Note: This post is not meant to imply that women can never have any form of power over any man and are always de-facto victims. On a case-by-case basis, this can and does happen, of course. This post is meant to de-construct a view of women's sexual power over men as the consistent, broad, and enduring phenomenon it is often portrayed as.
I saw an image online of a little girl in her underwear, pulling on the elastic so she can see what it's covering, as a little boy near her looks on. A speech bubble above the little girl's head reads: "with this, I'm gonna rule the world!" And of course, it's difficult to be a woman or a man in this country and not be familiar with that sentiment; you hear it almost every time a woman brings up her oppression and male privilege: "no, it's actually you women who have power over us men, because you can use the power of sex!" Which of course doesn't address the issue of institutional, socio-political, and cultural inequality, or the fact that even when/IF this sexual power is operable, it would usually only apply to women men found conventionally attractive and cis-hetero women. But let's just unpack this assumption and PRETEND that there's something to it. When people say this, what sorts of things do they have in mind? Just how are these instances of power supposed to play out?
A woman getting free drinks at a bar, either because men buy them for her or because it's Ladies Night? Men CHOOSE to buy drinks for women, and they usually do so in the hopes that they'll get laid, (even if all they want is a phone number, it's so they can get laid at a later date). Ladies Night is a way for bars to get more business, because more female customers = more male customers, so it's for the sake of money and appealing to men's desire to hit on women at bars.
Do they mean it in a more direct, transactional way, like getting money for sex? I doubt it, and sex workers are one of the most abused, disrespected, and disenfranchised groups in this country. Often their finances aren't even in their own control, but in the hands of a usually abusive pimp.
Does it refer to women deciding who they want to have sex with and being the gatekeepers of their own body? That's not a privilege or power over anyone; that's a human right, but one that is violated and ignored at an alarming rate, anyway.
Using attention and/or sexual favors to advance professionally? I don't think this is all that common and is pretty problematic, but wouldn't needing to give sexual favors in order to advance from a subordinate position underscore your position as a member of an underclass anyway?
Becoming famous and/or wealthy through being sexually attractive? This is quite possibly the only example that even remotely makes sense here, and 1. it only affects a handful of women, and 2. it can also apply to attractive men (actors, models, musicians, etc.) so it is not unique to women. Many women would be completely barred from this avenue of wealth. What's more, even these women are still exploited in some way; their successes belittled, their minds dismissed, their whole being objectified and often reduced to the sexual pleasure they can offer men (quick and easy example: men's magazines like Maxim and Equire. The latter referred to Rihanna as "the essence of the word 'fuck'". Talk about reducing someone to a sex object, even when they're a successful, accomplished woman!). They are often slut-shamed for using their body for capital gain, as though they created the system and weren't simply trying to take advantage of it. And doubtless there is usually some man or multiple men behind the scenes profiting from her success. Most importantly, being famous or wealthy hardly translates into ruling the world. Money usually does not necessarily entail political power for women, especially not as a group.
The sad thing is, it was a woman who posted this comic (I don't know if a woman created it, though), and I know that many women agree with this view and find it empowering. When women use the system to their advantage, I don't blame them for it. But I think awareness of the fact that women's bodies, either the disseminated image or even the real physical body, are linked to sexist oppression (through pornography, sex trafficking, rape, and femicide), is key to understanding what we're up against. Calling objectification empowering is like living in bondage and calling it freedom. It's like using the master's tools to dismantle the master's house. I'm not suggesting that a woman's own body and sexuality can't be instrumental in her liberation. It definitely is. Sex is a part of life, and no liberation is possible by denying ourselves sexual pleasure. But cis-hetero men's obsession with women's bodies as an object for sexual consumption is not a source of real power for women; it's linked to men and their pleasure, it's a "power" men give us, that they allow themselves to be affected by, because they know how fake it is, how flimsy, how it ties into their desires and forms no real threat to their power and privilege, to the socio-political order, not even close. It holds as much power as a diversion, as a game before the return to real matters at hand; there may be some resistance, some refusal, some playing hard to get, some flaunting, some teasing, but he knows that he'll get what he wants in the end, through force, coercion, manipulation or simply by moving on to the next one.
-J
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Friday, August 31, 2012
Thursday, August 23, 2012
I take it we're too sexy for you?
[CN: Sexual harassment, bullying, victim-blaming]
I want to talk about a few things that have been on my mind lately that were crystallized in this post over at Geek Feminism.
The post begins with a story about a girl in first-grade who was bullied for bringing a Star Wars water bottle to school. It got so bad she wanted to bring a pink bottle instead, just to avoid being teased. This story generated a lot of sympathy and even action on her behalf:
“Katie’s story went viral including at the official Star Wars blog and a year later CNN reported that at GeekGirlCon when a brigade of Storm Troopers formed an honor guard for Katie, and that there’s an annual Wear Star Wars day as a result. We had our own smaller burst of geek support on the Geek Feminism blog in May this year, for five year old Maya, who was turning away from her love of cars and robots...In addition, it wasn’t an especially difficult thread to moderate as I recall: a few trolls showed up to tell Maya goodness knows what (sudo make me a sandwich LOL?) but in general people left warm, honest, open stories of their geek life for Maya.”
