Blog PostsLady T Recommends “Yellow Brick Wall”

Posted on June 10, 2012 by Theresa Basile

An update for Prince and Ekaj: the film is now at $1,922 of its $30,000 goal, with 25 days left for fundraising. Here’s the link to donate if you’re interested but didn’t get a chance to do it yet: Prince & Ekaj.

The project I’m recommending today has only 7 days left for fundraising. It’s a play called Yellow Brick Wall: Angry White Men Played by Two Happy Asian Girls. Here is the description from the Kickstarter page:

“Rice Flower, a WWII novel is green-lit to be the next blockbuster but these anti-exotic-blossoms face exploitation, objectification, and sexism.  Two gregarious gals navigate a not-so-silk road playing 24 characters including Newt Gingrich, Jim Kramer and Al Pacino.   This ain’t no Oriental Express, because we ain’t no carpet!

Be part of making this crazy comedy a reality!”

Why I’m recommending this project: This looks like a show that will give Asian women an opportunity to mock and lampoon the stereotypes often used against them, AND it looks incredibly off-the-wall and silly. “Lampooning stereotypes” and “silliness” are two of my favorite things ever.

If this project looks intriguing to you, act now to donate: there are only 7 days left for this Kickstarter campaign. They’ve raised $1,974 of $3,333 so far – close, but they still need more.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged | 1 Comment

Blog Posts“You Give Feminists a Bad Name”

Posted on June 8, 2012 by Theresa Basile

More than a year ago, I wrote a post about the “Competitive Wine Tasting” episode of Community, where Troy pretended to have been molested as a child to a) pass his acting class and b) keep Britta interested in him. This post was written and published on April 15, 2011.

Earlier this week, I received this comment:

“You all really need to pick your battles better, and lightening the fuck up wouldn’t hurt. I was molested as a child, and I don’t find this episode offensive. It’s people like those who’ve commented on this article, as well as its author, who give feminists a bad name.”

For reasons that I hope are obvious to everyone, I’m not categorizing this comment as a troll dropping to put in my LULZ Gallery of Trolls. Now, I have no idea if this person is even telling the truth or not – the email address attached to the comment looks suspicious and spammy, and in this big wide world of the Internet, this person was so extremely annoyed to comment on a post that’s over a year old? Not to mention that the aggressive language is very similar to the aggressive language that I’ve seen from many a troll in the past. The word choice and tone is remarkably similar.

Also, an accusation that “you give feminists a bad name” is a classic silencing technique, trying to shame me into not expressing my opinion. “Trying” being the key word here, because all it actually does is get a Bon Jovi song stuck in my head, replacing the Gotye song that’s been in there for months.

At the same time, real-life molestation and assault victims have a history of not being believed, and I don’t want to have a knee-jerk reaction thinking that this person can’t possibly be telling the truth. Maybe this person read my post and thought that I was wasting my time writing about a silly sitcom episode when actual people are getting molested in real life, and I was trivializing an important issue by getting all upset about something that was “just a joke.”

Or maybe this person is an irate Community fan who can’t handle any minor criticism of the show, and overreacted to this post criticizing an episode while completely disregarding the many, many posts I’ve written gushing over this program and saying I like it more than Arrested Development. *shrug*

Anyway, because I think there’s a chance this person was telling the truth, I’m not going to automatically dismiss her as a troll, but I am going to address a few of the points she brought up.

1. “Lighten the fuck up.” I’ve heard this a lot. Many people have commented on blog posts angrily telling me to “lighten the fuck up” or “take a fucking joke.” They’re always really angry that I don’t find something funny, and they never notice the irony in getting angry offended by my (supposed) offense to something. Why am I the one who needs to “lighten the fuck up” when my post that criticizes something they like is ruining their day to the point where they need to leave an aggressive comment on my blog?

2. “Pick your battles better.” Nope – my blog, my rules, and I get to write about whatever I want. And I want to write about jokes and comedy.

3. “I had this experience happen to me, and a joke on this issue didn’t offend me.”

This topic is one that I want to respond to delicately, because the last thing I want to do is dismiss or trivialize the opinion of someone who went through a traumatic experience, but here’s the thing: sexual abuse victims aren’t a monolith, and one victim does not speak for the experiences of all others.

If a sexual abuse victim watched “Competitive Wine Tasting” and wasn’t triggered or upset by a storyline that had a character pretend to be abused, then fine. But another sexual abuse victim might have watched that same episode, seen a traumatic experience played for comedy, and been upset.

My objective in writing is not to tell my readers, “This is how I feel about this issue and you must feel this way too, and if you disagree with me, you’re a bad person.” My objective is to get people thinking about the way comedy and media reflect and shape social norms and ideas. People are free to disagree with me, but if I provoke thought and discussion, I feel like I’ve succeeded.

Similarly, feminists are not a monolithic group, and when I write, I’m speaking for myself, not for everyone. Am I giving feminists a bad name? No, because if someone reads my blog, doesn’t like what I have to say, and decides to judge all feminists negatively as a result, the problem is with them, not me.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , | 3 Comments

Blog PostsRobb Stark: Romantic Hero or Spoiled Brat?

Posted on June 6, 2012 by Theresa Basile

When I watched season 2 of Game of Thrones, I got the sense that the show creators, David Benioff and D.B. Weiss, are rather fond of Robb Stark. I may have gotten this impression because Robb had more screen time and story than any other Stark character except for Arya.

The decision to move Robb to the forefront bothered me a little bit. I liked Robb in the books, but he wasn’t a POV character. Catelyn, Sansa, and Bran are all POV characters in the books. This season, I felt like I barely saw Catelyn or Bran, while Sansa had a strong showing in the “Blackwater” episode but was otherwise shoved into the background except when the writers needed to show Joffrey abusing her.

