Dark Angel and Disability

I really like science fiction, you guys. And, fortunately, there's a lot of kick-ass science fiction out there. I've never been much of a Trekkie (or Trekker), but Firefly and Battlestar Galactica are two of the best shows EVER.

When it comes to TV shows in particular, I get really attached. Following plot arcs and character development for a couple of years induces a raging sense of entitlement in me, I must confess. So that when BSG is like, "Hey, angels!," I'm all, "HOW COULD YOU DO THIS TO ME." It's ... disproportionate.

Sometimes, though, I feel my rage is justified! Like with Dark Angel. I'm not even going to talk about the second season. I'm going to pretend that doesn't exist. No, I'm gonna carp about the first season, Logan Cale, and the depiction of disability. There will be some minor spoilers.

In the pilot episode, Logan gets shot trying to help someone (dude is seriously into being the White Knight/hero type) and it puts him in a wheelchair. Also in the pilot episode, it is clear that the show is going for a romance between Logan and the female superhero. And they made the injury permanent enough, and the romance compelling enough, that I got hopeful. I thought we might actually get to see two characters have a steamy, sex-having romance punctuated by the fighting of crime and corruption whilst one of them is in a wheelchair. Wouldn't that be nice, to acknowledge that differently-abled folk, too, engage in exciting sex and topple corrupt dystopian governments.

And for a while, it seemed like that might happen. Granted, Logan was rather preoccupied with regaining the use of his legs, but, you know, big shift in life circumstances, a struggle to adjust is a (but not the only) realistic reaction. He was also hesitant to pursue the heroine sexually while wheelchair-bound, but people can be insecure for all sorts of reasons, so again, realistic. But, unfortunately, the show was also obsessed with "curing" Logan, and threw robotic legs and temporary miracle cures his way until I was ready to scream.

The result was that paraplegia was treated as a temporary problem rather than a permanent feature of a person's life. And a good opportunity to feature a disabled character in TV storytelling and to quash some myths (like that people in wheelchairs never get any) was squandered. Science fiction, I expect better of you.

Femininity and Masculinity in Television

Linda Holmes at NPR's Monkey See is pretty brilliant, y'all. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I totally have a crush on her. Call me, Linda.

The story that prompted this particular outburst of hearts is her dissection of masculinity in television. While allowing for the idea that there are extremely problematic representations of women and femininity on television, she argues that the current crop of television sitcoms might be even worse for men. She discusses How To Be A Gentleman, Last Man Standing, Man Up, and Work It in particular.

Sarah Haskins, the brilliant person who brought us Target Women, has pointed this out before in her skit on doofy husbands.



Holmes makes a whole bunch of good points, and you should just go read her column. I'll wait!

Back? Okay. So one of the things Holmes talks about here is the concept of "realness." These horrid new shows are talking about what it means to be a "real" man. It's my sense that we've been in a crisis-of-masculinity moment for awhile now. If not, we wouldn't be panicking about a mom painting her very young son's toenails pink in a J. Crew ad. We wouldn't have to be aware that Tim Allen still exists. So these shows seem to be about showing their male characters how to be Men. And, because I'm an educator and think everything has pedagogical implications, they're probably teaching American men how to be "real," too. But they're not looking at masculinity through any kind of queer lens, so they have a defined vision of manhood that is based in a straight and cis view of it. Best not be too dapper, or one might be associated with femininity (which is bad) (I mean, duh).

So, the fact that women might be getting better representation on the screen doesn't strike me as a triumph of feminism. I'm thinking that instead of the power dynamic shifting in women's favor, there's a (perhaps subconscious) attempt at asking for a reassertion of the culture of masculinity, which is defined in clearly specific ways. Now, I don't think that all the men involved in these shows behave in the way men are portrayed on screen, and I think that a lot of the times they're probably saying something about how idiotic these men are. But there's something going on, and I don't think they shows are trying to make a point about how we've been too rigid about gender norms in our cultural history. You know?

Here's the thing: Even if the people involved in the show aren't endorsing this view of masculinity, they're still putting it out there, and there are going to be plenty of people who watch it and laugh knowingly and incorporate it - again, perhaps subconsciously - in their ideas about gender and how to properly perform it.