Just as Mary specified in her post, I also want to clarify that I think this kind of support is a very positive thing. But I too have to ask: why doesn’t this degree of unified, unequivocal support exist for women who point out gender-based bullying and harassment, especially in male-dominated spheres? What about cases of sexual harassment or rape?
I think one important distinction lies in the latter: much of the harassment women discuss is different precisely because it is more likely to be sexual. Mary briefly alludes to this contrast too:
“What they don’t seem to have in common is a universal condemnation from geekdom: bullying children? Totally evil. Harassing adults? Eh… evil, except you know, he’s such a great guy, and he hasn’t got laid in a while, and (trigger warning for rapist enabling) he does have the best gaming table, so what are you gonna do, huh?”
But I think this point merits deeper analysis, particularly because it accounts for a broad array of bullying women face, as distinct from the kind that Katie and Maya dealt with. This type of bullying exists on a continuum:
You may be thinking: how does this relate to the topic at hand? A couple ways: 1) I’d venture to say that the above encompasses the vast majority of bullying that women face and discuss (whether in geek culture or not). Any discussion about the bullying and exclusion [geek] women face is woefully incomplete if sexual harassment/violence isn’t also addressed and 2) I think it’s another important component in understanding why the same people that felt sympathy for Katie and Maya will feel far less for [geek] women who experience this kind of bullying.
I understand that there are a lot of reasons that Katie and Maya received more sympathy than adult women, and Mary already discussed a lot of them. Thus, I’m not arguing that sexual harassment is the only factor or even the most important factor in explaining this difference in sympathy. But I think it's an important factor that merits more discussion.
Let’s use Katie’s story as an example. Perhaps her story seemed universal to other geeks and that made it easier for a broad array of them to empathize with her--after all, she was being teased and bullied for being different and for her “geeky” interests.** But what exactly did those boys say to her that made her feel bad? Well, isn’t that a ridiculously callous question? All we need to know is it was bad enough to make her cry and no longer want to take her Star Wars water bottle. In the face of her unhappiness, I’m betting no one would feel right about grilling her, especially with an aim to argue that she somehow wasn’t justified in feeling that way.
But once you reach adulthood, that callous reaction becomes much more commonplace when talking about harassment and exclusion; people want to know what happened, largely so they can assess whether they find your emotional response justifiable. “Wait, what made you feel uncomfortable? Oh, that? That isn’t even a big deal/That wouldn’t bother me/Others have it worse/Can’t you take a joke/You should just suck it up/Well, if you don’t like it, you can just go somewhere else/It’s part of the culture” etc.
I acknowledge that part of this callousness is due to the fact that there’s less compassion for adults, regardless of their gender. But that doesn’t account for all of it. The problem is compounded when a)the harassment is sexual and b)the victim is a woman.
For one, the lack of empathy (“this isn’t a big deal”) can be tied to a lack of perspective: not everyone experiences sexual harassment, and men certainly don’t experience it on the same scale or in the same way that women do, so it may be more difficult for them to empathize (this of course doesn’t give them a free pass, just explains why some men have trouble being sympathetic). Some men don’t understand the ways that sexual harassment and bullying can make the victim feel uncomfortable, alienated, or even unsafe because they’ve never been subjected to it. And of course, some men just don’t care either way because they’re not personally hurt or excluded by it, and in fact, enjoy being able to harass women and and don’t want to give it up. If they felt sympathy for one victim of sexual harassment, wouldn’t they have to question their own behavior? Cognitive dissonance? Oh no, we can’t have that!
For another, sexual harassment opens the door to victim-blaming in a way that is far less feasible in cases like Katie’s. No one asks if there was something Katie did that meant she was “asking for it” or deserved to be bullied. But in the case of sexual harassment, there will probably be a lot of interest in what the victim was wearing, whether she was being flirtatious, whether she was drunk, etc. (i.e., victim-blaming and slut-shaming). This means that, for some people, sympathy for women who’ve been sexually harassed is conditioned on whether they conform to the flawed notions of what a truly “blameless victim” looks like.
With all of this in mind, let’s take one more look at Katie’s story. What moved people? I think it was ultimately because it was sad to think of her giving up something she loved, something that made her happy, all just to avoid being made fun of. It was sad to think that gradually, she might change herself and her interests to avoid being targeted, instead of just being herself. And it was sad to think that all of this trouble was caused by some arbitrary, baseless notion that she wasn’t supposed to like Star Wars because it was “for boys.” But the point is: all of that is still sad regardless of her age, interests or the nature of the bullying. And it happens all the time (and this is only the tip of the iceberg.)
-C
*Yup, bullying, not “trolling.” Jay Smooth does a great job explaining why these coordinated attacks should not be understood as harmless trolling, but as an effort to intimidate, bully and silence. I want this distinction to catch on because it’s essential to understanding the nature of harassment and bullying in a digital world.
**Although Nick Mamatas makes a good case that the perception that geeks are bullied for their interests does not reflect reality, I’ll still argue that the perception is fairly strong, and was probably at play in this case.
I want to talk about a few things that have been on my mind lately that were crystallized in this post over at Geek Feminism.
