone about it. Or it could send the messages that countless other music videos do: that (thin, big-breasted, etc.) women are items to be bought or won by an means necessary, that they are more than happy to bend to the will of any man, and that they are, at their core, simply less than people.

It's important to note that, unlike judgments on the worth and purpose of women or where responsibility for rape falls, Rihanna's "dangerous" message is not one that will likely be sublimated into the minds of viewers and reenacted in their lives. As Rihanna herself said, "I personally don't condone violence or murder. I've been abused in the past and you don't see me running around killing people in my spare time." Constant exposure to nearly nude women shaking their asses while being showered with champagne, on the other hand, is something that has affected behavior and led to assault.

It's interesting that while Rihanna is being persecuted for this video, as this vlogger with an adorable accent pointed out, Lady Gaga has gotten away with the in-video murders of countless diner patrons and three men, only one of whom directly harmed her. Maybe I wasn't listening enough, but I haven't heard a peep about these Gaga videos, other than the usual concern over a woman wearing tiny clothes. Is it because Rihanna's video takes place in a realistic-looking town in Barbados (?) instead of a "artsy" futuristic Russian brothel? Is it because we're used to Gaga being crazy? Or is it because Rihanna is a woman of color and therefore an easier target for conservative groups? My bet's on the last one.

I really believe that Rihanna has done a good thing by putting out this video. It's forcing people to talk about complex moral issues and the realities of rape in a world where the vast majority of people think that it's something that doesn't happen to "nice girls" and shouldn't be talked about. The outrage against it, which focuses on the murder instead of the rape, draws attention to how often rape victims are silenced or ignored.

I was confused to read Rihanna say, "I just really want girls to be careful. Have fun, be sassy, be innocent and sweet, be everything that you are. But just try not to be naive." At first, it rang just a bit too much of the sort of victim-blaming comments that inspired the magnificent SlutWalk movement. But in the context of another quote, it becomes clear that all Rihanna is advocating is awareness of the horror and frequency of sexual assault. What she said is really quite inspiring to hear from someone with as much star power as she has:

"Rape is, unfortunately, happening all over the world and in our own homes and we continue to cover it up and pretend it doesn't happen... Boys and girls feel compelled to be embarrassed about it, and they hide it from everyone, including their teachers, their parents and their friends. That only continues to empower the abusers."

The Parents' Television Council is wrong: Rihanna is exactly the kind of pop artist we need. In a sea of videos that enforce acceptance of rape culture, she is brave enough to be a voice for its victims.

Patriarchy is Everyone's Problem

If you believe that patriarchy is long-dead,

If you think that feminism isn't relevant to you because you're male,
If you fail to understand the connection between boys afraid to cry and men who harass women,
If you like good stories and intelligent presentation,
then do I have a TED Talk for you.

Please watch Tony Porter explain how we socialize males to fit into the "Man-Box," and the dangers of being imprisoned there.

What's so funny about Bridesmaids?

Simply put: everything.

A few days ago, after reading favorable Facebook updates and this Salon article, I went to see Bridesmaids with my boyfriend, Dan. If you haven't heard about this movie, do yourself a favor and watch the trailer this instant. It would be a gross understatement to say that I enjoyed it. I loved it. I didn't think it would be possible for me to love co-writer and star Kristen Wiig (whose work on Saturday Night Live is beyond hilarious) any more than I already did, but watching her play witty, frustrated, down-and-out Annie was pure ecstasy. What adds even more to this slice of awesomepie is that Bridesmaids passes the Bechdel test with flying colors. Here, funny female actresses play funny, multidimensional female characters who love, hate, talk to, try to one-up, and yes, vomit on each other (the last one is part of the much-talked-about but far-from-funniest scene in the film, which producer Judd Apatow added to Wiig's script).

I laughed so hard that my abs hurt and I almost peed. I was so high on life and the fact that Hollywood had produced a movie that featured women, but focused on their friendships instead of shopping habits or long-lost loves, that I existed on a plane of media nirvana. Well, I did until Dan's sister asked how the movie was and he replied that it was, "good, but definitely a chick flick." (Insert record scratch here.) Dan isn't sexist or mean or close-minded. He embraces how passionate I am about feminism and I have, on several occasions, succeeded in convincing him that some of the things he loves (like Fight Club) hate women. But in this moment, I thought I might burn the house down. I didn't do that because we were in Dan's family's house, which is extremely nice and probably very, very expensive. He has since rescinded and apologized for this comment, but unfortunately, he isn't the only person applying this term to Bridesmaids; plenty of reviewers have called it a "chick flick" too.

