I'm going to keep updating this as new info comes out, so if you're someone that gives a damn, maybe check back in a couple days. But I'm going to just sort of spat thoughts on the thing with the Catholic kids and the Native American elder. So there's no thesis or main point, here, just venting. I've been festering over this, and reached the point where the zit needs to be popped. This article by Indian Country Today is a good compilation of videos encompassing the whole thing. The super long one, the one by those guys who identify themselves as Hebrew Israelites, hasn't really been given enough attention, and I want to start there- makes sense, chronologically, but also because what these guys were doing was pretty awful, too, and the reason all this shit went down to begin with. So these assholes showed up to the Indigenous People's March, to protest it, apparently. And they were shouting all sorts of racist, disparaging things at the people marching. If you listen to the beginning of their (again, long) video, you hear them yelling at the Native Americans about how they knew Native history better than the Native Americans do- there's some garbage about how "before Natives worshipped totem poles," they had worshipped "the true God," or something like that. And that because of this "idol worship," their "land was taken from them."
I have to say, it's pretty vile to protest against indigenous people marching peacefully. Like, what are you really protesting to begin with? I guess, based on the shit they were saying, it was to "save" them? But, as people try to talk to them, they're entirely uninterested in dialogue and just talk over them, being super rude every time. If they were there from a place of genuine love and compassion, they would want to talk. No, they were there to pontificate, not to really help anyone or save any souls. Something that confuses me: at 38:18ish, the guy with the phone starts mocking one of the students for wearing a MAGA hat to a Native American protest- and like, what? You've been standing here, telling Native Americans it's their own fault they're the victims of genocide, and now you're going to "call out" a white kid for being disrespectful? I mean, the thing is, within the first two minutes minute, they completely dismiss/talk over one of the Native Americans that is... wait for it... trying to point out that they're being disrespectful. I mean, seriously, I don't think the dude is able to finish a full phrase because the guy in the Hebrew Israelite group wouldn't shut the fuck up. So like, who the actual fuck are you to care about respect for the Indigenous march? "I'm just here to tell you what you have to do," he says to the Indigenous man. I guess the boarding schools didn't try hard enough. Point there is, these guys are hypocrites. And they incited the whole thing, and their part in it hasn't been explored enough, as far as I can se. (At about five minutes, a Black woman who has been visible for pretty much the whole video starts trying to talk to them and they say shit like, "Where's your husband?" as if to say he shouldn't have to listen to her because she's a woman- so like, dude, obviously these guys prescribe to some pretty regressive shit.) Because after they mock that first kid, they go all-in at mocking the whole crowd of teenage boys. Sure, it's true the Catholic church has done some deplorable shit, but they're fucking teenage boys for crying out loud- if these Hebrew Israelites are half as smart as they think they are, they should have known that asking if they have "one nigga" in the group and calling them stuff like "dusty crackers" was going to create a huge kerfuffle- honestly, if Phillips hadn't stepped in, there would have probably been a riot (and I strongly suspect they were hoping the rich white kids would get physical with them, based on how they kept going). Which is exactly why he did what he did. He says he saw something about to happen and wanted to pray, to calm things down. No, he didn't realize how bad it was until he was in the thick of it, but dude, that's the point. It was that bad. So then you have those shorter videos in the ICT article, and you see the progression of the behavior of the boys. For starters, it's clear there's space between Phillips and the boys, a space that gradually gets tighter and tighter, with fewer and fewer of the boys on the stairs- indicating the whole crowd was swarming Phillips and his fellow indigenous singers. Some of the boys do mock-Indigenous dances (apparently, some were attempts at the haka, according to Al Jazeera), the whole crowd engages in a mock-chant (more on that later), and there's this Nick Sandmann asswipe. I first found out his name reading this NYT article, and it led me to his statement. And that. Oh, that. This kid is full of shit. In the first of the shorter videos from ICT, he isn't even visible- which means he deliberately positioned himself in front of Philips. In other words, in order to appear so close, had to push past his classmates. So duh, he was the one "invading personal space." And there's no reason to get that close to someone except in an attempt at intimidation. As for that ridiculous smirk he had pretty much the whole time, it was obviously one of mockery, the same smirk guys in fake warpaint and war bonnets wear when confronted by indigenous people outside the stadiums where the Braves and Redsk*ns play. His statement is nothing but lies, passive-aggression, narcissism, and backpedaling. I suppose Trump would be proud. I don't believe the diocese when they say they'll do anything. I just don't. The Catholic church was an active participant in the cultural genocide practiced against indigenous people on this continent up until the 1980s. I've mentioned before that my great uncle was beaten so badly by a priest for speaking Lakota at boarding school that he went to the hospital- what I didn't mention then, was it was a Catholic priest. Stewart Indian School, the last boarding school in the U.S. to stop operating as such (in 1980), was a Catholic school. If they continually sweep molestation under the rug, why would they care if some rowdy teenagers were rude to a Native American elder? I'll believe it when I see it, but for now, I don't. Also, about that mock-chant in the videos ICT included in that article. It's the same one you hear at, like, Braves and Redsk*n games, or in the scene where they do "the chop" in Robin Hood: Men in Tights. Some even do the hand motion. (I feel like it's in Major League or one of the sequels, too, but this was easier to find, so here's the one from Men in Tights.)
So I don't see how anybody can still get away with saying they weren't mocking- then again, look at what our president gets away with every gorram day?