Needless to say, I’m not a fan of the decision to move Robb to the forefront and shove Catelyn, Sansa, and Bran to the back. In the book, I saw Robb through Catelyn’s eyes, and on the show, I have to see Catelyn as a supporting character in her son’s story. Catelyn’s motivations are less clear and less understandable on the show than they are in the books, and even though Michelle Fairley’s doing a great job with the material she’s given, I’m not pleased with her diminished presence on the show.

There’s also a part of me that thinks this creative decision is motivated by a fanboy man crush on Robb Stark, because Robb is the Young Wolf! He nobly wants to secede from the rest of Westeros to avenge his father’s death and to nobly begin a kingdom of his own! That’s so much more interesting than his boring mom who misses her children, or his lame little brother who can’t even fight anything.

(Heh, I just now realized that the war in Game of Thrones has the North seceding from the South. I is smart.)

At the same time, I’m not sure I can blame internalized misogyny for this creative decision, as these same showrunners have also made Cersei a more complex, sympathetic character than she was in the books while making Jaime less complex and more of a monster.

Anyway, whatever the creators’ reasons for putting Robb front and center, they’ve done it. He is a more important character than three of his family members. Now how does this decision affect the characterization of Robb himself?

Well, let’s look at the differences between Book Robb and Show Robb – specifically, at his decision to marry someone other than Walder Frey’s daughter. (In the next few paragraphs, I will be discussing spoilers for A Clash of Kings and A Storm of Swords.)

In the book, Robb doesn’t sleep with another woman until after he’s heard about the murders of Bran and Rickon. At the time, he is staying with the Westerlings, a noble yet small (i.e. “not rich”) house. In his grief, he sleeps with Jeyne, the virgin daughter of the Westerlings who was comforting him. To protect Jeyne’s honor, Robb marries her, and thus loses the alliance of the Freys. When he returns to camp, he learns that Catelyn freed Jaime Lannister (a decision she also made out of grief for Bran and Rickon, and fear for Sansa and Arya). Robb isn’t too happy that his mother went against his wishes, but he understands her reasons for doing it, so he pardons her. When Lord Karstark calls Catelyn a traitor, Robb essentially tells Karstark to get bent and stop insulting his mother.

On the show, Robb flirts with Talisa, a made-for-TV character. Talisa is from Volantis and doesn’t know how to keep her hair out of her face, even though she’s the Westerosi equivalent of a surgeon and might want to invest in a headband. Robb and Talisa flirt for several episodes. Meanwhile, Catelyn notices that her son’s soldiers are ready to murder the Kingslayer. Knowing that a dead Kingslayer will result in a dead Sansa and Arya, Catelyn releases Jaime and asks Brienne to deliver him back to King’s Landing. When Robb hears about this, he’s furious with his mother. He calls her a traitor and has his soldiers guard her. Then he talks to Talisa. They have a conversation where she exposits some backstory that I didn’t really pay attention to, and then they have sex. Two episodes later, Robb tells Catelyn that he’s in love with Talisa. She tries to tell him that marriage for love isn’t a luxury that a person in his position can afford, and he basically tells her to get bent, because she broke the rules when she released the Kingslayer, so now he gets to break the rules. Robb marries Talisa, still not knowing about the “deaths” of his little brothers.

Considering Robb’s strong, visible presence in the show, I can only conclude that Benioff & Weiss made these changes because they wanted to make him look good. They think they’re making Robb into an even better character by showing his romance and purity. Look, he doesn’t care about the rules! He wants to marry for love!

But instead of seeing a romantic hero, I see a whiny brat who has made a HUGE tactical error by throwing a metaphorical middle finger into the face of the Freys. And that would be fine if Robb was only putting his own life in danger, but he’s leading a rebellion that is affecting the lives of all of his people, and by sacrificing the extra help from Walder Frey’s huge army AND personally insulting the man, he’s putting them all at a much bigger risk.

But are we meant to see Robb as a foolish brat who puts his own desires above his people’s? No. I really think Benioff & Weiss want us to sympathize with his decision, and even think he was right to do it.

And I don’t understand this creative decision at all. Book Robb was sympathetic enough as written. If Benioff & Weiss wanted to throw a little romance into Game of Thrones, why not proceed with his story as it was in the books, but throw in a few scenes of Robb and Jeyne falling in love? Robb can tell her that he loves her but was promised to another, then sleep with her after Bran and Rickon “die,” and then marry her for love AND honor.

But no, now we have a character who’s meant to be “romantic” and “heroic,” yet comes off as more immature and bratty than his counterpart in the book, even though Book Robb is several years younger than Show Robb. I can’t see him as romantic or heroic because I’m too busy muttering, “You are stupid, stupid, STUPID, Robb Stark, possibly even stupider than Show Jon Snow, and you were lucky to get Walder Frey’s help anyway because you’re rebelling against the crown and Frey’s not even sworn to the Starks, he’s sworn to the Tullys, and why the hell do you need to have armored men guard your mother? She freed the Kingslayer out of love for your sisters, asshole, it’s not like she’s going to go around freeing every prisoner in camp because her ladybrainz are making her too impulsive!”

In short: Despite the creators’ intentions, and despite Richard Madden’s handsomeness and decent acting, Robb Stark on the show is a spoiled brat, not a romantic hero. In an attempt to highlight the character, they actually weakened his motivations and made him less complex and sympathetic.

And here’s the kicker: these are the same showrunners who are responsible for portraying Theon Greyjoy. I forgot to talk about Theon in my post on Monday, but his story was the highlight of the season for me. The writers and Alfie Allen did a marvelous job showing the complexities of his character and made him oddly sympathetic without whitewashing or excusing any of his terrible, terrible actions. How the writers can succeed with his character while failing with Robb, I don’t understand.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged | 22 Comments

ReviewsBtVS and Consent Issues: Episode 2.20 – “Go Fish”

Posted on June 5, 2012 by Theresa Basile

[Note: I’m writing a series about consent issues in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I will post a new entry in this series every other Tuesday – or perhaps on a weekly basis, if I have the time. In this series, I will look at an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer that deals with rape, sexual assault, or consent issues as a main plot point or as a featured event of the episode. I will examine these episodes in chronological order. If, in my writing of this series, you feel that I have skipped an episode that should be a part of this series, feel free to submit a guest post, and I will consider publishing it.]