Let me make something clear: Bridesmaids is not a "chick flick."
It is, to quote a great A/V Club piece, "a well-crafted comedy that just happens to feature an all-female cast." Anyone who has even moderate interest in watchable films knows that the term "chick flick" is shorthand for "terrible movie." I don't watch movies that pander to the princess/one-true-love dreams that my Barbie-filled childhood was supposed to instill in me (sorry, Nicholas Sparks), so I don't watch "chick flicks." Bridesmaids has no relation to this kind of sappy bullshit. People are only calling it a "chick flick" because it's so uncommon to see funny movies (or really any movies) that treat women as anything other than extras. More than sixty years after Simone de Beauvoir penned "Woman as Other," most of Hollywood continues to pretend that (heterosexual and white, but that's another story) men are the only people worthy of being protagonists. Even when they're not sidelined as love interests, femme fatales, or nagging termagants, women in films are defined by their relationships to men, as if all women ever do is search desperately for love.

Bridesmaids is similarly not a romantic comedy. It is a comedy. There is romance. Those two facts do not a rom-com make. Rom-coms are as bad as  or worse than "chick-flicks," and moreover, this combination is older than dirt. Any English major worth her weight in leatherbound books knows that tragedies end in funerals, and comedies end in weddings (or at least new romantic relationships). If you doubt me, please see summaries of every Shakespeare play ever written. And if  that's still not enough, consider the endings of canonical "dude" movies like The Forty-Year Old Virgin; Superbad; The Hangover; I Love You, Man; and Knocked Up. Despite thematic and plot similarities regarding romance, Bridesmaids has been deemed a "rom-com" simply because the protagonist is female.

The assumption behind making films almost exclusively about men is that men don't want to see movies about women. It's probably because all we talk about is our vaginas and menstrual cycles and dresses and makeup and when our men are finally going to give us big diamond engagement rings, am I right ladies? This assumption is stupid for two reasons. First off, I know very few men who would dislike a movie simply because there were women in it. I'm sure there are some out there, but I refuse to believe that this is a legitimate reason to avoid making movies with female characters. Second, gasp! women are people too, and therefore have goals, flaws, fears, dreams, and all of those other silly things that make humans human. The characters in Bridesmaids have them too, which is straight-up awesome. Some critics say that its success (it's currently at #1) could usher in a new era of films featuring women who don't exist in a world that revolves around shoes and penises.

I'm a bit less optimistic. It would take more than one great movie to change this paradigm, and I'm sure that Hollywood will release about forty terrible rom-coms and chick flicks in the time it takes to make another female-driven movie this funny. I also feel obliged to point out that Wiig's "loser" character is infinitely more attractive and successful than the typical Apatow slacker. Annie is poor, but she is so because the bakery she started went under and she's making ends meet at a tiny jewelery store owned by her mom's AA sponsor. She romps through the movie wearing makeup, a stylish haircut, and (very often) minidresses with blazers and heels. Compare that to characters like those played by Seth Rogen or Zach Galifianakis. These men are usually self-absorbed, pot-smoking, potbellied guys whose lack of style and hygiene only adds to their "charm." Nothing like that would ever be considered acceptable by American viewing audiences if the chubby, dorky protagonist was a chubby, dorky woman. Though Bridesmaids does make considerable strides in the right direction, they're still strides made by impeccable legs in towering heels.

So how do we talk about Bridesmaids? Do we call it an "amped-up rom-com" or a "raunchy chick flick?" Or do we stop trying to force it into meaningless, gendered boxes that don't do it justice? Maybe we should simply acknowledge its comic genius and call it "a terrifically funny movie," because that's exactly what it is. I personally promise you that Bridesmaids is smarter than The Hangover, as funny as Superbad, and totally worth the ticket price. Go see it.

Update (5/23):  I just found this in the NPR review of the movie. When I used the term "raunchy chick flick" above, I wasn't quoting anyone. It just seemed like the type of thing that someone might say about Bridesmaids. I guess I was right.

This article, by the way, is not worth reading.