(As an aside, I'm pretty disappointed with that NYT piece- it's basically pulling an "on all sides" in its reporting, and it's pretty offensive they'd give credence to the claims that the indigenous people were somehow the aggressors, here.) And yeah, the guy that calls Phillips "Grandpa" shouldn't have engaged with that teenager, but I get why he did it- he was angry, and hurting, and the kid was obviously painfully ignorant (or one of "those" debators, the kind that studies Schopenhauer's ways to win an argument)- whether or not indigenous people crossed a land bridge from Asia is entirely irrelevant to the fact that our lands were stolen from us and his ancestors committed genocide to do it. Aside from that, though, it's pretty clear that, despite the picture Sandmann and supporters are trying to paint, the indigenous people were the only ones that weren't being assholes. It's just heartbreaking to watch Phillips at the end, shouting, "RELATIVES! RELATIVES!" and watch as nobody gives a shit. It reminds me of another great uncle, one that taught me about humility and forgiveness. He was a lobbyist for Indian Country, and I remember a conversation we had when I was around thirteen. It went something like this:
"Uncle Gerald, how can you be so kind to these guys that are making laws that hurt our people?"
"Because without grace, we're no better than them." "But why forgive them? It's not like they've really done anything to make things right."
"Forgiveness isn't for them, it's for us. If we don't forgive, we carry hate in our hearts, and again, that would make us no better than them. We have to forgive and move on, and hope that eventually they'll listen and help us. With, of course, some forceful convincing on our part." [wink] [He then taught me the Serenity Prayer.] After all the mockery and meanness, Phillips says, "Yeah, let's make America great! Let's do that!" In earnest. Not sarcastically, not to be funny. In earnest.
One of the kids shouts, "How?"
And the guy that had called Phillips "Grandpa" says, "Not like that!" And that's kind of perfect.
Nothing is going to get better if all this hate continues. And the kind of bullshit these kids (and those assholes that antagonized them to begin with) were acting out is just making it worse. And I wish I could talk to my Uncle Gerald about how to deal with these zealots- these MAGA-wearing, Trump-loving bigots. Because I strain and twist myself, trying to be compassionate and open like he taught me. But it gets harder all the time. And in the face of stuff like this? I just can't. And I wish I could ask him what to do. He's gone, so I can't, and that hurts about as much as everything else right now. And another thing that makes this so painful is the shit Phillips and his companions were dealing with? It's more like an everyday occurrence. I'm glad this one is getting attention, but what I need you to understand, reader, is that this kind of shit happens every day to indigenous people. And to people of color now that Trump is in office. And it's not just elders. It happens to kids at school. Trump gets quoted by fucking teachers being racist to their students. And yet, snotty little brats like Sandmann go unchecked when they play the victim. Major news outlets like the New York Times don't call him and his ilk on their bullshit.
And what that does, is it silences us. Those of us whose identities are being attacked. Whose very personhood is being called into question. How can we stand up for ourselves if lies about us, about what these people are doing to us, go unquestioned? If when we call for peace, we're depicted as the villain? If when we try to reach out, we're mocked and ridiculed, then turned into the scapegoat and have angry fingers pointed in our direction? So we remain silent. Because you can't reason with irrationality and delusion.
It reminds me of a quote from retired Senator Barney Frank: "On what planet do you spend most of your time? Having a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table." It's impossible. So I don't have any answers. I don't know what to do. I guess I'll just pray to my totem poles that things will get better somehow.
I've been watching MarvelRunaways on Hulu, and it has totally sucked me in, let me tell ya! Admittedly, I had only heard vague whisperings of the comic on the intertubes, but I hadn't read it. But between the kickass trailer:
...and noticing that James Marsters* is in it, I decided I kind of had to see it for myself- and it hasn't disappointed.
For the most part. See, there's one** thing, one main thing that grates under my skin when I watch it. And the problem is, it's established so damn thoroughly in the pilot, I seek it out every time I watch a new episode, so that stuff that would be more innocuous otherwise gets to me.
CONSIDER THIS YOUR SPOILER WARNING, FOLKS
So first, a brief summary of the show, and a breakdown of the characters: Six highschool friends that have been estranged for two years over the death of a seventh member of their pack end up, through some rather realistic happenstance, hanging out together "like old times" while their parents hold a meeting for a group called Pride. Pride, as is presented, is a charity organization all of the parents founded before their kids were born, meeting once a year at the house of one of the families, the Wilder's. By more happenstance, the kids end up going through a secret passage and observing their parents, wearing deep red robes, participating in some sort of cult-like ritual involving what looks like a human sacrifice. The series follows both the parents as their motivations and desires are explained, as well as the kids as they try to figure out what they saw, why it happened, and how to deal with it. On the way, we find out that each of the kids has either a special power or skill that essentially helps them progress in their quest of figuring out what the Hell is going on. Some things really going for this, first, and in no particular order: - A very diverse cast. One thing I particularly like about this is that the individual cultures of each family's ethnicity are subtly and organically included: The Minoru parents go out for "real sushi" and have some artifacts that look they're authentically Japanese; Geoffrey, the father of the Wilder family, is a former gangster who discusses that lifestyle in very real ways (and we also get some good snapshots of what that looked like, as well as how it follows him in his "legit" life***); the Yorkes are Jewish but aren't stereotypes that use Yiddish and complain about things not being Kosher