Core Response #2: You Go Ms. Arquette!

“Post-feminism positively draws on and invokes feminism as that which can be taken into account, to suggest that equality is achieved, in order to install a whole repertoire of new meanings which emphasise that it is no longer needed, it is a spent force (McRobbie, p.255).   It is shocking to me that anyone could think that feminism is over or no longer needed or that gender equality has somehow been achieved.  I find this to be strikingly similar to the issues of colorblindness that we discussed a few weeks ago. 

I think the Hooters episode of Undercover Boss that one of the groups shared last week is a primary example of how this conception of accomplished gender equality gets promoted as a reality.  While the CEO of Hooters can acknowledge “Jimbob’s” outrageous, demeaning treatment of his waitresses, he fails to see that the company’s foundation of objectifying women’s bodies while they literally serve people (typically men) goes completely ignored and is treated as normalized.  Much like the article we read about the Ugly Betty episode in which whiteness and white privilege is never addressed, the Undercover Boss episode also refuses to address the objectification of women and the male gaze in operation that the entire infrastructure of the Hooters corporation relies upon.

The perception that the goals of feminism have been accomplished was challenged on a mass scale this year during the Academy Award ceremony, particularly during Patricia Arquette’s acceptance speech in which she called for equal pay for women and Meryl Streep and Jennifer Lopez joined in an impassioned support of this call.  This response was later poked fun at by host Neil Patrick Harris claiming that “Meryl Streep suddenly realized she was underpaid”.  Neil Patrick Harris’ privilege as a male permits him, and wrongfully so, to make the issue of equal pay for women an individualized topic that somehow women who are paid well are not allowed to be a force of support for their gender.  In fact the day after the Oscars on Yahoo’s home page there was an article (written by a man) that was a deliberate combatting of Patricia Arquette’s claim, entitled “Working women earn more than Patricia Arquette may realize” (See Full article posted below).  The article insisted that because the pay gap between men and women is less extreme than in times past that it is a non-issue.  I think this article and its claims are an example of what McRobbie said as a “thorough dismantling of feminist politics and the discrediting of the occasionally voiced need for its renewal” (McRobbie, p. 256).  Why shouldn’t someone in Arquette’s position or Streep’s position be allowed to be a voice for women and use the stage of the Oscars to speak to something that they are passionate about and invested in?  Instead of being treated like they have no right to speak to this issue because they have money, they should be praised for coming to the forefront and standing up to an issue that is so regularly and easily brushed under the carpet of the public’s consciousness.  In my opinion, those who have money and security have even more obligation to speak up, take a stand, and work towards change because they too occupy a space of privilege where their jobs are not going to be at risk if they speak out.

Meryl Streep is actually personally involved in the advocacy of a new History of Women Museum, which is in the works to be created.  She has personally invested over 1 million dollars into this project as she holds the view that so long as the stories of women have been written and given importance only through the perspective of men, then the full complex understanding of women and their achievements cannot be realized. The idea behind this museum is to give the stories of women and female figures a voice and perspective that comes from a female point of view.  I think it is such an important concept and project because as McRobbie reminds us, “there is little trace of the battles fought, of the power struggles embarked upon, or of the enduring inequities which still mark the relations between men and women” (McRobbie, p. 260).  It is so disheartening to think that we have “airbrushed [these struggles and events] out of existence” (McRobbie, p. 260).  I’m with Meryl and Patricia; it’s time for women to tell their own stories and each other's stories.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/working-women-are-earning-more-than-patricia-arquette-may-realize-174415329.html

Core Response: Broad City and Proximity to Blackness as Feminist Expression

Sarah Banet-Weiser’s essay “What’s Your Flava?: Race and Postfeminism in Media Culture” offers great context to discuss one of TV’s foremost examples of contemporary feminism negotiated via racialization -- Comedy Central’s Broad City.