The post begins with a story about a girl in first-grade who was bullied for bringing a Star Wars water bottle to school. It got so bad she wanted to bring a pink bottle instead, just to avoid being teased. This story generated a lot of sympathy and even action on her behalf:
“Katie’s story went viral including at the official Star Wars blog and a year later CNN reported that at GeekGirlCon when a brigade of Storm Troopers formed an honor guard for Katie, and that there’s an annual Wear Star Wars day as a result. We had our own smaller burst of geek support on the Geek Feminism blog in May this year, for five year old Maya, who was turning away from her love of cars and robots...In addition, it wasn’t an especially difficult thread to moderate as I recall: a few trolls showed up to tell Maya goodness knows what (sudo make me a sandwich LOL?) but in general people left warm, honest, open stories of their geek life for Maya.”
Just as Mary specified in her post, I also want to clarify that I think this kind of support is a very positive thing. But I too have to ask: why doesn’t this degree of unified, unequivocal support exist for women who point out gender-based bullying and harassment, especially in male-dominated spheres? What about cases of sexual harassment or rape?
I think one important distinction lies in the latter: much of the harassment women discuss is different precisely because it is more likely to be sexual. Mary briefly alludes to this contrast too:
“What they don’t seem to have in common is a universal condemnation from geekdom: bullying children? Totally evil. Harassing adults? Eh… evil, except you know, he’s such a great guy, and he hasn’t got laid in a while, and (trigger warning for rapist enabling) he does have the best gaming table, so what are you gonna do, huh?”
But I think this point merits deeper analysis, particularly because it accounts for a broad array of bullying women face, as distinct from the kind that Katie and Maya dealt with. This type of bullying exists on a continuum:
- Targeting a woman’s presumed sexuality or promiscuity as a way to justify disrespect, invalidation or exclusion (this is especially relevant in geek culture)
- Targeting a woman’s presumed sexuality as a way to demean them, by using hyper-sexualized rhetoric and slurs and/or pornographic imagery (which Anita Sarkeesian discussed as just one component of the bullying* she faces online)
- Sexual harassment
- The threat of or act of sexual assault and rape
You may be thinking: how does this relate to the topic at hand? A couple ways: 1) I’d venture to say that the above encompasses the vast majority of bullying that women face and discuss (whether in geek culture or not). Any discussion about the bullying and exclusion [geek] women face is woefully incomplete if sexual harassment/violence isn’t also addressed and 2) I think it’s another important component in understanding why the same people that felt sympathy for Katie and Maya will feel far less for [geek] women who experience this kind of bullying.
I understand that there are a lot of reasons that Katie and Maya received more sympathy than adult women, and Mary already discussed a lot of them. Thus, I’m not arguing that sexual harassment is the only factor or even the most important factor in explaining this difference in sympathy. But I think it's an important factor that merits more discussion.
Let’s use Katie’s story as an example. Perhaps her story seemed universal to other geeks and that made it easier for a broad array of them to empathize with her--after all, she was being teased and bullied for being different and for her “geeky” interests.** But what exactly did those boys say to her that made her feel bad? Well, isn’t that a ridiculously callous question? All we need to know is it was bad enough to make her cry and no longer want to take her Star Wars water bottle. In the face of her unhappiness, I’m betting no one would feel right about grilling her, especially with an aim to argue that she somehow wasn’t justified in feeling that way.
But once you reach adulthood, that callous reaction becomes much more commonplace when talking about harassment and exclusion; people want to know what happened, largely so they can assess whether they find your emotional response justifiable. “Wait, what made you feel uncomfortable? Oh, that? That isn’t even a big deal/That wouldn’t bother me/Others have it worse/Can’t you take a joke/You should just suck it up/Well, if you don’t like it, you can just go somewhere else/It’s part of the culture” etc.
I acknowledge that part of this callousness is due to the fact that there’s less compassion for adults, regardless of their gender. But that doesn’t account for all of it. The problem is compounded when a)the harassment is sexual and b)the victim is a woman.
For one, the lack of empathy (“this isn’t a big deal”) can be tied to a lack of perspective: not everyone experiences sexual harassment, and men certainly don’t experience it on the same scale or in the same way that women do, so it may be more difficult for them to empathize (this of course doesn’t give them a free pass, just explains why some men have trouble being sympathetic). Some men don’t understand the ways that sexual harassment and bullying can make the victim feel uncomfortable, alienated, or even unsafe because they’ve never been subjected to it. And of course, some men just don’t care either way because they’re not personally hurt or excluded by it, and in fact, enjoy being able to harass women and and don’t want to give it up. If they felt sympathy for one victim of sexual harassment, wouldn’t they have to question their own behavior? Cognitive dissonance? Oh no, we can’t have that!
For another, sexual harassment opens the door to victim-blaming in a way that is far less feasible in cases like Katie’s. No one asks if there was something Katie did that meant she was “asking for it” or deserved to be bullied. But in the case of sexual harassment, there will probably be a lot of interest in what the victim was wearing, whether she was being flirtatious, whether she was drunk, etc. (i.e., victim-blaming and slut-shaming). This means that, for some people, sympathy for women who’ve been sexually harassed is conditioned on whether they conform to the flawed notions of what a truly “blameless victim” looks like.
With all of this in mind, let’s take one more look at Katie’s story. What moved people? I think it was ultimately because it was sad to think of her giving up something she loved, something that made her happy, all just to avoid being made fun of. It was sad to think that gradually, she might change herself and her interests to avoid being targeted, instead of just being herself. And it was sad to think that all of this trouble was caused by some arbitrary, baseless notion that she wasn’t supposed to like Star Wars because it was “for boys.” But the point is: all of that is still sad regardless of her age, interests or the nature of the bullying. And it happens all the time (and this is only the tip of the iceberg.)