EPISODE: “Go Fish”
INCIDENT: Attempted assault, setup for assault
PERPETRATOR: Cameron Walker, Coach Marin
VICTIM: Buffy Summers

The specifics: Cameron and Buffy go on a drive together. He bores her with talk about swimming and then asks her if she’s wearing a bra. Over her objections, he locks the car doors and creepily tells her that “I’m not going to hurt you.” She replies, “Oh, it’s not me that I’m worried about.” He makes a pass at her, but she grabs him by the back of the head and slams his face into the steering wheel, breaking his nose. In the nurse’s office, Cameron claims that Buffy led him on and gestures to her outfit, commenting on the way she dresses. Coach Marin tells Buffy to dress more appropriately.

Later, after several members of the swim team turn into fish monsters, the coach orders Buffy into the sewers, holding a gun to her head. When she jumps in, she sees the floating dead body of the school nurse and assumes that the coach intends to feed her to the fish monsters. He replies, “Oh, they’ve already had their dinner. But boys have other needs,” implying that he intends to let the fish monsters gang-rape her.

The mind of the perpetrator: As a member of the swim team who is used to receiving perks and privileges denied to other students, Cameron sees Buffy as another privilege. He seems like a decent (if pretentious) guy on the night he first talks to Buffy at the party, but on the day of the drive, he ignores all of the signs that she’s bored out of her mind, and immediately jumps from saying he wants her to be comfortable to asking if she’s wearing a bra and locking her in the car. He’s perfected the art of seeming nice and non-threatening until he lets his true colors show.

Later, in the nurse’s office, he complains that Buffy was leading him on. “Look at the way she dresses!” It’s unclear whether he truly believes Buffy was leading him on, or if he’s only using that as an excuse because he knows it will work on Principal Snyder and the coach. Based on the smirk he gives Buffy after the coach echos his comments about her outfit, I’m leaning towards the latter option.

As for the coach, he agrees with Cameron that Buffy should be dressing more appropriately – “This isn’t a dance club.” But Buffy’s so-called “inappropriate” dress comes in handy for him later when he decides to toss Buffy to the fish monsters. He also describes the fish monsters as having “needs,” still calling them “boys.” To him, women are disposable, and he gets angry with them when they fail to show the proper school spirit and don’t enjoy being victimized.

The victim’s perspective: Buffy responds to both incidents with more humor than most people would. After Cameron tries to attack her and she gets blamed for wearing an inappropriate outfit, she rants to her friends:

“BUFFY: So I’m treated like the baddie just because he has a sprained wrist and a bloody nose. And I don’t have a scratch on me, which, granted, hurts my case a little on the surface, but meanwhile he gets away with it because he’s on the ‘aren’t we the most’ swim team… …who, by the way, if no one’s noticed, have been acting like real jerks lately…”

After she gets stuck in the sewer, she says, with a mix of frustration and wry humor:

“BUFFY: Great. This is just what my reputation needs: that I did it with the entire swim team.”

She’s about to be attacked by three swim monsters, and she’s more worried about her reputation than about her safety. Granted, she is the Slayer and has more confidence than most women would have in this situation. But I feel sad that Buffy, in addition to worrying over her reputation for being violent and unstable, now has to worry about her reputation of being “slutty.”

What does this episode say about misogyny and rape culture?

This episode has a lot of victim-blaming and slut-shaming. Buffy is the one who is attacked, but she’s blamed for dressing inappropriately. She defended herself – something that assault victims are always encouraged to do – but only further incriminates herself in the process. Sure, Cameron does have a broken nose and Buffy doesn’t appear to be injured, but his word is automatically taken over hers. He’s worth more to the school administration. He’s a successful athlete who brings acclaim and honor to the school, and she’s a violent troublemaker. Buffy’s not the “right” kind of victim.

And all of the adults are complicit in this victim-blaming. Principal Snyder threatens action against her if Cameron’s nose doesn’t heal before the meet. The nurse remains silent. And even Giles seems annoyed and bemused that Buffy is ranting about being blamed for Cameron’s nose, irritated that she doesn’t seem to be paying attention to the suspicious demon behavior. There are bigger problems than the attempted assault, Buffy – pay attention!

At the same time, if you consider the case of the Texas cheerleader who was kicked off of her team for refusing to cheer for her admitted rapist (link here), Buffy got off easy.

The victim-blaming of Buffy is based on the idea that certain people are special and deserve privileges. (Cameron has a right to do whatever he wants because he’s a great swimmer, etc.) And in this episode, male characters aren’t the only ones who spout this line of thinking. Cordelia is a proponent of this philosophy.

“CORDELIA: Xander, I know you take pride in being the voice of the common wuss, but the truth is, certain people are entitled to special privileges. They’re called winners. That’s the way the world works.

XANDER: And what about that nutty ‘all men are created equal’ thing?

CORDELIA: Propaganda spouted out by the ugly and less deserving.

XANDER: I think that was Lincoln.

CORDELIA: Disgusting mole and stupid hat.

WILLOW: Actually, it was Jefferson.

CORDELIA: Kept slaves. Remember?”

Obviously, this is meant to be funny (and succeeds in this goal, in my opinion) because we’re not supposed to agree with Cordelia (though she does make a good point about Jefferson’s hypocrisy). She’s also not directly supporting the idea that men are entitled to women’s bodies. Being a former Queen Bee, Cordelia thinks that popular boys and girls deserve more than the “common wuss.” But the sense of entitlement still perpetuates a rape culture.