Banet-Weiser examines generational schisms between types of feminisms. She says,

“...postfeminist popular culture is more accurately antifeminist in its trajectory. Postfeminism, understood in this manner, is thus a different political dynamic than third wave feminism, which is positioned more overtly as a kind of feminist politics, one that extends the historical trajectory of first- and second-wave feminism to better accommodate contemporary political culture and the logic of consumer citizens. Postfeminism, on the other hand, is as McRobbie puts it, “feminism taken into account, a process in which feminist values and ideologies are acknowledged only to be found dated and passé and thus negated. (206)

I believe that Broad City is situated somewhere between third wave feminism and postfeminism, not only through its gender politics, but it’s proximity to Blackness, an oft-utilized tool for non-Black people to legitimize their leftist political leanings. 

Broad City was created by and stars Jewish millennials Abbi Jacobson and Ilana Glazer. The show is a half-hour comedy sitcom and is celebrated as a feminist and progressive.  Its feminist identity is central to not only the show’s diegesis, but it’s critical standing and audience reception.  Articles include “Broad City: Feminism 101, according to Abbi and Ilana,” and “'Broad City's' Ilana Glazer And Abbi Jacobson Are 'Totally Feminists' among others and Bitch Magazine has co-signed. It is positioned as an heiress to third wave feminism -- Jacobson and Glazer have interviewed riot grrrl icons Sleater Kinney for NPR. But according to the New Republic, “'Broad City,' TV's Best Comedy, Is a Post-Feminist Barrage of Bathroom Humor and Romantic Flubs.”  

The show’s ideological and generational questions surrounding its feminism are negotiated via racially-coded characterizations, plot-lines, and materiality.  Most of this is through the character of Ilana. She smokes weed all day (which, yes, is not necessarily racialized) and is clearly influenced by and plugged in to Black culture. In Season 1, Episode 2, Ilana gets Abbi into an ad-hoc money-making mission so that they can buy Lil Wayne tickets (and the necessary pre-game weed) and during a break in Washington Square Park, Ilana fantasizes about hanging out with Queen Bey and BadGalRiri, a dream that ends with Rihanna “going down on her.” Ilana has a casual sexual relationship with a Black dentist, Lincoln and when getting fancy she dons a weave ponytail. Additionally, there are episodes titled “Pu$$y Weed” and “Fattest Asses,” the former being being a reference to the frequent hip-hop linguistic tool of dollar signs substituting for S’s and the latter indebted to the fact that Black culture (in the U.S. but also globally) generally praises and privileges big butts. In “Pu$$y Weed,” Ilana stops by Lincoln’s dental practice while he is operating on a 7-year old Black girl and Lincoln asks her how she could forget so many important things. Ilana tells the girl “don’t ever do drugs,” which I think subconsciously derives its humor from the fact that in a room with 2 Black characters, a young White Jewish woman is the one whose life is dictated by illegal drugs, the young-ish Black man is a successful pediatric dentist, and the young Black girl is innocent (which young Black girls never really get to be). Ilana’s proximity to Blackness is what gives the show authenticity (Also, the opening theme is hip-hop song “Latino & Proud).  This is also interesting in that it’s proximity to Blackness is the primary way that the show legitimizes it’s feminist cred and disavows the Whiteness of it’s stars but the character’s Jewishness is a distant, distant second.  

"Proximity to Blackness” as a tool to legitimize progressive identity is something that should be explored in scholarship but also pop culture conversations. See also: Workaholics and Das Racist/Himanshu Suri & Tom Haverford on Parks and Recreation (Desi relationship to Blackness is particularly interesting in the U.S. and the U.K.).

Some notes:

1. Ilana’s queerness  also figures in the mix as a site for third wave feminist expression, but it is acknowledged but never really explored, which ties it to postfeminism
2. It should be noted the second season has led to conversations surrounding the show’s racism, transphobia, and homophobia.
3. Ilana’s  roommate is a queer Venezuelan immigrant (who doesn’t have U.S. citizenship). This adds layers to the show’s racialized aspects.

-------

Banet-Weiser, Sarah. “What’s Your Flava?: Race and Postfeminism in Media Culture.” Interrogating Postfeminism: Gender and the Politics of Popular Culture. Eds. Diane Negra and Yvonne Tasker. Durham: Duke University Press, 2007. 201-226. Print.