or what-have-you; the women in the show seem to be the bigger power-players when it comes to the parents, and there are literally double the number of girls vs. boys in our group of teens. -The parents themselves have great character development. Not all of them- the Yorkes seem to serve as a constant source comic relief, and Leslie Dean's backstory seems to be on the slow burn path, but pretty much all of the other parents have interesting roles to play and show multiple sides and personalities, especially Tina Minoru and Victor and Janet Stein. -A realistic depiction of an abusive relationship. The Stein household is fraught with pain and anger, and the way both Chase and his mom, Janet both simultaneously love and fear Victor, the way they keep hoping he'll change, is incredibly and tragically lifelike. We're shown that Victor genuinely does love his family more than anything, but that he has a dark side that rages against them and doesn't comprehend how to deal with that intense love and the magnitude of other feelings he may have towards them as a result of that love. While we're led to believe the Big Change in Victor (that lasts less than a whole episode) is a result of some Jonah Magic, Chase shouts, "You did it again! You made me believe you've changed!" at Victor when the old demons show themselves again at the end of E8 (and earlier in the episode, Robert says Janet is "caught up in the cycle of abuse,") so it's made clear this is hardly the first time Victor as put on a gentle face to keep his family. -Slow burn! I like a mystery, even though I'm terrible at solving them! Having so many hints dropped is tantalizing, sure. But the fact that they do actually get resolved keeps me coming back, especially when they add more bits and pieces that need unwrapping. If they just kept dumping confusing and unexplained junk onto the audience, I'd be turned off (I'm looking at you, J.J. Abrams), but that's not what's going on at all. -Realistic teenagers. For the most part (see my second endnote), I think the teenagers are actually depicted fairly well-rounded and authentically. I especially think the hurt they all demonstrate over the loss of Amy (before the series starts) is especially poignant- so far, at least, we aren't told why Alex didn't attend her funeral, and I actually like that. And the fact that Amy's death seems to be what drove the group apart is a sad but understandable plot point. Each kid dealt with it in different ways- Nico turned Wiccan/goth, Alex bared down on the hacking, Chase went full-on jock, Gert became a self-proclaimed feminist and SJW, Karolina started spending even more time at the church, and Molly seems to have kind of stagnated emotionally (no doubt because on top of losing a close friend, she was already an orphan). Okay, but The Problem. And I think this sums it up:
Essentially, Gert is presented as a straw feminist and "insufferable social justice warrior." I noticed almost immediately that any time Gert made a comment she, as a character, intended to point out some sort of injustice or inequality, it was played for eyerolls and to make her, or rather her point, look annoying and act as kind of a killjoy. Sort of following the "feminists/SJWs don't like nice things" vein. And that's a serious problem, especially given that, ostensibly, the show is about diversity and acceptance, among other things- I mean, like I said, the cast is organically diverse. If you're unfamiliar with the concept of "straw feminist," I highly recommend you watch this video- whether you agree with Anita Sarkeesian or not+, she does a great job of explaining the concept and gives some solid examples to help you understand what it is, as well as why it's a problem.
This is the exact kind of stuff Gert says in Runaways- her friends/adopted sister are doing something innocuous or understandable/expected of a teenager, and she makes a comment that comes across as mean-spirited and deflating, but under the guise of "feminism." What's most damaging about this, though, is that there is validity to what she's saying each time, and in a different context, it would be entirely appropriate and necessary. But when it happens onscreen for us, it just presents her as an asshole that likes to harsh everyone else's mellow. I went back and rewatched the seven episodes that are up as of now, and took notes/quotes. And what I discovered is that in the first episode, I was able to fill almost an entire page of a spiral notebook with relevant quotes/situations. It varies in amount from episode to episode after that, but every episode has at least one or two zingers. And while I won't go through and recount every single one, I'll share a few and why they're both valid but problematic. Let's just start with the pilot.
SCENE: Gert and her adopted sister Molly are getting dropped off at school by their parents. Molly, who is a few years younger, is upset because she has seriously bad cramps, and, after an embarrassing remark from Mom about her using an orgasm to relieve the pain, she tries to change the subject by cheerily saying, "Dance Squad tryouts are today!" Gert responds, looking super disgusted, "Ugh, Dance Squad is just cheerleading without pom-poms. You're just reinforcing hegemonic masculinity while marginalizing women's identities." Big Word Vomit aside, these are pretty much the first lines we get from Gert, and they're her using feminist critique to be mean to her younger sister. And, the thing is, there is something to be said about the jock-cheerleader-dynamic and its role in gender structures for youths (and professional athletes, for that matter), and yes, that is an important conversation to have, especially with a young woman that wants to participate. But not like that. Not the way it's shown here, not when its purpose is to essentially bully one's younger sister. It makes the whole idea of questioning the gender and social structures of high school seem like a, well, a dick thing to do.
So this is a pretty shitty first impression of Gert. And the rest of the episode, most of her dialogue or actions somehow involve her either being somewhat hypocritical or a flat-out mean-spirited killjoy. She advertises a new club she's trying to start called "Undermining the Patriarchy," but then later reduces Chase to, and these are her exact words, "some roided out jockstrap" whose opinions only go as far as "what protein butter to use," while at the same time, objectifying him by staring creepily at his ass while following behind him as he's talking to one of his teachers. And this is just the first episode.