-C
*Yup, bullying, not “trolling.” Jay Smooth does a great job explaining why these coordinated attacks should not be understood as harmless trolling, but as an effort to intimidate, bully and silence. I want this distinction to catch on because it’s essential to understanding the nature of harassment and bullying in a digital world.
**Although Nick Mamatas makes a good case that the perception that geeks are bullied for their interests does not reflect reality, I’ll still argue that the perception is fairly strong, and was probably at play in this case.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
No free pass for HBO's "Girls"
This
may seem like belaboring a point, but even with all of the coverage
it’s been given, I would like to discuss a few things. The fact that the "Girls" controversy
centers on the representation of women, race, and class makes it a
topic of great interest to me. And being a white twenty-something recent
college graduate, I’m pretty sure I was part of the show’s target
demographic.
Anyway, "Girls" got heat for a couple of reasons: for not including a woman of color as one of its main characters, for portraying the few minor characters of color it does have in stereotypical, other-izing ways, and for having a hipster ethos and whiny, entitled characters. The last two points are less important to me, although personally, I can’t stand whiny, entitled white people (and I’m sure I’ve been one at various points in my life, but that doesn’t make it less annoying). My main point is that TV shows, movies, videogames, and comics need to be more racially diverse. Period. More diverse in general, from class to race to sexuality. It isn’t a matter of numbers, the ethnic break-down of the country, or some strict (but convenient) adherence to “realism”. It’s about representation, belonging, and exclusion. It will not be solved by stereotypical portrayals or tokenism. I’m not naive; I know how entrenched white American power is in this country. I know why there hasn’t been an honest effort to have diversity in the media or promote and invest in work by people of color. But none of it is a good reason. There isn’t a good reason for “Girls” lack of diversity either.
Nevertheless, some excuses people are making for it:
1. It’s only the first season! OMG, lay off poor Lena Dunham!
2. You weren’t saying this shit about shows like “Sex and the City” or “Freaks and Geeks”, so you can’t say it about this show.
3. If you’re a man criticizing it: it's only because the show is made for women, by a woman. You’re a sexist! If you’re a woman criticizing it: you need to support this show, because there are so few shows out there that privilege a woman’s perspective.
4. It’s realistic--- some white people only hang out with other white people. Can’t we make a show about that? Also, other races hang out with people of their own race too. If this is racist, then so are they.
5. Wait, HOW is this racist? It’s not openly hateful to black people or anything...
6. Lena Dunham is white--- how is she supposed to know how to portray people of color?
7. Blame the system/the industry, not Lena Dunham.
I would like to address each of these.
(Note: You can criticize a show on one level and praise it for others. You can be aware of a show’s failings, and still enjoy other aspects of it. Being aware of problematic representations of marginalized peoples, and not silencing anyone by dismissing their importance, is the key thing. “Girls” may be valuable for other reasons, but discussing those is not the purpose of this post. It is also not the purpose of the post to attack Lena Dunham, rather to address the arguments that people have made in defense of her/the show and its lack of diversity.)
Moving on:
1. It’s only the first season! OMG, lay off poor Lena Dunham!
I think it’s fair to judge a show on its first season. Can anyone think of a show that had an all-white or mostly white cast the first season and then came back the second season with non-tokenizing, meaningful, multiple characters of color? Because I can’t. And since there was such a poor showing this season, it’s obviously not a priority to Dunham. The casting calls for the first season were made available by the time the first episode aired, and there were only minor characters of color requested and it was obvious they would be stereotypes and/or flat, menial extras. At that point, we knew what to expect from the entire first season. If we do see more diversity next season, it will be because of how much shit the show got, not because it was the intention all along or Dunham had some independent epiphany about race representation.
2. You weren’t saying this shit about shows like “Sex and the City” or “Freaks and Geeks”, so you can’t say it about this show.
Actually, I bitch about the lack of diversity or problematic representations in many shows, even the ones I like. Many people do this, it’s just usually not listened to or taken seriously. The blogging scene, which has democratized the propagation of news and opinion beyond the established media, wasn’t as big back when “Freaks and Geeks” aired, but I’m sure that many people, especially people of color, were aware of how white the cast was. And with “Sex and the City”... do socially-conscious people even watch that? (just kidding).
Also, you could just as easily say “we” (whoever this *we* is) “didn’t criticize the lack of diversity in other shows, BUT WE SHOULD HAVE.” To say instead that "we didn’t do the right thing back then, so we shouldn’t now" is fucked up, cowardly, and not a good argument. It’s a deflection and an avoidance of the real issue at hand. I’m not sure why “Girls” is getting more heat when other shows aren’t, but I have a couple theories:
a. Annoyance with hipster culture and the whiny entitlement mentioned earlier.
b. We’re used to seeing white female characters on TV but they’re usually movie-star white: tan, thin, polished, expert make-up, impeccably dressed. These girls aren’t tan. They’re pale. They’re white-bread, urban-chic, real white people white. Culturally white. Maybe this flagged people’s attention more than the usual depiction of whiteness. These girls look more like “normal” white girls you might see on the street, which is what Dunham was going for. There’s nothing wrong with this; in fact, it’s a good thing to have characters look more like real people. But I think it might’ve drawn attention to their race more.