On another note, there’s an interesting dynamic between Buffy and Gage (Wentworth Miller), another athlete on the swim team. She not-so-subtly follows him around, trying to protect him from the monster that supposedly killed Dodd and Cameron. When he asks her why she’s stalking him, she replies:

“BUFFY: Well, um… It’s a little embarrassing. You see, I’m a swim groupie…You know, there’s just something about the smell of chlorine on a guy. Oh, baby.”

This doesn’t work on Gage, and he doesn’t believe her when she says there’s something after him. He tells her to stop harassing him and that Cameron told him about her “games.” His reaction is both understandable (because Buffy was following him and her cover story sounds ridiculous) and unfair (because he believes the trash talk Cameron spread about Buffy).

When he leaves the Bronze, he mutters to himself about Buffy being a “psycho bitch” and expressing a wish that someone would “take her down a peg.” Then Angel attacks him and Buffy fights him off. Scared, and his tough demeanor completely gone, Gage asks Buffy to walk him home. The next day during swim practice, he stops in the middle of the lane and rather adorably smiles and waves to her.

Now, I’m still disappointed that Gage turned into a fish monster, because Wentworth Miller is cute and Gage was the only human who ever had chemistry with Buffy. But I was also interested in his complete turnaround regarding Buffy. Is it realistic for a guy to go from calling a girl a “psycho bitch” in one scene to making puppy eyes at her the next, even if she saved his life? They must have had a pretty interesting conversation while she was walking him home. I’m not sure I believe that his turnaround would happen that quickly. I’m also not sure I care, because again – the only human who ever had chemistry with Buffy.

On a final note, I’d like to address the tone of this episode and how it addresses victim-blaming and slut-shaming. The episode is critical of these two things, but the tone of the story is so lighthearted and silly that I’m not sure the message gets across. It’s hard to take victim-blaming seriously in an episode about fish monsters.

On a final FINAL note, I’d like to point out that in an episode where Buffy was criticized for dressing like she was in a dance club, the direction never objectified her or indeed, any other woman on the show. The only body that was objectified, with a slow pan-up, was Xander’s. The link is here. And this is where I have to admit to some of my own hypocrisy, because even though I can see this as objectification and acknowledge that objectification is bad, I’m also not really complaining in this instance. (And I’m supposed to believe he and Cordy never had sex? BULL.)

Posted in Reviews | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Reviews“Game of Thrones” Season 2 Wrap-Up

Posted on June 4, 2012 by Theresa Basile

The second season of Game of Thrones has ended, and I wasn’t sure how to talk about it. As a book-reader, discussing the show without discussing the books is a little difficult for me, especially because the show is starting to affect my perception and memory of the books. My understanding of the timeline is now completely off; I’m used to reading a Jon chapter followed by an Arya chapter followed by a Bran chapter, but sometimes the events in the Bran chapter took place before the events in the Jon chapter, and I don’t know that until later. I can’t tell if the writers of the show are trying to make the linear timeline clearer, or if they’re speeding up some storylines while dragging out others because they realize that certain characters’ stories (*cough* Daenerys *cough*) involve a lot of wheel-spinning for several books ahead.

Keeping all of that in mind, I’ve decided to write about my general impressions of the season and talk about the aspects of season two – positive and negative – that stood out to me. (Massive book spoilers ahead.)

– The Onion Knight, The Red Woman, and the Wannabe King
In Game of Thrones, the characters who advise the kings are often more interesting than the rulers themselves, and this couldn’t be more apparent than in the Dragonstone scenes. This isn’t a criticism of Stephen Dillane, who did an excellent job as Stannis Baratheon. But just like in the book, I look at loyal, noble Davos Seaworth, and wild, brilliant Melisandre, and wonder why both of them are so committed to a wannabe king who’s just kind of there. The battle of the Blackwater showed that Stannis is brave and skilled in battle, but he’s not very inspiring. Meanwhile, Melisandre is mysterious and creepy, and Davos is wonderful and noble, like Ned Stark if Ned Stark were smart. All of these scenes were well-played.

– Those scheming Tyrells
Again, the king’s subordinates are more interesting than the king himself. I enjoyed seeing more of Loras and Margaery, their dynamic with each other, and their different dynamics with Renly. I loved that Margaery was so blase about her arrangement with her husband. “Would you like my brother to come in instead? Or do you want both of us?” The screentime devoted to them was just enough to remind us that the Tyrells are a powerful, important family, but not too much to distract from the rest of the story. Now I really can’t wait to see the Queen of Thorns.

– Daenerys Targaryen is Homeless Dad
Ah, so this is how they’re going to drag out Dany’s plot for the rest of the series. Arrested Westeros had a joke about Catelyn Stark being Thomas Jane in Homeless Dad, but this year, the Homeless Dad honor went to Dany, who spent half of the season whining, “I just want my dragons back!” The House of the Undying was a huge letdown, and I really dislike seeing half of Dany’s people slaughtered, including one bloodrider and one handmaid, and she makes everything worse by locking up poor Doreah in Al Capone’s – I mean, Xaro’s – vault so the girl can starve to death. I guess this is supposed to make us see how cold Dany has become. Well, I prefer book Dany, who sang Doreah to sleep as she died of starvation.

– Robb Stark, stupidhead
In the book, Robb was no great master of the game of thrones, but he was at least better at understanding it than his father was. Show Robb is now officially dumber than Ned, and I really don’t care at all about his made-for-TV love interest. The writers seem to be trying to inject some romance into the show, but I honestly preferred Robb in the books, who slept with Jeyne when he was grieving for his brothers and then married her because it was the honorable thing to do. Robb marrying this Valyrian lady who doesn’t even exist in the book in a misguided attempt to create a “love story” in the show is misguided and incredibly boring.