Speaking of first impressions, Hulu filmed a non-canonical promo for Thanksgiving entitled "Not Your Typical Friendsgiving." The 47-second spot is our six teenagers sharing a Thanksgiving dinner together, at a table just large enough for all of them. It ends with a group of adults that are clearly their parents (their faces are invisible, but it's pretty obvious), in their big, red Pride ritual robes, popping up behind them and the kids looking scared, the final screen saying something like, "Now Streaming." The whole group starts the bit at least somewhat happy to be there, except Gert. Upon Alex remarking that Thanksgiving is his favorite holiday, she chimes in with, "Psh, of course it is. Hey, Alex, would you like this with a side of smallpox? Because that is what we served to the Native Americans, whose land we stole." Everyone is demonstrably uncomfortable in response, Nico even expressing that she's not hungry anymore. And okay, if you've read far back enough in my posts, you would know that I'm Lakota Sioux on my mom's side. And yeah, it pissed me off when she said it. But not at all you white folks. At the writers. Because it is true that the US was founded on murder and thievery and deception. That's a legit point, one that matters a HELLUVALOT to gals like me. And there are appropriate times to bring up how Thanksgiving is an easy way for people whose ancestors did the murdering and thieving and deceiving to feel better about/ignore their history (dare I say... whitewash the thing? Eh?), while at dinner with your friends isn't. Not to be persnickety, but that's not the sort of thing you do during the event, you do it when invited and are politely declining. Or if you go, you don't bring it up, because it's pretty damn hypocritical for you to be actively partaking in Thanksgiving while disparaging it and its origins and all that jazz. Also, of all the people to direct that remark to, it's Alex. The Black kid. The kid whose ancestors were prooooobably slaves? Yeah, sure, blame his ancestors. Just plain tactless. I digress... So once again, the real, valid point she's making is doing nothing to make viewers question the relevant geopolitical structures, but rather it's just making her look like an asshole that's entirely unconcerned for the social dynamics of the context in which she's in at the moment- and, in certain minds, no doubt, making them question the validity of her claims, rather than said geopolitical structures. Because it's made clear she understands things like conventional etiquette throughout the series; she just deliberately makes people uncomfortable with her "social critiques." And as this particular jab was about indigenous rights, I initially took it probably a little more personal than I should have. But when removing my personal baggage from the picture, it's disconcerting that a promo meant to draw in new customers that gives each character two lines at most, that its picture of Gert is one of mean "social justice warrior." Another angle she takes is "religious oppression." In the first couple episodes, she comes down hard on Karolina a few times about her family's religion, the Church of Giborrim. And it's juxtaposed against the other characters' perspectives, too. For example, in this same episode, Alex respectfully says he doesn't want to "interfere with [Karolina's] religion" by causing a scheduling conflict, an act of respect for Karolina's faith. And Karolina herself constantly talks about how genuinely happy her faith makes her because it's "positive and life-affirming," teaches her to see beauty and light in everything, everyone, and every situation. Gert, meanwhile, scoffs at the classification of "religion" for the Church of Gibborim, and asserts that "no institution has been as oppressive to women as organized religion." And so again, the rub: Organized religion does have a shitty history in: re women. But instead, when she calls the Church of Gibborum a "cult" and says it's oppressive, she's bullying Karolina and insinuating she's stupid and duped, yet also complicit in the wrongdoing of all organized religion, and deceitful because she just "walks around with fake smiles, pretending to be happy all the time." So even though, sure, a legitimate critique of organized religion is absolutely necessary for good, inclusive feminist theory, Gert uses it as ammo to be cruel to someone she used to call a friend. And she reduces Karolina down to an antifeminist who only cares about "being a perfect church girl." And what's hard is that it's made pretty obvious that most of her digs at Karolina are motivated out of jealousy because Chase shows signs of having, y'know, feelings for Karolina, while Gert has them for him. The most utterly disgusting bit of it comes across as passively homophobic, too. In episode six, the kids are planning how to get to a party/gala thing Pride is putting on, and there's some talk about limos. Alex and Nico, who, at this point, are a fairly sold Thing, are going to take a limo together, and when Chase offers to get Karolina in his own, Gert says, "Ugh,
One limo, five stops." Like, what the actual fuck? So what, queer people don't date? The writers co-opt the language of feminism to make a horrible blanket statement that disregards the experiences of GOD KNOWS HOW MANY NON-BINARY COUPLES/RELATIONSHIPS, and make Gert look like a homophobic asshole. It's reinforced by how uncomfortable the other kids look when she says it, too. And remember, this is in response to Chase offering Karolina a ride. The implication, here, is that feminism is really just the result of women's uncontrollable emotions. It gets further developed/pushed later in that episode, too. Nico and Karolina get ready for this gala together at Karolina's place, and Gert and Molly show up later, walking in on a pretty touching moment between the original two in the room. Later that night at the gala, Gert once again gets pretty homophobic for the sake of her feelings for Chase:
And Karolina, smartly, asserts that this would leave Chase available for Gert, who denies this is why. And when Karolina says she's wrong and ups the ante on her flirt game with Chase, Gert says, "Fine, enjoy, just know you aren't being honest about who you like."