c. It’s set in present day, in Brooklyn. Whites are the minority in Brooklyn, and Brooklynites (obviously many of them POC) know this. Thus, the show doesn’t ring true and seemed to go out of its way to be exclusionary.
d. The show has been marketed as fresh, unique, and truly representative of our generation. But to the point where it’s excluding so much of that generation, and therefore not providing anything ground-breaking in that real sense... yeah, expect it to get more heat than a fluffy show like “Sex and the City”.
e. It’s written by a woman, for women. Yes, I do recognize that the ensuing storm of criticism could have had some opportunistic sexists jumping on the band-wagon. But they were probably going to diss the show anyway, and I doubt they care much about the race issue. I also don’t think they formed the majority of critics in any sense. However, if anyone is cloaking their sexist contempt for the show in the racial representation argument, that’s wrong and insincere. In a way, though, does it really matter WHY people are talking about this? The point is, they’re right, and this is something we should be talking about. No, “Girls” certainly should not be the only show getting heat for this, and anyone who zeroes in on it and no other shows is a hypocrite.
3. If you’re a man criticizing it: it's only because the show is made for women, by a woman. You’re a sexist! If you’re a woman criticizing it: you’re aiding and abetting sexism, and you need to support this show, because there are so few shows out there that privilege a woman’s perspective.
Yes, this show is one of the few that is trying to represent (young, white) women’s experience and is actually written by a (young, white) woman, but we can’t give it carte blanche just for that. It has a problem that’s endemic to mainstream art and media in this country that should be addressed wherever it arises. It should also be acknowledged that the show is only about young, white, middle-class women and not every woman writ large.
Furthermore, it’s unfair to label all men who would critique the show as necessarily sexist, and again, it’s a deflection. In addition, most of the race-based criticism I read was written by women. But even if we address that claim directly, the implication is that you can’t criticize a show about (white) women without being sexist. As though the only reason you could find fault with the show or want to is because you don’t like women, or you want to bring other women down. Or that even if this wasn’t your intention, you are essentially betraying “the cause” if you critique something created by women for women, regardless of racial politics. Women of color’s opinions, unique racial experience, and valid criticism are being rendered totally invisible in this equation (uh, they’re women too, so don’t they deserve to be supported by white women? You rarely hear that one). You can be both pro-racial equality and pro-feminism, and situate both at the center of your political ideology. In fact, the more recent Feminist theory is integrated with examining the intersectionality of identity based on gender, sexuality, class, ethnicity, nationality, coloniality, religion. Feminism isn’t some zero-sum game where you either support any endeavor of (white) women or you’re a sexist. It’s more nuanced. And to pressure women of color to support any white woman regardless of differences, as though their identification as women mattered more than their racial identification, implies that white cis-hetero women are the universal embodiment of all women, and assumes a unity between women that doesn’t exist. It erases both the privilege of white women and the unique struggles that women of color face. Telling all women they need to blindly support this show because it’s a measly crumb of female authorship that mainstream TV has allowed us is not only a lazy, disingenuous attempt at unity, but also a way to silence dissent from marginalized voices that we already hear from the least. That’s never a good thing for Feminism. We can have solidarity, certainly, but we also must be free to criticize eachother.
But solidarity can’t be genuine when there’s such a double-standard and no acknowledgement of inequality between white and non-white women. We need to encourage debate and discussion among all women, from every community, if we can ever hope to unite in a meaningful way, not stifle it. Solidarity needs to flow from both directions, not just one. As African-American Feminist poet Audre Lorde said: “the oppression of women knows no ethnic or racial boundaries, true, but that does not mean that it is identical within those differences”. Lorde writes of how, throughout the history of the women’s movement, it has been all too common for white women to expect women of color to support their endeavors, while not supporting women of color in turn, continuing to marginalize and stereotype them, and not acknowledging their own privilege vis a vis race.
In this case, stories about white women are posited as stories for all women to support and enjoy equally despite unequal representation. In a telling way, the show is just called “Girls”, not “White Girls”.
4. It’s realistic--- some white people only hang out with other white people. Can’t we make a show about that? Also, other races hang out with people of their own race too.
Whites who only hang out with other whites get represented much more frequently than Asians who hang out with Asians, Arabs who hang out with Arabs, Native Americans who only hang out with Native Americans... you get my point. Where are the shows about them, by the way? Nonexistent. Even shows that simply feature a mainly non-white cast or non-white protagonist are often purposefully not funded or given a chance to air. For example: when Issa Rae, creator of the popular web-show “Awkward Black Girl” met with TV executives to discuss bringing ABG to TV, they made it clear that she would not be given full creative control the way Dunham has over “Girls”, despite Rae’s level of success and accolades.
Also, even if something happens in reality, that doesn’t necessarily justify its existence in art. The artist’s representation of the world has the potential to be anything, so when they choose to make it an exclusionary, white-bread world, we can say something about it, because it was their deliberate decision.
5. Wait, HOW is this racist? It’s not openly hateful to black people or anything...
True, but this is a more subtle, insidious but prevalent form of racism; exclusion. Marginalization. Being either absent from the popular narratives that shape and drive American culture or only available in stereotypical or inessential capacities. And anyone who denies the importance of this is taking it for granted.