– Jon Snow, stupidhead
Speaking of stupidheads, let’s take a look at Jon Snow, who chains Ygritte to him but lets her outwit him at every turn. And we’re supposed to believe that he’d make a good Lord Commander by the end of season four (since book three is being split into two seasons). Again, I get that the writers want to set up the Jon/Ygritte affair for next season, but we didn’t need two straight episodes of her taunting him and him trying not to have a boner. Fortunately, Ygritte is already more interesting on the show than she was in the books, thanks to the actress making her less of a medieval pixie dream girl and more of an actual wildling. 

– Catelyn Stark still exists, kind of
I’m cynical, and I believe that Catelyn had so little to do this season because the producers aren’t planning to make her naked anytime soon. She’s not my favorite character, but I appreciate her perspective as a mother who simply wants her family to get together, and as a character who can be both incredibly dumb and clever, often at the same time. I’m disappointed that her confrontation with Jaime was chopped up and spread over the season instead of in one great scene, because it’s absolutely my favorite part of A Clash of Kings.

– Bran and Rickon “died” and no one cared
Catelyn’s decision to free Jaime and Robb’s ill-advised wedding both make much less sense when neither of them “know” that Bran and Rickon are dead. The characters are simply dumber instead of acting rashly out of grief.

– Tyrion Lannister is awesome
And so is Peter Dinklage.

– Arya Stark is awesome.
And so is Maisie Williams. I hope she gets an Emmy nomination this year. I liked her scenes with Tywin but thought there were a few too many of them, because at a certain point, I can no longer believe that Tywin wouldn’t figure out that she was Arya Stark.

– Yara/Asha Greyjoy and The Maid of Tarth
I was really excited to see both of these characters and neither of them disappointed. I liked that Yara wasn’t a typical brassy “badass,” but just rather sly and relaxed, like she didn’t even have to try to prove that she was a tough warrior because everyone already knew it. Meanwhile, Gwendolen Christie was perfect as Brienne, showing her soft heart and loyalty AND her ability to break people in half without sweating. That’s right, Jaime, you’d better look impressed and frightened.

– The Others are attacking!
I wonder if the producers are planning to accelerate or invent a larger plot with the white walkers. If not, then ending a season with a white walker attack, only to have virtually NOTHING HAPPEN with this plot line over several more books, isn’t really fair. I already feel bad for the non-book readers who expect something cool to happen with this event.

– Women still used as decoration and props
Yeah, I know that everyone complains about the sexposition, but what can I say? This is a feminist blog, and I’m tired of the sexposition. I thought seeing a confrontation between Bronn and the Hound was pretty cool. Did we really need a naked prostitute on Bronn’s leg during that whole scene? Did we really need to see Joffrey abuse Roz and the other prostitute so we could get a better understanding of what a worthless, vile little shit he is? Because I’m pretty sure everyone on the planet, EVEN CERSEI, was already aware of how much of a worthless, vile little shit Joffrey is.

I have other thoughts on this subject that I might talk about later in the week, but ultimately, I’m tired of seeing women used as props and decoration to prop up or establish male characters. It’s really not necessary, and in some cases, the show encourages objectification even while intending (or pretending) to condemn it.

Posted in Reviews | Tagged , | 8 Comments

Blog PostsLady T Recommends “Prince & Ekaj”

Posted on June 3, 2012 by Theresa Basile

Good news – Haberdasher Theatre’s The Wizard of Oz has been fully funded, and Futuredazehas $1061 of its $1700 goal pledged with 22 days still to go.

The next project I’m recommending has a much larger goal of $30,000, but after reading the description and watching the video, I fully believe the end result will be well worth the money. The project is a film called Prince & Ekaj, about two gay Latino teenagers who strike up a friendship in New York City. Here is a link to the project: Prince & Ekaj the Movie. From the description:

“Prince & Ekaj is a story about two gay latino teenagers who are completely different from each other. One is a runaway teenager, and the other is a self-taught street hustler who spends his time roaming the streets of NYC at night looking for ways to make money. They both meet by chance and end up realizing that they depend on one another more than they think in a city that is full of crime, drugs, prostitution, and of course, hope.

In today’s society, there is a lot of hatred and bullying directed towards young teens who are attacked because they are gay, and we rarely hear or see what these kids have to go through on an every-day level just to be who they are. This story was truly inspired by all of these young gay hustler kids from New York City who struggle with these issues, but at the same time overcome them through perseverance.”

Why I’m recommending this project: This isn’t the kind of story that I see very often. Gay teenagers are underrepresented in the media and so are Latino teenagers, so seeing a story about gay Latino teenagers would be refreshing and new. I was also moved by the filmmaker’s comments about prostitution and sex crimes. I think many people are aware of the way girls and women are abused in this manner, but maybe not as aware of the way boys and young men can be equally victimized. I would really like to see this story about these characters developing a friendship. Please consider donating to this project or passing the word along to people you know.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged | 6 Comments

Blog PostsNew Careers for Rom-Com Leading Ladies

Posted on June 1, 2012 by Theresa Basile

After writing my “Battle of the Sexes” post last night, I started thinking about the leading female characters in romantic comedies and the careers they follow.

Mindy Kaling has pointed out in a great New Yorker article that romantic comedies are often populated by women who work in art galleries. She writes,

“How many freakin’ art galleries are out there? Are people buying visual art on a daily basis? This posh/smart/classy profession is a favorite in movies. It’s in the same realm as kindergarten teacher or children’s-book illustrator in terms of accessibility: guys don’t really get it, but it is likable and nonthreatening.”

Kaling is absolutely right (and she writes more of these witty observations in her book Is Everyone Hanging Out Without Me?, so read it!) I’d also like to add to the list of acceptable professions for romantic comedy leading women: children’s bookstore owner (Meg Ryan in You’ve Got Mail), woman who works in the publishing industry, usually for a woman’s magazine (Kate Hudson in How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, Jennifer Garner in 13 Going on 30, Drew Barrymore in Going the Distance), baker who specializes in cupcakes (Ashley Williams in How I Met Your Mother – yes, it’s a TV show, but it counts). These jobs are professional but acceptably feminine and nonthreatening for the male lead.