I don't think I can even get into how repulsive I find the concept of Work It, the show in which men dress in drag because they feel it is the only way to get ahead in the work force. I'll just say this: It's a fucking disaster. I know they're not presenting as trans people, they're dressing in drag, but in real life people who crossdress or are known to be drag performers often face a certain amount of revulsion from their bigoted cis straight colleagues. And I've talked about it before, but it bears repeating: trans people are underprivileged in the work force, get mistreated by the police, and generally have a harder time dealing with institutions like the health care industry than cis people do. To say that men should just "dress like women" and then they'll get ahead in the work force is to erase any discussion of trans issues. It's also making a pointed case for the fact that men feel so very disadvantaged that they'll do something horrifyingly misogynistic just to get a job they seem to feel entitled to. Which they are not.

These shows leave no room for a discussion of queerness, or the idea that being a feminine man (regardless of sexual orientation or trans status) is awesome. They are making life harder for people with non-normative expression because they are reifying gender normativity. Trans people, gender queer people, butch lesbians, etc., are also harmed by this. If there is a limited idea of what is acceptable for a man, it also limits what is acceptable for a woman, because if women are masculine, then what happens to masculine men? They can't stake out their ground on a constantly shifting landscape.

These television shows are being gender police, is what I'm saying. I advise against watching them. Does anyone have any shows they'd like to suggest as having less problematic views of gender, for those of us who do occasionally enjoy watching the teevee?

Why We Love Johnny Weir

Gender-bending has become A Thing that the news is all over. We've all heard about the little boy in the J. Crew ad whose mom painted his toenails pink, heralding the end of masculinity or humanity or whatever.

Now we have a story about a high school boy who wore high heels to school, until his principle talked him out of it.

There are several things wrong with this: That the principle thought he was doing the right thing by taking "the paternal role" and convincing the kid to cave to the demands of the bullies that he conform and not wear whatever shoes he wants. Paternal, indeed. The principal also said that you have to take whatever happens to you if you step outside the norm. What the hell kind of lesson is that to teach kids? Sounds victim-blaming to me, for one thing. But schools too often seem to have a vested interest in maintaining gender norms - in this way, they are a reflection of society.

As my friend Michael pointed out, this article also claims that the kid wasn't punished, but he was: the normalization IS the punishment. It's an assault on this kid's identity. The story here shouldn't be, "High school boy wears high heels to school." It should be, "Douchebag principal wastes a lot of time convincing kid not to wear heels instead of doing his job." Which, admittedly, might take up a lot of space on a page, but who reads print media anymore, anyway?

I feel the need to remind us all that there is a different way to be human beyond gay-straight-bisexual (all of which are also valid, of course). We can step outside of the boxes and move into an appreciation for queer genders, societally, if people stop planting their flags in the idea that gender is a public health risk.

You know who I think is just really amazing for his courage in gender-bending? Johnny Weir. A couple of caveats: Yes, he is a privileged person with access to resources most people (your humble blogger included) do not have. He has the freedom to push gender boundaries in a way many people do not, because of who he is. I don't think he would deny that. But he is, I think, making space for other people to engage in examination of gender identity. Here are some things that he's said:

One:

I don't really like to have rules for anything, I find it's not very freeing when you abide by rules of any kind... I'm not a big believer in tiny handbags. The jig is up, you don't only carry lipstick, a credit card and a phone. I carry big bags - it's not even a murse or a man-bag, I carry a straight up purse every day.

Two:

I've always been comfortable with who I am... While I don't believe in masculinity and femininity, I don't believe in a purely gay person or a purely straight person. I have a very clear opinion of my own sexuality.

Three:

Fashion is very inspiring to me and I almost go drag queen where I wear the heels, make-up on or a big fur coat. Those things get noticed. But today, for example, I have jeans and cashmere hoodie on. I change it up. Nobody really cared when I looked like a boy.

"Nobody really cared when I looked like a boy." Right. Because I think, at the heart of it, people aren't as freaked out by people who are gay as by people who fuck with the binaries (which gay people do, for sure). Just ask the Human Rights Campaign, who are working very hard to distance themselves from gender-nonconformists so that they can further privilege the already-privileged by ignoring the problems faced by people who aren't them. They are trying to make it all about sexual orientation, leaving out gender identity, which is still not seen as a valid civil rights issue.

I'm glad Johnny Weir is able to wear whatever shoes or nail polish he wants without being reprimanded by some paternalist principal. I hope that his example provides hope for other people who are gender-nonconforming but not international superstar athletes.

Why I Watch So Much Television

I watch way more television than movies these days. Halfway through grad school I "discovered" television, and thought, "OMFG, look what I've been missing!!"