Will HBO Now catalyze the next transformation of traditional television viewing

Very soon, you won't need a cable subscription to watch your favorite HBO shows during their scheduled broadcast. Teaming up with Apple, as its primary carrier, you can stream live HBO. Anticipating a possible flight to their products, Apple has decreased the price of the Apple TV by almost 30%. The CEO of HBO Richard Plepler has called the move a "millennial missile."

What does everyone else think about these advances made by HBO and Apple? What do you think are the potential future effects on television and streaming culture, now with this corporate partnership?


http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/hbo-now-standalone-service-priced-at-15-a-month-apple-on-board/

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102549533

Deadline Apologized For The Diversity Article, So Everything Is Fine Now

You can read snippets and commentary from the AV Club here.

Or you can read the whole thing.

Either way, the question is, would they have cared if there wasn't a public outcry about the article? Or would they have just continued to think it was okay to say that actors of color are stealing roles from white actors that they don't deserve? My guess is, the problem would have never occurred to them.

Joshua Alston for the AV Club's analysis of the situation seems to back up this idea:

"Hollywood has a nepotistic, network-driven culture that incubates, then normalizes deeply entrenched discriminatory attitudes against performers of color... Andreeva’s story isn’t really a case of tone-deafness in that it accurately captures the tone of Hollywood; it merely exposed that tone, to which Deadline’s editors have become accustomed, to the mortified public-at-large."

I actually worked in TV casting for a number of years, and the general public would be disgusted with how we talked about people. As a requirement of the job, we completely reduced casting candidates to things like their race, weight, and gender. It was gross, and I'll be happy to never return to that world. Unfortunately, that world doesn't appear to be going anywhere. It's things like this that make me question - is this really the world I want to work in?

The real MarchMadness: Where are the girls?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/30/living/feat-march-madness-womens-sports-attention-money-men/

As a female athlete, this issue has frustrated me my entire life. Where are women's sports on TV?

Growing up I wondered where the Michael Jordan or Derek Jeters (or fill in the blank of several hundred other male sports stars) were for female athletes... and sadly, you could count them on one hand (Mia Hamm, The Williams twins and more recently gymnasts Shawn Johnson and Gaby Douglas). But all of those names rose at a time when they were at their highest level of competition on a worldwide stage. Not March madness. Not even a regular match.

Would anyone even know that both the mens and women's tournaments run at the same time? No.  Could you watch a women's game easily if you wanted to? No.
What are we suggesting here?

GIRLS WENT THERE (without saying so)

I've been following Girls since it started in 2012. When I first watched it, I loved it for its quirk, its explication on the twenty something period of uncertainty, its comedy and at many moments, the relationships these girls have. And as a writer, there have been some episodes that really inspire (such as the Pilot, the finale of Season Two "Together, the "Beach House" episode of s03 and much of season four). I won't deny the lack of diversity in Girls as a whole, and see that Lena Dunham as a creator has backed herself into a redundant hole.

But that's not why I'm writing this. I'm writing this because in season four, episode 6, "Close Up" Girls surprised me. They talked about abortion in a way I haven't seen on television thus far. It wasn't an after school special kind of episode, nor was it patronizing or stigmatizing.
Mimi Rose, Adam's new girlfriend, stood by her choice to have one. It was dramatized wonderfully without feeling like an artificial plot device to force a discussion or raise eyebrows. From a writing standpoint, it was well incorporated into Mimi's character arc, and in a larger sense, resonated with the choices (or lack thereof) the other girls were making in their own lives.
Here is a little blurb about it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/22/girls-abortion-storyline_n_6716744.html

Here comes my oxymoron: it was noticeably seamless. Which leads me to question, is this seamlessness simply because it was on HBO which allows more content freedom?

Core Response #5: What's more (post)feminist than The Bachelor?