6. Lena Dunham is white--- how is she supposed to know how to portray people of color?
To me, this is by far the most legitimate excuse for not having a diverse cast. Given the stereotypical POC side-characters in season one, it’s obvious that this was a stumbling block for Dunham. Some claim that it would have been better at that point if the POC side characters didn’t exist on the show, because they only perpetuate stereotypes and serve to reinforce the white character’s realness and depth next to their flatness. I understand this position completely. Yet I’m torn between pointing out that on the one hand, non-white people are people too, so you can write them as you would any other character rather than treat them as “Other”, and on the other hand, not wanting a non-white character to be white-washed, removed of cultural markers and unique experiences they’ve had as a result of their race. I understand that it’s a tough balancing act for a white writer and entails straying from the “write what you know” maxim, but if it really mattered to Dunham, couldn’t she at least consult or collaborate with someone who could help her there? It’s worth going out on a limb for. Also, shouldn’t the fact that white writers have such trouble conceptualizing characters of color show us how racially stratified our apparently post-racial society still is? It’s pretty troubling....
7. Blame the system/the industry, not Lena Dunham.
We can do both. Lena Dunham has been influenced by the system/the industry, but she has her own agency and could resist if she wanted to (and has resisted tropes of the industry, on other fronts). Yes, we do need to take issue with the entire industry, but Lena Dunham is part of the industry now--- it’s made up of individuals. Again, she doesn’t get a free pass because she’s an indie writer or a woman. We need to be firm about what kinds of worlds we want to see portrayed on TV; we need to insist upon inclusive, diverse worlds. “Girls” takes its place alongside the majority of TV shows in which characters of color, as blogger Jen Wang puts it, “function as props, plot devices, foils... for the white leads. [They’re] one-dimensional, which only [throw the white lead’s] three-dimensionality in starker relief... their stereotypical un-realness only makes the white lead’s ‘realness’ seem all the more staggering, [a] realness for which [“Girls”] has been endlessly lauded for thus far by its admirers”.
For so many, “Girls” is not the first show that they have criticized for its race problem. But even with those for whom it was, I hope they don’t stop here. I hope they don’t ever stop, even with art and media that they love.
EDIT: It looks like what I predicted might happen, (i.e., Lena Dunham back-pedals and tries to make the next season more racially diverse because of all the heat the show got) is exactly what happened. I’m glad she got the message and is working to remedy it. More people should be this receptive in the industry. However, it remains to be seen how these characters of color will be portrayed; note that the casting call is not for any specific race, and in fact, is open for "Caucasians" as well. Also, it asks for “hipster-types” of all ethnicities, which could lead to white-washing over their identities in favor of emphasizing their hipster-ness. They might only be side-characters as well. I don’t think we should close the book on this and stop scrutinizing. And oh, in response to the tweet by The New Yorker’s Emily Nussbaum at the end in that article (“Who is more entitled, the character of Hannah [on "Girls"] or the young bloggers who feel Lena Dunham owes them everything?”): Yes, how entitled of people to want equality. The nerve of some people.
-J
Anyway, "Girls" got heat for a couple of reasons: for not including a woman of color as one of its main characters, for portraying the few minor characters of color it does have in stereotypical, other-izing ways, and for having a hipster ethos and whiny, entitled characters. The last two points are less important to me, although personally, I can’t stand whiny, entitled white people (and I’m sure I’ve been one at various points in my life, but that doesn’t make it less annoying). My main point is that TV shows, movies, videogames, and comics need to be more racially diverse. Period. More diverse in general, from class to race to sexuality. It isn’t a matter of numbers, the ethnic break-down of the country, or some strict (but convenient) adherence to “realism”. It’s about representation, belonging, and exclusion. It will not be solved by stereotypical portrayals or tokenism. I’m not naive; I know how entrenched white American power is in this country. I know why there hasn’t been an honest effort to have diversity in the media or promote and invest in work by people of color. But none of it is a good reason. There isn’t a good reason for “Girls” lack of diversity either.
Nevertheless, some excuses people are making for it:
1. It’s only the first season! OMG, lay off poor Lena Dunham!
2. You weren’t saying this shit about shows like “Sex and the City” or “Freaks and Geeks”, so you can’t say it about this show.
3. If you’re a man criticizing it: it's only because the show is made for women, by a woman. You’re a sexist! If you’re a woman criticizing it: you need to support this show, because there are so few shows out there that privilege a woman’s perspective.
4. It’s realistic--- some white people only hang out with other white people. Can’t we make a show about that? Also, other races hang out with people of their own race too. If this is racist, then so are they.
5. Wait, HOW is this racist? It’s not openly hateful to black people or anything...
6. Lena Dunham is white--- how is she supposed to know how to portray people of color?
7. Blame the system/the industry, not Lena Dunham.
I would like to address each of these.
(Note: You can criticize a show on one level and praise it for others. You can be aware of a show’s failings, and still enjoy other aspects of it. Being aware of problematic representations of marginalized peoples, and not silencing anyone by dismissing their importance, is the key thing. “Girls” may be valuable for other reasons, but discussing those is not the purpose of this post. It is also not the purpose of the post to attack Lena Dunham, rather to address the arguments that people have made in defense of her/the show and its lack of diversity.)