This is pretty awful. In a different context, if we removed the Chase Factor, this would have been a beautiful scene. Lord knows queer teens have a hard time, and if it's true that Karolina is denying something because of that, a friend offering sincere kindness and support is exactly what she would need. But rather than being genuine, Gert's support for a potential non-straight identity in Karolina is presented as disingenuine and manipulative, as purely self-serving and hollow. And when Karolina calls it out, Gert acts as if she knows more about Karolina's own identity than Karolina herself does- and whether or not Karolina is, indeed, hiding something is beyond the point. Gert's assertion she knows "the truth" is arrogant and narcissistic, like she is the one that really knows what's best for Karolina. This is what some call "policing"- another thing antifeminists like to say is that feminism does too much moral grandstanding and "this is how you should behave"-ing, the "you don't really know what's best for you because you've been brainwashed by the patriarchy" condescension that actually does push people away from feminism. I should point out that Karolina is presented as her counter, though: While Gert is constantly pessimistic and mean, Karolina is optimistic and kind. Like in the first gif above, she stands up to Gert on more than one occasion, such as when she goes all in with Chase after Gert's "are you gay for Nico" bullshit. She also responds to Gert's "but we killed the Natives" remark in the Thanksgiving promo with a sweet declaration of her happiness to be there with her friends. And her retort at Gert in the first episode during the "your 'church' is a cult and oppressive" bit, it kind of sums up the problem with Gert:
"You call yourself a feminist, Gert, but no one cuts down other women more than you do." And this is a glorious window into just how much of Gert is made of straw. Because one of the big arguments antifeminists use against feminism is that it's "actually" harmful because it's "policing" and in itself oppressive and such. "If women want to be cheerleaders, isn't trying to stop them worse?" "If women want to practice [insert name of faith here], isn't it worse to tell them they can't?" Etc. And I think I've said before, I'm a feminist that believes in a woman's own individual power over her body, her life, and her ideals. If a woman chooses to do A Thing, it's her choice. There's an addendum about knowledge and understanding and full internalization of the full range of choices available in a given context, but the example I usually give is I have a Master's and would be happy to stay at home with the kids if my husband made enough money- not because I feel like I "should" do it, but because I grew up with a mom at home, and feel very lucky to have experienced that, and feel as though I would be good at it and want to be as close to my kids as I am to my own mom. In itself, it has nothing to do with patriarchal structures, and I think that even if women do what's, on its surface, considered "upholding" the patriarchy, if it's done for reasons outside the parameters set in patriarchal structures, it can still "dismantle" it. And yes, that may sound like I'm actually giving a passive go-ahead for patriarchal norms, but this post isn't really about me, it's about Gert. If you want more on that, ask in the comments, but for now, just understand that I'm getting at how Gert's brand of feminism is the kind those against feminism point out when trying to argue against it. She's your quintessential "FemiNazi." Her constant finger-pointing and accusatory remarks make her the straw feminist of every intersectional feminist's nightmares, including your author, right here. And let's not forget how in episode six, she pretends to be attracted to two guards at the Pride Gala, using her feminine wiles to clear the path for Alex and Nico to sneak upstairs. She isn't vocalizing a bunch of feminist taglines during any of these scenes, but it stands in stark contrast to the ideals by which she proportedly lives. This is more of the hypocrisy, then- women have been oppressed since the dawn of time, but it's totally okay for a woman to seduce a man to get what she wants. It's like something straight off of an MRA site, one of those "the femiNazis will do whatever it takes to get what they want" kind of rants. They'd talk about women faking feelings/attraction in the same breath (read: paragraph) as accusing "most rape victims" of being liars. The whole bit put a sour taste in my mouth. Okay, so now, Chase. I said before that she reduces him down to a dumb, sexy jock. This kind of goes to extreme places in episode three. She and Chase are snooping around his dad's workshop when they find a pair of X-ray goggles. Gert puts them on and, of course, starts... sizing up... Chase.
So this is pretty gross. Calling it sexual assault is a bit strong, even for me, a survivor. But something like, I dunno, sexual misconduct? I mean, she sneaks a look at him with the goggles, denies it, and then makes a kind of snide remark about "scientific curiosity." She completely violates him, his trust, and his body, and then makes a shitty joke about it. Then? Then, when he gets the goggles in her parents' lab, she conveniently finds a lead apron, and when he catches onto her, this happens:
SERIOUSLY?!!??!!?!?!??!!?!?
This is the kind of hypocritical BULLSHIT that gets the menfolk's panties all up in huge wadded twists. The kind of double standard that MRAs warn about. The idea that feminism is about "revenge" with men, about "getting back" at them. Yes, it's about leveling the playing field, but FOR THE LOVE OF GOD NOT LIKE THAT!!!!!! This is the most egregious, disgusting, rage-inducing bit in the whole show. This pisses me off way more than anything the parents in the show have done yet. Which is why I wanted to save it for last. Because it genuinely confuses me. I can't tell if the writers are trying to push a specific conservative agenda overall, or if they're just trying to make modern liberal philosophy look bad. I mean, let's also consider the fact that when Gert has to bail on her own club ("Dismantling the Patriarchy," remember?) and some other teens start it for her, she basically mocks them and acts as though they're an inconvenience to her. And this, again, is another myth about feminism, that feminists are only actually feminist when it's convenient.
And I feel like her mockery of these specific teens is how we're supposed to feel about feminism and the complex web of ideals wrapped around concepts like social justice and equal rights. She scoffs at them the same way her behavior makes us, the audience, scoff at her.++
It reminds me of The Big Bang Theory, in that however much that particular show passes itself off as a show for nerds, the nerds' nerdery is the butt of 85% of the jokes (the rest of which are Sheldon's ASD, sexual puns, or gender). While Gert's jabs aren't the main punch of the show, they're the ones that stand out to me the most. Because so much of the marketing is about how this group of teenagers "comes from diverse backgrounds" and they "find common ground" when investigating their parents together. It implies progressivism and a liberal bent. Yet the only character overtly expressing liberal ideologies looks like a bully. And I can't help but think that, since the show takes place in a super wealthy area in L.A. (there's a comment about Compton in a flashback for Alex's parents, so yeah), since all of the families in Pride are super stinkin' rich, that maybe the writers want her to look out of place because her ideas are out of place in such a well-off area, and to them, the writers. Out of all of the teens, she seems to be the most out of place, even more so than the one that does a Wiccan summoning ritual in the pilot. And this isn't done like one of those stories where there's a lone voice of sanity in a cacophony of draconian ideas. We aren't meant to sympathize with her ideas, we're meant to scorn them. We're supposed to think Gert and her beliefs are selfish, nefarious, hypocritical, and toxic. There are a few times where she seems to kind of come through and be kind, but her feminism and belief in social justice are still used as a punchline every episode. And it gets to me, under my skin. It's disappointing and, as I said, confusing.