Core Response #5: What's more (post)feminist than The Bachelor?
~Bobby Sevenich

Before reading McRobbie, Banet-Weiser, and Butler's articles exploring the ambiguities, complications, and debates surrounding postfeminism, I assumed the term referred to an imagined state in which feminist ideals were deemed antiquated or non-applicable. In this case, I equated the prefix "post" with the notion that the significance of the base word is no longer reflective of current ideologies. That is not to say that "feminism" was misguided or wrong, but rather that our society's preoccupations have shifted or transcended beyond what the term "feminism" encompasses—not that I believe this is true. Banet-Weiser deftly articulates the problematic nature of postfeminism and corroborates the pitfalls of my reductive understanding: "The danger, of course, in labeling something as "post" is that this prefix implies that whatever it modifies is somehow over" (Banet-Weiser, 214). Jess Butler nicely examines the current culture through the lens of the postfeminist ideology. She extends upon Banet-Weiser's examination and asserts that postfeminism "is not (just) a resentful retaliation of against earlier generations of feminist, or is it (just) an empty celebration an empty celebration of feminine consumption" (Butler, 44) and observes that postfeminist—while linear, backlash, and sex-positive (43)—also privileges white middle-class heterosexual individuals and relationships and reproduces inequalities of race gender, and sexuality.

Reality TV is a place in which societal ideals—good or bad—are put on display and even hyperbolized, so it seems appropriate that Reality TV is able to help us clearly see “postfeminist” characteristics. Butler offers a list of six postfeminist qualifiers that can be applied to readings of media texts/narratives. Even though The Bachelor has been exhausted as a case study, I would like to propose that the show—which is shockingly excluded from Butler's compilation of postfeminist texts—is a (or "the") superlative microcosm to observe Butler's postfeminism tenets at work.

The Bachelor, in a very simplistic summary, celebrates sexuality and the restoration of heteronormative rhetoric, behaviors, and interactions. Butler first points out that postfeminism believes that gender equality has been achieved and activism is no longer necessary.  As evidences, the female contestants on the show almost unanimously uphold this ideal and claim that they have achieved what they personally and professionally desire through their own acts of agency. For example, a woman may attests that she is looking for love and has decided that—up until starting the show—has not found it for herself. Additionally, under the guise of authentic romance, the show confirms the physical and sexual differences between the contestants and the bachelor for whom they are all vying. Visually and narratively, The Bachelor gratuitously showcases these differences. Heteronormative relations and values are retained throughout the narrative of the show. It also posits that if a woman/girl want to succeed and effectively win over the bachelor, she must enact her own beauty regimen, take responsibility for her own behavior, and manifest what she wants in the future—in other words, she must decide if she is competing for the "right reasons." Each contestant must strategize and adopt a "self-promotion" mentality. In the process, she must capitalize on her distinctiveness. Finally, The Bachelor reinforces the prioritization of consumerism; each female contestant is gleefully commodified and presented to the bachelor and the spectator's viewing consumption through various means (daily challenges, group dates, one-on-ones, fantasy suite endeavors.

Later in her piece, Butler identifies postfeminism as a classification that does not benefit the non-heterosexual/middle-to-upper-class/white (Butler, 47). The Bachelor assumes whiteness as the epitome of the American population and TV viewership. We can see this exemplified in in each season; not one Bachelor (or Bachelorette) has been a person of color or from any socioeconomic background below middle class (to my knowledge), nor have any of the finalists or winner represented anything other than whiteness, though some may argue otherwise. What's more, the show has not entertained the idea of having a non-heterosexual conceit nor reworking some of the heterosexual criterions. Butler explained that postfeminism does not however, completely exclude persons of color, so long as they are prepared to conform to the general characteristics of postfeminism. Typically, every season has at least one contestant of color—who is inevitably required to stand in for all people of marginalized identities but must still uphold the values of the show, such as consumerism and femininity. This contestant stays in the completion just long enough to create an impression on the bachelor(ette)'s (and our) consciousness. Once they prove “visible,” they are conveniently eliminated to make room for a feasible winner. When they are jettisoned, there is usually an unspoken parallel narratives implying that their "non-whiteness" is the only reason it didn't work out, even though they attempted to assimilate as best as possible.

I worry, however, that the next season of The Bachelorette will depart from these notions of postfeminism, considering the male contestants first vote on which woman they want to fill the position of the bachelorette. This reverts the power the bachelorette is customarily supposed to have and gives it back to the male(s). Ultimately, this undermines the women's authority and shifts the show back to sexual objectification—if it ever surpassed “objectification” in the first place.