Moving on:
1. It’s only the first season! OMG, lay off poor Lena Dunham!
I think it’s fair to judge a show on its first season. Can anyone think of a show that had an all-white or mostly white cast the first season and then came back the second season with non-tokenizing, meaningful, multiple characters of color? Because I can’t. And since there was such a poor showing this season, it’s obviously not a priority to Dunham. The casting calls for the first season were made available by the time the first episode aired, and there were only minor characters of color requested and it was obvious they would be stereotypes and/or flat, menial extras. At that point, we knew what to expect from the entire first season. If we do see more diversity next season, it will be because of how much shit the show got, not because it was the intention all along or Dunham had some independent epiphany about race representation.
2. You weren’t saying this shit about shows like “Sex and the City” or “Freaks and Geeks”, so you can’t say it about this show.
Actually, I bitch about the lack of diversity or problematic representations in many shows, even the ones I like. Many people do this, it’s just usually not listened to or taken seriously. The blogging scene, which has democratized the propagation of news and opinion beyond the established media, wasn’t as big back when “Freaks and Geeks” aired, but I’m sure that many people, especially people of color, were aware of how white the cast was. And with “Sex and the City”... do socially-conscious people even watch that? (just kidding).
Also, you could just as easily say “we” (whoever this *we* is) “didn’t criticize the lack of diversity in other shows, BUT WE SHOULD HAVE.” To say instead that "we didn’t do the right thing back then, so we shouldn’t now" is fucked up, cowardly, and not a good argument. It’s a deflection and an avoidance of the real issue at hand. I’m not sure why “Girls” is getting more heat when other shows aren’t, but I have a couple theories:
a. Annoyance with hipster culture and the whiny entitlement mentioned earlier.
b. We’re used to seeing white female characters on TV but they’re usually movie-star white: tan, thin, polished, expert make-up, impeccably dressed. These girls aren’t tan. They’re pale. They’re white-bread, urban-chic, real white people white. Culturally white. Maybe this flagged people’s attention more than the usual depiction of whiteness. These girls look more like “normal” white girls you might see on the street, which is what Dunham was going for. There’s nothing wrong with this; in fact, it’s a good thing to have characters look more like real people. But I think it might’ve drawn attention to their race more.
c. It’s set in present day, in Brooklyn. Whites are the minority in Brooklyn, and Brooklynites (obviously many of them POC) know this. Thus, the show doesn’t ring true and seemed to go out of its way to be exclusionary.
d. The show has been marketed as fresh, unique, and truly representative of our generation. But to the point where it’s excluding so much of that generation, and therefore not providing anything ground-breaking in that real sense... yeah, expect it to get more heat than a fluffy show like “Sex and the City”.
e. It’s written by a woman, for women. Yes, I do recognize that the ensuing storm of criticism could have had some opportunistic sexists jumping on the band-wagon. But they were probably going to diss the show anyway, and I doubt they care much about the race issue. I also don’t think they formed the majority of critics in any sense. However, if anyone is cloaking their sexist contempt for the show in the racial representation argument, that’s wrong and insincere. In a way, though, does it really matter WHY people are talking about this? The point is, they’re right, and this is something we should be talking about. No, “Girls” certainly should not be the only show getting heat for this, and anyone who zeroes in on it and no other shows is a hypocrite.
3. If you’re a man criticizing it: it's only because the show is made for women, by a woman. You’re a sexist! If you’re a woman criticizing it: you’re aiding and abetting sexism, and you need to support this show, because there are so few shows out there that privilege a woman’s perspective.
Yes, this show is one of the few that is trying to represent (young, white) women’s experience and is actually written by a (young, white) woman, but we can’t give it carte blanche just for that. It has a problem that’s endemic to mainstream art and media in this country that should be addressed wherever it arises. It should also be acknowledged that the show is only about young, white, middle-class women and not every woman writ large.
Furthermore, it’s unfair to label all men who would critique the show as necessarily sexist, and again, it’s a deflection. In addition, most of the race-based criticism I read was written by women. But even if we address that claim directly, the implication is that you can’t criticize a show about (white) women without being sexist. As though the only reason you could find fault with the show or want to is because you don’t like women, or you want to bring other women down. Or that even if this wasn’t your intention, you are essentially betraying “the cause” if you critique something created by women for women, regardless of racial politics. Women of color’s opinions, unique racial experience, and valid criticism are being rendered totally invisible in this equation (uh, they’re women too, so don’t they deserve to be supported by white women? You rarely hear that one). You can be both pro-racial equality and pro-feminism, and situate both at the center of your political ideology. In fact, the more recent Feminist theory is integrated with examining the intersectionality of identity based on gender, sexuality, class, ethnicity, nationality, coloniality, religion. Feminism isn’t some zero-sum game where you either support any endeavor of (white) women or you’re a sexist. It’s more nuanced. And to pressure women of color to support any white woman regardless of differences, as though their identification as women mattered more than their racial identification, implies that white cis-hetero women are the universal embodiment of all women, and assumes a unity between women that doesn’t exist. It erases both the privilege of white women and the unique struggles that women of color face. Telling all women they need to blindly support this show because it’s a measly crumb of female authorship that mainstream TV has allowed us is not only a lazy, disingenuous attempt at unity, but also a way to silence dissent from marginalized voices that we already hear from the least. That’s never a good thing for Feminism. We can have solidarity, certainly, but we also must be free to criticize eachother.