I can't imagine the confusion a kid would feel, one struggling with their identity. One that knows there's inequality and oppression, but isn't sure what to do or maybe even think or feel about it. Harping on the "diversity" thing, what about that queer kid of color watching? When they see stuff they believed in, presented as "bad" in a show they're supposed to relate to? Or the liberal kid in the conservative household that has been told by the adults in their life that they're wrong, what happens when this kid sees the adults' views ostensibly validated because Gert's meant to look like an asshole?
So I don't have an answer. Because even if they mellow out and stop having her pull the "there are starving children in Africa"-type bullshit all the time, they drilled it so hard into the heads of their viewers that first episode (again, a whole page-worth of dialogue), it's there. It's part of her identity as a character, now. As a person. There's no escaping it. The only way to do it is to have her dramatically denounce feminism and the fight for equality, which would serve the same purpose as continuing with more of the same. There's legitimately no saving her character. And it breaks my heart. Through Gert, the writers are asserting that feminism is bad, dirty, something to avoid. And that breaks my heart, yeah, but also pisses me the Hell off.
Because I am so. Damn. Sick. Of us feminists getting a bad rep. I'm so. Damn. Sick. Of these straw feminists becoming the poster children. I'm so. Damn. Sick. Of people that actually have a lot of feminist ideals at the core of their politics/worldview/etc. turn up their nose at the word "feminism," that interject, "NONONONO!" in a panic when someone has the audacity to describe them as a "feminist" in their presence. "Feminist" isn't the f-word.
It's FUCK.
*I was always a Team Spike kinda gal- not because of the "bad boy" thing, per se, but because he had a much better character arch than Angel. He tried so damn hard to be good, and went from Point A to point, like, S. Angel was flat and boring- any development was forced because he sort of transformed, not because he actually made efforts to change as a person. **This is actually another thing that kinda bothers me about the show- Molly's treated more like she's in middle school than a fellow high school student, by both the other kids and the adults. Granted, she does a couple things that certainly seem to place her maturity level far below those of the other teenagers, but I see them as reactions to how everyone treats her like a "baby," reactions that wouldn't have happened if they just treated her like, well, not a baby. ***Although, yeah, there's definitely a critique of how his former friends show back up threatening violence. There's a trope about how Black characters are often depicted as "unable" to "escape" their pasts if those pasts involve "the hood," so to speak. I can't quite parse it out right now, but it's there. Still, knowing that Geoffrey's rise from Compton to super-rich L.A. is mostly because of their deal with "Jonah," the mysterious immortal figure with powers, is important because it demonstrates the power Jonah has. +Full disclosure: I love her. And I'll just say here, I think a lot of the hatred for her stems from the fact that she points out the shit that the white nerdboiz don't want to admit about the media they love- they can't admit their video games/comics/etc. are racist or sexist, because that would mean they were complicit in those ideals. And they'd rather shoot the messenger than do something about it that would, you know, lead to change. And also, projecting their own self-loathing onto her. ++I do think the fact that they essentially kick her out in the seventh episode is meant to be a reflection on Gert herself, that her attitude pushes everyone away, even though one would think she should be super close to and want to be around all the time, people who seemingly share her core beliefs. And, there's also the "exclusivity" thing, too.
But first, I need to do some babbling about identity. I've mentioned a few times on this blog that I have indigenous American ancestry and self-identify, at least in part, as Native American. And, as such, I'm pretty quick to notice and point out negative or problematic portrayals of indigenous peoples or cultures, even in things I love (like Harry Potter). (If you click on some of the tags at the bottom of those posts to related topics, you'll find more, if it interests you.) What I perhaps should have clarified before, and wish to now, is that I have lived a life of privilege based on the fact that I 100% pass as white. For those unfamiliar with the term, passing is related to when a person that self-identifies or has characteristics relating them to a marginalized group is perceived as the dominant group. When I was in grad school, a lot of the literature I read from specialists on disability and identity talked about passing at least a little (and I have one book devoted entirely to the topic; not to say that's the only one out there, but rather, that passing as non-disabled is a Thing), and I think a lot of us do it all the time when it comes to our depression, anxiety, etc.- we don't want people to know we have depression. A famous example is how F.D.R.'s physical disabilities were kept out of the public eye as much as possible, and it really wasn't until after his death that the severity of them became generally known. Transgender and non-straight individuals do it all the time, in different ways, and for different reasons: We have some pretty fucked up misconceptions about how GLBT people "should" act and look, and if a person of that identity fits them, we assume they're straight/cis, etc. And it is, as for me, quite common for people of color to pass as white because their skin tone is light enough to be "convincing" or whatever. Passing is a complex state of being. I know I have had more opportunities than a lot of my cousins would have had if they were in the exact same situations as me growing up, and not just because I already started off at an advantage, being born in California and moving to Las Vegas, then going to college, rather than being born on a Reservation in South Dakota like most of them. This isn't to say none of my cousins are educated or have had successes- a number of them did go to college, and two of them are teaching on the Reservation in South Dakota right now. But, even with the disadvantages I had because I was poor, had disabled siblings, lived in dangerous neighborhoods, etc., I still had the advantage of being ghostly pale (I don't tan- I burn and peel) and dirty blonde. Well, dirty blonde nowadays; when I was little, I was Sleeping Beauty Blonde:
I'm gonna say second or third grade-
that was the age when I always used a
RIDICULOUS amount of gel in my hair, be
it in a ponytail, or like above, behind a headband. Oh, youth...
But still, I grew up knowing my heritage, hearing stories from my mom, grandpa, great uncles and aunts, my mom's siblings. Not to mention having a last name that makes it kind of obvious (even though what I know of my indigenous heritage comes from my mom's family, not my biological father's, and it's his name that "sounds" Native). But because I look so damn white, it usually takes me saying my last name with a kind of "duh" tone attached for people to catch on if I bring it up with them. And I'll admit... I don't do it a lot. Partially because my ethnicity shouldn't matter... but partly because I know there's a part of me wondering what will happen, if they'll see me differently, treat me differently.