(For the record, I’m not trying to imply that female-dominated careers are inherently less worthy than male-dominated careers, or that a woman having a baker or publishing career is anti-feminist. I’m only pointing out that there isn’t a lot of variety of careers for women in romantic comedies.)

Of course, sometimes female characters have high-powered jobs or careers in male-dominated fields. Sometimes they even have executive positions. Usually, though, the high-powered businesswomen is the type who barks into a phone and has to learn that there are More Important Things Than Work – like true love! (Insert examples from oh so many movies.) Or, like Katherine Heigl in 27 Dresses, these characters are the assistants of high-powered executives in nondescript business careers, and as a fun bonus, they’re in love with their bosses (at least temporarily).

Well, I think it’s about time for romantic comedy leading women to explore more diverse career options. Here is a list of careers I would like to see for our romantic leading women.

High school trigonometry teacher
Romantic comedies love their kindergarten and elementary school teachers. Why not expand the field to include secondary teachers – better yet, female teachers of mathematics? As a former eighth grade English teacher, I have it on good authority that female math teachers do exist, and they fall in love just as easily as elementary school teachers. Her male lead can woo her with a rendition of 2ge+her’s “U + Me = Us (Calculus)” and write her proofs instead of love letters. The movie would be even better if we could get in a Dangerous Minds reference except with math instead of poetry.

Accountant
Better yet, an accountant that actually likes her job. When a guy tries to save her from her humdrum life and pursue a more artistic, “fulfilling” career, she says, “No thanks, I enjoy doing people’s taxes and getting a good salary. I’m cool with saving my violin playing/doll making/cupcake baking as a weekend hobby.” On the other hand, that would make for a really short movie, wouldn’t it? I might have to reconsider this as a viable rom-com leading woman career option.

Genetic scientist
A genetic scientist who works so hard at her job that she never has time to pursue a love life, so she decides to create a perfect man by using cloning techniques! Think a role-reversal Pygmalion crossed with Frankenstein, except with more adorable montages and cute music. Actually, this would work better as a sci-fi horror movie.

Urologist
No, see, it’s funny because she’s a woman and she’s a penis doctor! Get it? Then she develops a romance with a male ob-gyn. The movie will be called His and Hers.

Guitarist in a death metal band
I envision this romantic comedy leading lady looking, sounding, and dressing exactly like Zooey Deschanel, but then scares everyone with her frightening death metal guitar skills. She falls in love with a rapper.

Prosecuting attorney
Let’s have a remake of Adam’s Rib, but with the male attorney defending the woman who shot her husband, as his wife works as the prosecutor. I’m actually serious about this suggestion. The typical “battle of the sexes” story will be turned on its head with the man defending a woman and a woman prosecuting on behalf of a man (and the state).

Plumber
I want a Community film spinoff where a female plumber falls in love with a man enrolled in Greendale’s sinister air conditioner repair school. They’re initially prejudiced against each other because of the war between the two majors, but they fall in love despite that and change the system from within! Troy Barnes and Britta Perry obviously have large parts in this film, and Jerry Minor can return as the father of the female plumber.

Feminist blogger/activist
A feminist blogger/activist who fights against sexism but secretly believes that all men suck meets a guy who DOESN’T suck, and then she completely reevaluates everything she ever thought about sexism and decides to be nicer to men. But at the end of the movie, the man kisses this feminist woman and finds out that she’s completely made of straw. The End.

How about the rest of you? What careers would you like to see for romantic comedy leading women? Offer suggestions in the comments.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , , | 12 Comments

ReviewsBattle of the Sexes in Romantic Comedies (Spoiler Alert: The Guys Win)

Posted on May 31, 2012 by Theresa Basile

The month of May in The Rom-Com Project was originally going to be Bickering Bickersons month, where I focused on romantic comedies that had a bickering couple at the center. Then I remembered that “bickering couple at the center” described about fifty percent of romantic comedies and realized that I needed to narrow my focus. Instead, I declared May as “Battle of the Sexes” Month, focusing on romantic comedies that had a male and female lead in direct competition with each other. Then I sifted through the suggestions I received from my readers and picked the comedies that fell into this category. This month, I watched Adam’s Rib, The Shop Around the Corner, You’ve Got Mail, and Someone Like You.

In three of these movies, the male and female lead are in direct professional competition with each other. Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn in Adam’s Rib are the district attorney and a defense attorney in a high-profile trial, and they also happen to be a married couple. Jimmy Stewart and Margaret Sullavan in The Shop Around the Corner are two employees of a Budapest gift store who work together but can’t seem to get along. Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan in You’ve Got Mail (a modern update of The Shop Around the Corner) are two rival bookstore owners, he of the Barnes & Noble-esque megastore and her of a quaint children’s bookstore. Finally, Ashley Judd in Someone Like You is not in professional competition with Greg Kinnear or Hugh Jackman, but her relationships with both men inform and inspire her war against the male sex as a whole.

(It also feels noteworthy that three of these films star actors who have worked together on other romantic comedies. Hanks and Ryan were together in Sleepless in Seattle, Stewart and Sullavan were in three romantic comedies together, and I think I heard somewhere that Tracy and Hepburn did an obscure picture or two, here or there…)

Anyway, after watching these movies, I noticed a tendency among the filmmakers to try to play the Battle of the Sexes so that both sides win – except, in the end, the men win almost every time. In Battle of the Sexes comedies, the lead female characters usually possess two things: a job and a feisty and/or spunky independent personality, but by the end of the films, they have to Learn a Lesson about either their careers or their relationship choices – or, if they’re lucky, they Learn a Lesson about BOTH things.