But solidarity can’t be genuine when there’s such a double-standard and no acknowledgement of inequality between white and non-white women. We need to encourage debate and discussion among all women, from every community, if we can ever hope to unite in a meaningful way, not stifle it. Solidarity needs to flow from both directions, not just one. As African-American Feminist poet Audre Lorde said: “the oppression of women knows no ethnic or racial boundaries, true, but that does not mean that it is identical within those differences”. Lorde writes of how, throughout the history of the women’s movement, it has been all too common for white women to expect women of color to support their endeavors, while not supporting women of color in turn, continuing to marginalize and stereotype them, and not acknowledging their own privilege vis a vis race.
In this case, stories about white women are posited as stories for all women to support and enjoy equally despite unequal representation. In a telling way, the show is just called “Girls”, not “White Girls”.
4. It’s realistic--- some white people only hang out with other white people. Can’t we make a show about that? Also, other races hang out with people of their own race too.
Whites who only hang out with other whites get represented much more frequently than Asians who hang out with Asians, Arabs who hang out with Arabs, Native Americans who only hang out with Native Americans... you get my point. Where are the shows about them, by the way? Nonexistent. Even shows that simply feature a mainly non-white cast or non-white protagonist are often purposefully not funded or given a chance to air. For example: when Issa Rae, creator of the popular web-show “Awkward Black Girl” met with TV executives to discuss bringing ABG to TV, they made it clear that she would not be given full creative control the way Dunham has over “Girls”, despite Rae’s level of success and accolades.
Also, even if something happens in reality, that doesn’t necessarily justify its existence in art. The artist’s representation of the world has the potential to be anything, so when they choose to make it an exclusionary, white-bread world, we can say something about it, because it was their deliberate decision.
5. Wait, HOW is this racist? It’s not openly hateful to black people or anything...
True, but this is a more subtle, insidious but prevalent form of racism; exclusion. Marginalization. Being either absent from the popular narratives that shape and drive American culture or only available in stereotypical or inessential capacities. And anyone who denies the importance of this is taking it for granted.
6. Lena Dunham is white--- how is she supposed to know how to portray people of color?
To me, this is by far the most legitimate excuse for not having a diverse cast. Given the stereotypical POC side-characters in season one, it’s obvious that this was a stumbling block for Dunham. Some claim that it would have been better at that point if the POC side characters didn’t exist on the show, because they only perpetuate stereotypes and serve to reinforce the white character’s realness and depth next to their flatness. I understand this position completely. Yet I’m torn between pointing out that on the one hand, non-white people are people too, so you can write them as you would any other character rather than treat them as “Other”, and on the other hand, not wanting a non-white character to be white-washed, removed of cultural markers and unique experiences they’ve had as a result of their race. I understand that it’s a tough balancing act for a white writer and entails straying from the “write what you know” maxim, but if it really mattered to Dunham, couldn’t she at least consult or collaborate with someone who could help her there? It’s worth going out on a limb for. Also, shouldn’t the fact that white writers have such trouble conceptualizing characters of color show us how racially stratified our apparently post-racial society still is? It’s pretty troubling....
7. Blame the system/the industry, not Lena Dunham.
We can do both. Lena Dunham has been influenced by the system/the industry, but she has her own agency and could resist if she wanted to (and has resisted tropes of the industry, on other fronts). Yes, we do need to take issue with the entire industry, but Lena Dunham is part of the industry now--- it’s made up of individuals. Again, she doesn’t get a free pass because she’s an indie writer or a woman. We need to be firm about what kinds of worlds we want to see portrayed on TV; we need to insist upon inclusive, diverse worlds. “Girls” takes its place alongside the majority of TV shows in which characters of color, as blogger Jen Wang puts it, “function as props, plot devices, foils... for the white leads. [They’re] one-dimensional, which only [throw the white lead’s] three-dimensionality in starker relief... their stereotypical un-realness only makes the white lead’s ‘realness’ seem all the more staggering, [a] realness for which [“Girls”] has been endlessly lauded for thus far by its admirers”.
For so many, “Girls” is not the first show that they have criticized for its race problem. But even with those for whom it was, I hope they don’t stop here. I hope they don’t ever stop, even with art and media that they love.
EDIT: It looks like what I predicted might happen, (i.e., Lena Dunham back-pedals and tries to make the next season more racially diverse because of all the heat the show got) is exactly what happened. I’m glad she got the message and is working to remedy it. More people should be this receptive in the industry. However, it remains to be seen how these characters of color will be portrayed; note that the casting call is not for any specific race, and in fact, is open for "Caucasians" as well. Also, it asks for “hipster-types” of all ethnicities, which could lead to white-washing over their identities in favor of emphasizing their hipster-ness. They might only be side-characters as well. I don’t think we should close the book on this and stop scrutinizing. And oh, in response to the tweet by The New Yorker’s Emily Nussbaum at the end in that article (“Who is more entitled, the character of Hannah [on "Girls"] or the young bloggers who feel Lena Dunham owes them everything?”): Yes, how entitled of people to want equality. The nerve of some people.
-J
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)