When I was in fourth grade, I got in an argument with my teacher over the pronunciation of "sioux"- she was saying it was "sao" (like "sour" without the "r"), and I was pronouncing it... correctly. This was during a presentation I was giving on my own family history, so I refused to back down, so she told me to "sit down and shut up" and that she was "pissed off" that I would be so disrespectful. I can't remember if I was sent to the principal or not, but I know the news went home eventually. And holy shit. My mom was pissed as all Hell and and made sure the principal knew it. And in the end, the teacher barely spoke to me the rest of the year, presumably because she got in deep fucking shit for being so damned racist to her student; but after that, a few kids called me the R-word I have disparaged on this blog before. I never told my mom (sorry if this is how you're finding out, Mom, if you're reading...), or anyone, for that matter... but the rest of the time I was at that school, the bullies called me a redsk**, and it was only the fact that we moved a monthish into fifth grade, thus prompting a school change, that I got away from it. I know that experience influences why I don't always offer the information freely with new people. I usually wait a while, testing them, getting a feel for whether or not I can trust them enough with it before bringing it up with them. As if it's a terrible secret I have to keep hidden, lest I be persecuted. It's kind of irrational in most contexts, I get it, but trauma does some fucked up shit to your brain, yo. So even though I look white, seem white, and everyone thinks I'm white, I don't necessarily feel white, and here's where shit starts to get wonky. Or, well, wonkier. I work at a store that sells intimates for plus-sized women. And one aspect that I am super, duper proud of our company for is that our models are always very diverse- more than one of the regulars are women of color, and there are even some that show visible signs of aging!!!
Shocking, I know. Another thing I've noticed is that, while it can't control the names of things from other companies it's contracted with, such as Spanx, which uses color names like "nude" and "soft nude" for lighter shades that light-skinned women would want for underneath thinner, lighter-colored clothing, and "taupetone" for the shade darker colored women would prefer for the same purpose, the company I work for calls lighter shades "cafe mocha" or straight-up "beige" for the former, and has equally non-ethnically-charged names for darker shades, like "French almond" (and I remember a bra that's now discontinued that was in "chocolate brown") (and by the way, the "French" in that isn't, as far as I can guess, just a way to make it sound fancier than "almond," an isn't meant to imply a white French person, especially since the models wearing that color on the website are women of color). And I love that. Because I do so very strongly believe that words matter. I do my best to be inclusive for everyone, regardless of their myriad intersectional identifiers. And I know exactly where the idea to call a pair of beige panties "nude" came from: A white person. Because yeah, the message they wanted to get across was, "This won't show through your white pants/skirt/dress/etc.!" But who was it aimed at? Certainly not this woman:
This is Precious Lee, the first plus-sized model of
color to be in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition
Now here's the thing. "Nude" panties and bras could totally work for women like me that are passing as white; those are the colors I do, indeed, go for when I'm wearing a light colored shirt or dress. And yes, I tell all of my light-skinned customers to get a bra in the color they keep calling "nude," that's really "cafe mocha," because it's better for underneath thinner and lighter-colored tops than white (joking about how they actually "aren't that pale!"). And no, white women aren't white, but that's the point- that's why what's basically beige or a super light brown is called "nude." "Nude" implies "skin colored," and it's the skin color of... not-women-of-color, excluding us "passers." So I hate the whole "nude" thing. It excludes women with darker skin tones, implying the only skin tone that matters is lighter. And this kind of systemic racism is the subtle, difficult kind that people often reinforce without realizing they're doing it. Because God knows how long ago, someone decided to call it "nude," everyone does, nowadays, not even thinking about exactly who that item would really be "nude" for in the first place. It's the "normal" thing to call those shades, and is so entrenched in the cultural zeitgeist that even women of color call my store's cafe mocha stuff "nude." But it's systemic racism. Period. If the tables had been reversed, and the fashion industry wasn't entrenched in racist practices and tendencies, either "nude" would never have been a thing, or it would be the "nude" for this gal
Angela Bassett
as opposed to this one
Meryl Streep
But that's now how things are. Women of color are surrounded by products named after white women, and, at least the customers I have seen, often internalize this so deeply that they get confused when something "nude" isn't called that. That's racism at its worst. This feeds into the idea that lighter skinned women of color are more beautiful that runs rampant in society. It's imperialist and orientalist, for women with darker skin are thus more "exotic" and "tribal," and darker colored women (and men) are more susceptible to things like harsher sentencing and incarceration, are less likely to get a job, are likely to get less pay, than their lighter-skinned brethren (let alone white people). There are tons of studies supporting this, but here's a good piece that talks about a lot of the different ways lighter skinned persons of color are treated less harshly. And this discourse, this deplorable idea that "lighter is better" is perpetuated in communities of color, too. Dark Is Beautiful is a campaign that has gained international attention, as its message is one combating the discrimination dark skinned Indian women experience. Indian cinema and advertising has historically excluded women of darker skin tones, or featured them in exploitative or problematic ways. And there are even Indian products designed to convince the women using them it will actually lighten the pigment of their skin. I love this take on the issue:
I hate the idea that white/light is beautiful, is the baseline. Because it isn't. This whole business of lighter is better encourages passers like me to keep quiet, thus reinforcing the whole bloody mess in the first place. Like we shouldn't be proud of our identity. Of course, identity is super complex and I in no way am saying all passers are lying assholes. But I am saying that it's fucked up how the system is so skewed, white skin is the baseline, and light skin is actually safer to have than dark. So when I'm at work, I try to subtly correct my customers that look for "nude" panties and bras. If they are pointing and say, "I need that nude bra," I'll point at the same one and say, "This? The cafe mocha one?" or if they have to order something in that color, I'll say, "So that color is actually called cafe mocha, so let me order that in a size 42DD for ya!" and do other, similar thing to remove "nude" from the conversation, given the context. Sometimes they seem to get annoyed, as if they think I'm talking down to them, and sometimes they refuse to stop saying "nude." When they dig their heels in like that, I dig in my own (with a smile!), and find excuses to work "cafe mocha" into what I'm saying with them as many times as I can, to kind of drive the term home. I think most of my customers don't get what I'm doing or why, because, again, it's so "normal" to think of "beige" as "nude," it seems weird a store would use something other than "nude" for the color of the bra or panty they obviously want for under light materials. I think a lot of the reason some think I'm being condescending, as if they're supposed to just know it's not cafe mocha because that's what my company does, not because "nude" is racist, because of how I pass as white. But sometimes necessity leads to me being a gentle educator. I have had a few times where a customer asked why it's not "just called nude" before, and when I give a very elementary lesson on racism to them, they actually tend to be pretty cool about it. My passing as white usually results in a response of... I dunno, awe, I guess, as if I'm some amazingly enlightened person because I care about subtle racism like that, when I'm talking to these particular gals. My favorite instance was particularly touching, though, so I'm going to retell the whole thing for you here. I had been working pretty closely with an older white woman on bras for a good forty minutes. She wanted to get a ton (they were on sale, and she hadn't had a right-fitting bra since "well before [I was] born, sweetie"), so when I did my subtle correction of her when she said "nude," she asked, "Oh, now that's interesting. Why isn't it called 'nude?'"
"Well," I said, smiling a little, "probably because there are a lot of women that have skin colors that would totally contrast with that one in a light t-shirt because their skin is darker. And [insert company name here] cares about inclusion, so instead of naming a color after Caucasian people, they named it after something most people like, coffee!" I laughed for a second, until I saw her face. She looked worried and lost in thought. So I said her name and asked, "Are you okay?"
"Oh," she said, "yes. I'm alright. I just... I had never thought of it that way. I just thought of it as 'nude' because it's close to my own skin color and, you know, that's my normal thing, and-" "-and that's what it's always called, right?" I said, gently.
"Yes," she said, and she looked genuinely sad and sorry.
"Yeah," I said, nodding, "that's exactly the point. Kind of like how mainstream history textbooks are really more like white history."
"And why we need a Black history month." She was nodding gravely, now.
"Yeah, so I just try to always use 'cafe mocha' or 'beige' when I can so that I don't exclude women of color from the conversation."
She nodded more rigorously. "Yes, I can see why. That makes sense." She paused, took a deep breath, slammed her hand on the counter, and said, grinning, "Well, Gabrielle, you better get me two of those cafe mocha bras, because Lord knows my girls need the support, and I don't wear a lot of black tshirts."
When this customer (finally) left the registers, a tall Black woman that had been standing nearby came up to me and bent down to whisper at me, "Thank you." Admittedly, she surprised me, so I kind of jumped and squealed, and once the you-startled-me and sorry-for-startling-yous had been exchanged, she went on, "I had always thought, 'Nude for who? White people?' before, but I don't know why I didn't notice that [insert company name here] doesn't call it that."
I nodded and said, "Yeah, I genuinely believe they're trying for inclusion and diversity. I mean, look at all of the posters and marketing we have all over the store with women of color. And given the message of inclusion we have when it comes to body shape and type, I just find it hard to believe that the whole 'cafe mocha' thing was on accident or whatever, y'know?"
She smiled and said, "Yeah, I think you're right. And you're doing a good job reinforcing that counter-message, honey."
"I do what I can, when I can." We went on to talk about how I pass as white, so I care a lot about it because "nude" wouldn't be actually nude for a lot of my family members, and she ended up tearing up. Which caused me to tear up, so we hugged and she said she wished she lived in town so she could shop with me more (she was here on business), but that she'd tell all her friends in the area to go to my store and look for me, and that all of her friends that don't shop at our store should because we have such great people like me working there. So that says to me it does matter. It matters for the women whose skin isn't the "nude" the fashion industry says it "should" be. And that is the baseline I operate off of, myself. I don't give a shit if it gets on the nerves of white women when I say "cafe mocha" over and over again. I did get kind of snippy with a fellow employee over the phone once over it. She had called our store to have us look for a bra for a customer that was at theirs, and I was the one taking the call, so I did the exact same thing over the phone I do to customers- she kept saying "nuce," and I kept saying "cafe mocha" over and over. When she said, "Okay...?" with an attitude, I said, "Well, it's called 'cafe mocha' because not everyone is white, and to include women of color. And I'm a woman of color, so having someone insist it's 'nude' like you're doing, especially when it isn't called 'nude' by the company, is, well, kind of offensive. And you work for [insert company name here], you should know your company's message of inclusion isn't just about size." She hung up. People like that don't care. And aren't going to help. But people like my customer with the bras I talked about earlier, they're the best kind. They are open to the conversation about inclusion, and they want to help. So I am happy to educate them. Fuck the closed-minded assholes that don't get it- they don't want to get it. I don't mind making them uncomfortable, given their position of usual comfort is exactly what caused the issue in the first place- that their identity is presented writ large as "good" and "better" and "right" and all that nonsense. No. I'm much more inclined to make the women whose identities are made to be "bad" or "dangerous," that get exploited, feel safe. It's the women that usually feel marginalized, like the woman that thanked me, that matter.