First, let’s look at the career choices of these lead female characters. All four of them are employed, but with the exception of Katharine Hepburn’s lawyer in Adam’s Rib, they have the “woman who works in an art gallery”-type job that Mindy Kaling talks about in “Flick Chicks” – the kind of job that is professional yet ultimately nonthreatening for the male lead. Margaret Sullavan is a salesgirl at a gift shop, Meg Ryan is a children’s bookstore owner, and Ashley Judd is a production assistant at a popular talk show.

Next, let’s take their personalities into consideration. Hepburn is her husband’s intellectual equal with a sharp wit and tongue. Sullavan initially comes across as a shy, desperate young woman looking for a job, but proves to be an adept saleswoman who can easily take Stewart to task. Ryan is cute and spunky and makes a lot of “adorable” facial expressions (and her character’s name is even Kathleen Kelly, for krying out loud). Judd is professional, direct, and bright, enjoying a rapport with Jackman as she takes her womanizing co-worker down a peg or two.

These two qualities – a job and an independent personality – seem like prime ingredients for a feminist lead character and a feminist romantic comedy, right? Well, sure – but most recipes require more than two ingredients, and any feminist message that these movies might contain collapse when you don’t read the directions. (This is a really bad metaphor. I’ll move on from it now.) These independent women with careers each have to humble themselves and learn a lesson about work and/or romance, while their male partners get to stay the same and reap the benefits of being around the softened versions of the independent women they supposedly love.

Of the four female leads, Margaret Sullavan in The Shop Around the Corner probably has the best ending. She considerably softens her behavior toward Jimmy Stewart, yes, but not because she’s humbled or put into a position where she learns how wrong she was to judge him. She’s nicer to him because he’s nicer to her (after he learns that she was the identity of the “Dear Friend” he had been writing to). At the end of the film, she’s still his employee, so the power imbalance still exists, but the issue seems minor compared to the bond they created. She fares pretty well.

The same cannot be said for her modern counterpart, Meg Ryan in You’ve Got Mail. Ryan’s character starts from a higher position, in which she owns The Shop Around the Corner, but by the end of the film, her store has gone out of business thanks to the competition from Fox Books, the store owned by Tom Hanks’s character. Don’t feel too bad for her, though – there’s a quick scene in the film where she wanders through Fox Books and sees children happily browsing through the shelves, and she realizes that the megastore isn’t the soulless corporate monster she had been envisioning. Also, being forced out of her career turns out to be a good thing because she can now pursue a dream to write her own children’s book. This is supposed to make it okay that she ends up with the man whose business ruined hers, because she and Hanks were in Sleepless in Seattle together and REUNION MAGIC!

Meanwhile, Ashley Judd in Someone Like You is on a doomed mission from the beginning of the film, and everyone except her can see that it’s doomed. She falls too hard too fast for the Wrong Guy (Greg Kinnear, who was also Meg Ryan’s Wrong Guy in You’ve Got Mail), and when he inevitably breaks her heart, she develops a faux-scientific theory about why ALL men are predisposed to being unfaithful. We all know she’s full of crap, but she doesn’t know she’s full of crap until the eleventh hour, and the only reason she comes off as remotely smart is because Ashley Judd has an intelligent, likable presence onscreen. She learns at the very end that all men are not jerks and has to humble herself in front of Hugh Jackman before he kisses her in the street.

Finally, Katharine Hepburn’s character in Adam’s Rib has the most disappointing, frustrating trajectory of all, because hers was the story that began with the most potential. She takes the case of a woman who shot her husband, hoping to argue that her client was not in her right mind. The case particularly interests her because she knows that a sexist double standard could work against her client. I was interested in this story, foolishly expecting to see a somewhat nuanced take on a courtroom dramedy and a humorous portrayal of a loving couple sparring in court. I should have known better. As the film went on, it became clear that Tracy’s character was entirely in the right and Hepburn’s character entirely in the wrong. He had the objective, correct take on the case while she was the overly adamant feminist harpy who flirted with another man and humiliated her husband in court. In the end, she has to admit to being wrong after her husband threatens her with a gun – a gun that turns out to be fake, but the damage is still done.

After watching these four films in succession, I can’t claim there’s a strong anti-feminist message in all of them. No, these stories have messages of faux feminism – or milquetoast feminism, or wishy-washy halfway-feminism. The female leads can be feisty, they can spar with their romantic male leads, and they can have jobs, but they can’t be more successful than their romantic male partners, and they’d better not take the sparring too far, even if their careers and livelihoods depend on making successful arguments. And don’t even try to be a woman who takes a stand for other women, because your arguments are either completely stupid (Ashley Judd in Someone Like You) or you present them in an inappropriate forum during the wrong time (Katharine Hepburn in Adam’s Rib).

I also can’t help but feel that, if the roles in You’ve Got Mail were reversed and the female lead was the person who owned the megastore, she would have had to close it down or resign her position after learning that love was more important than money.

Maybe there are more “Battle of the Sexes” romantic comedies where the female lead is the one who triumphs – or, better yet, where neither triumphs and the message focuses on mutual respect and understanding. If such movies exist, I’d definitely like to see them.

Posted in Reviews | Tagged , | 12 Comments

Blog Posts“Veep” and the Politics of Pregnancy

Posted on May 30, 2012 by Theresa Basile

[Note: This post contains discussion of abortion from a pro-choice viewpoint. If the pro-choice point of view offends or upsets you, you’re entitled to your opinion, but any comments denouncing me or an attempt to change my mind will be recognized as an attempt to derail discussion, and will be deleted. If you’re a first-time commenter and feel compelled to call me derogatory names based on my point of view, please be aware that all first-time comments have to be approved before they’re  made public. No one will see your nasty comments except for me, and I will promptly mark said comments as spam and then laugh at you.]