(Maybe I should clarify that I don't actually watch television on a TV. It's all Hulu/Netflix/Japanese YouTube. It's a slightly different experience involving few commercials and no channel-flipping.)

I watch an order of magnitude more television than movies (measured in hours). This is for a multitude of reasons; for example, I find it easier to commit to a half hour of television than two hours of a movie. I also grow attached to the characters.

But (and you may be wondering why I'm writing about this on a feminist blog), a lot of it is about the women characters. Most movies have few women, and those women are isolated like the raisins in raisin-bread: they rarely interact. You may have heard of the Bechdel test: to pass the test, a movie must

1. have at least two women in it
2. who talk to each other
3. about something other than a man.

Shockingly few movies satisfy these criteria. And even if a movie does pass the test, it in no way guarantees that the movie isn't still a sexist piece of garbage.

Television series go on for years, though, and it's kind of hard to keep their female characters isolated that long. I only realized this within the past year, but I think that it's a major factor in my general preference for television over movies. Relatable female characters are a big deal.

And now I'm sure you're wondering what my favorite shows are! Currently I watch Archer, True Blood, Parks and Recreation, Vampire Diaries (I just like vampires, yo), and RuPaul's Drag Race. They're not all terribly feminist, but they all have women (or drag queens) who interact with each other.

Top Chef: A Rant

I really love Bravo's Top Chef. I like food, art, and creativity in general, and I think it's one of the best-edited shows on television, thanks to Magical Elves. I am very much enjoying this All-Star season, which I think is beautifully cast, with one big, gross, glaring exception.

Mike Isabella makes me want to stab my eyes out with a meat thermometer.

[Blanket spoiler alert for seasons 6 and 8.]

Mike first appeared in Season 6, and set up my hatred nicely. In his very first episode, when he realized that he was tied in the relay Quick Fire with Jennifer Carroll, he said, "There is no way, no offense, that a girl should be at the same level" as him. I thought I was going to have an aneurysm right then and there. First: "Girl"? Really? Is she under 18? Would he refer to his buddy Michael Voltaggio as a "boy"? I don't think so. I trust I do not need to discuss how wretched it is that he takes it on faith that men are better chefs than women.

Now this charmer is on the All-Star season. I hope against hope every week that he will be eliminated. I don't recall ever hating a reality TV contestant the way I hate this guy. He's been displaying sexism (and racism) all season. For instance, when his buddy Angelo was in the bottom three with two women (Tiffany and Carla, who are both black, although I'm not sure that entered into his analysis), Mike was absolutely confident that Angelo was safe. But the joke was on him when Angelo was eliminated. No one was more shocked than Mike, despite Tom Colicchio's statement that Angelo's food was inedible. Mike even high-fived Angelo before the final decision was made, so sure was he that a penis-bearing individual would prevail over two vagina owners. A first time viewer of the show might not see sexism here, but having watched Mike for a season and a half now, I'm pretty sure he's still convinced that women should be losing to men on the regular. I am desperate for Carla or Antonia (or Tiffany, though I don't hold out much hope, as much as I love her) to win this season and show him.

Oh, also? He doesn't stop at women. He apparently doesn't like the gays, either. In episode 9 of this season, he sneers that he's never been to "one of those gay fondue parties." 1. Seriously, dude? Are we in fourth grade? And, more importantly, 2. You wish you were awesome enough to get invited to a gay fondue party. I think I shall host one soon. AND MIKE IS NOT INVITED.

Finally: Is Mike Isabella a racist? I don't know, but he's sure said some racist things. For instance, he refers to Dale, an Asian, as "a fucking monkey" when Dale criticized one of Mike's Quick Fire dishes. There is a long history of conceptualizing non-white people as animals. Even if Mike wasn't thinking to himself, "I need to come up with something racist to say about Dale right now," he certainly wasn't avoiding a racist stereotype. And not avoiding racist stereotypes or actions is just as bad as actively seeking them out, because it comes down to the same thing: perpetuating, or passively allowing, racism, instead of nipping it in the bud at every possible opportunity. If he had called Dale "a fucking jerk" I wouldn't be writing this paragraph and making Kyrie worry that we are going to have nothing but very long blog posts from me.

In conclusion: If you are saying a bunch of sexist, racist shit on TV, the editors of your chosen program are going to notice. Given that they chose to include these clips, especially the gay fondue party and the monkey stuff, I'm thinking maybe they hate Mike as much as I do. Magical Elves, call me!