I’m watching Veep and I’m loving it. Are you watching Veep? If you’re not watching Veep, you should definitely be watching Veep, because it’s really funny. The dialogue fires at a rapid pace, the political satire is biting and sharp, and the cast is fantastic.

In addition to all of that, I love that this is a show with a female protagonist who struggles to be relevant in policy decisions, but the whole show isn’t, “It’s hard to be a woman in politics!” The central conceit of the show is that the vice-presidential position is largely ceremonial and has very little real power. Sometimes Vice-President Selina Meyer faces particular sexist challenges that a male vice president would not have to face (such as rumors about a catty feud with the First Lady about stylists and hairdressers), but the fact that she is a female vice-president is not the most important aspect of her character or the show.

I also find the show fairly complex in its comedy. A show about a female vice-president could easily become a tiresome, one-joke Sarah Palin parody, but Veep doesn’t go for that easy route. Sometimes the show is funny because Selina makes a gaffe or unfortunate comment in front of the press. Sometimes the show is funny because Selina is good at her job but she and her team are surrounded by jerk politicians with competing interests. Sometimes we’re laughing at her and the other characters because they seem like horrible people, and sometimes we’re laughing with them because we empathize with their frustration. She’s written as an intelligent, competent person who sometimes makes mistakes – some that are entirely her fault, some that are a result of being caught in a no-win situation.

The latest episode of Veep introduced an entirely new challenge for Selina, one that is both her fault and the result of a no-win situation. After a night of unprotected sex with her lover, she’s pregnant, a suspicion that was confirmed at the end of the episode while she was forced to put on a happy face for a classroom of elementary school students.

While watching this episode, I was convinced that Selina would find a negative result when she took that pregnancy test. The show had already touched on several of the challenges she would face as a female vice-president who had a child out of wedlock. Abortion was hinted at only once, when Amy said, “You know you’ll have to keep it, right?” and Selina responded, “Yes…or go to Mexico and then kill the doctor.” But they both knew abortion was too big of a political risk, and instead, Selina called her boyfriend and assistant to arrange an engagement that supposedly took place weeks ago. Her only chance of saving face over an out-of-wedlock baby would be to marry the father and pretend the engagement was longer than the pregnancy.

Having explicitly made the point about Selina’s no-win bind, the show could have given her an easy out with a negative test result, but no – she was right all along. She’s pregnant.

I seriously doubt that a political satire like Veep would have Selina carry a pregnancy to term and then follow her journey as she tries to raise a newborn while serving as vice-president. It’s a storyline that would distract from the main focus of the show. So, assuming that the show doesn’t take the route of “whoops, it was a false positive!” there are only two choices available: a miscarriage or an abortion.

Having a female character miscarry an unwanted pregnancy is pretty standard for television. This way, the abortion issue is addressed and hinted at without having a character actually go through with it. The writers can pay lip service to the pro-choice crowd without seriously offending the anti-choicers.

However, Veep is on HBO, a pay channel that doesn’t have to follow network rules. Would Veep actually allow Selina to have an abortion?

I don’t know the answer to that question and I won’t know until next week, but I do wonder: what would be the implications of a character like Selina Meyer going through with an abortion?

A lot of pro-choice people desperately want to see more honest representations of abortion in television and film, where the woman wasn’t vilified, presented as a terrible person, or haunted by the decision for the rest of her life. But if Selina Meyer had an abortion on Veep, a show where the characters are mostly portrayed as hilariously awful people working in the hilariously awful world of Washington, D.C., how would that decision play with the audience? Would her choice to have an abortion be presented, or interpreted, as another example of the Selina being hilariously awful? Or would the choice be affirming, showing that abortion is normal, something that’s done by women who are neither saints nor villains, but simply human?

I’m not sure how to answer this question, and the show might not answer it either. Maybe she’ll miscarry or turn out to have a false positive. But I still think it’s worth thinking about and discussing, since portrayals of abortion are so few and far between.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , | 11 Comments

Blog PostsLady T Recommends “Futuredaze: An Anthology of YA Science Fiction”

Posted on May 27, 2012 by Theresa Basile

Before I promote a third consecutive project in my Sunday recommendation post, let me give you an update about the other two projects I’ve promoted so far. First, The Quiet Girl’s Guide to Violence has been fully funded, making $8050 of their $7000 goal. This is great news! Meanwhile, Haberdasher Theatre’s The Wizard of Oz has brought in $786 of their $2,000 goal. They only have 11 days to go, so please consider making a donation.

The project I’d like to recommend this week is in the area of publishing. Please consider donating to fund the project Futuredaze: An Anthology of Y.A. Science Fiction. Here is part of the description from the Kickstarter site:

“Futuredaze is an anthology of YA science fiction for teens, young adults, and the young at heart. The anthology will feature fiction and poetry that sparks the imagination, twists the heart, and makes us yearn for the possibilities of a world yet to come. At a time when every other YA book features vampires, werewolves or other fantastical creatures, Futuredaze will be an anthology for the next generation of science fiction readers.

Futuredaze: An Anthology of YA Science Fiction will be released in trade paperback in early June 2013, followed by the eBook two months later. The publication date may be moved sooner depending on how quickly top quality submissions are received. The goal for this Kickstarter is to raise $1,700 to fund its publication, including basic production costs, marketing, proofing, and the artwork.”

Why I’m recommending this project: I love YA novels, I love science fiction, and I love that this project was started by two women. Let this former English teacher reassure you that young adults REALLY NEED TO BE READING MORE, and from what I saw when I was in the classroom, getting them hooked on fantasy and sci-fi was the easiest way to get their attention and make readers out of non-readers. A collection of short fiction with young adult protagonists can be especially intriguing for a reluctant reader who feels intimidated by full-length novels.

Futuredaze only requires $1700 to get the project funded. They’ve reached $779 of that goal and they have 28 days to go. Consider contributing to this project and helping a publisher reach a new generation of readers.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged | Leave a comment