My Childhood Obsession, Reclaimed?

Those of you who know me personally have heard me do a lot of complaining recently about artifacts of my childhood, like Rainbow Brite and the Lisa Frank line, being sexualized in order to appeal to today's preteens, raised as they were on Bratz dolls and kiddie thongs. Well, there's one update that I just can't abide, the bendy straw that breaks the pink, sparkly camel's back, and that's the Sweet Valley High reissues.

I, like many women my age, devoured the books, dreaming of a high-school experience filled with convertibles and love triangles. I always knew I was more of an Elizabeth than a Jessica (the former edited the school paper; the latter spent more time chasing boys), and even then I knew there was a bit of a madonna/whore thing going on, but the books were fun and silly and age appropriate. To this day, I still think of The Unicorns (SVH's popular girls, "school royalty") whenever I see a young woman in purple!

They've already been discussed and decried in feminist circles, with former fans citing outrage that Jessica and Elizabeth Wakefield, the novel's protagonists who were once "perfect size sixes" now being "perfect size fours." I agree that the focus on body image and the ever-shrinking perfect teen is certainly alarming, but it seems there might be vindication for SVH fans on the horizon.

Diablo Cody, known for her work on Juno and Jennifer's Body, which I've discussed on this blog, has been tapped to write a film version. She's been quoted describing the film as "the madonna and the whore, running around," and that makes me a little excited, like maybe she can come up with something that gets around all the posturing and the body image nonsense. I dig Cody's quirky lexicon, and I see it as akin to the way girls that I age speak to one another. My friends and I had our own code words; I think that resonates. Needless to say, not everyone is a fan of the project. I'm certainly looking forward to seeing what happens, though.

On Aha! Moments, Stereotypes, and Self-Definition

A central tenet of my personal teaching philosophy is the importance of cultural awareness. That term means several things for me pedagogically. First, it means opening my students up to views outside of their own and teaching them that they can simultaneously disagree with and respect one another. Though my students are of different socioeconomic, religious, and ethnic backgrounds (as well as a number of other backgrounds I haven't named, of course), they all seem to enjoy this part of the learning process, after the initial shock of being allowed to "argue" in class wears off. Though I've introduced this spirit of debate differently in the past, I decided to use a "Lunch Menu" activity from my school's archive of teaching material to serve that purpose this semester. My 1102 class is organized around the topic of community dynamics this semester. We'd been talking since the class began about how the urge to define others was actually in some ways, an urge to define the self. They were in the middle of researching papers on stereotypes of global communities as they are represented in popular media, so we'd already spent some time discussing what creates a stereotype and how generalizations breed inaccuracy. As the class began to look at the menus (one meat and potatoes on a disposable plate, one vegetarian on more environmentally friendly tableware) and decide who would choose what (men, women, Democrats, Republicans, those under 40 or over 65, etc.), they mostly agreed. This provided an opportunity to discuss the fact that stereotypes' generality are connected to their wide dissemination. The trend of similar answers continued through questions about political parties and age groups, but ground to a quick halt when the subject of gender was broached. At first, the majority of the students agreed that men would choose the carnivorous option and women the lighter fare. They cited a cultural equation of masculinity with strength that most seemed to find valid. After a few moments of prodding from me, though, a few men in the class dismissed both meals as too feminine, due to the fact that the steak and potato were accompanied by a double martini--apparently a girly choice of alcohol. I then asked them what fictional character was most closely associated with bringing the martini back into vogue in the 1960s, and some students immediately responded, "James Bond." When I questioned whether or not James Bond embodied masculinity, I could see some light bulbs beginning to go on: masculinity could vary! It could exist in different types, manifest itself in various ways!

As discussion moved on, one male student offered the following justification for the equation steak eater=masculine: "If I was on a date with a girl and she ordered that, there wouldn't be a second date!" I didn't have time to decide whether I was offended at his sexism or overjoyed at the opportunity for discussion, or a little of both. Chaos had officially broken out in room 310. Female members of the class were irate, and many of them offered the rejoinder that they would certainly feel feminine even if they ordered a steak, that femininity was complex, that it should ultimately be an issue of self-definition. At that point, I felt the need to point out two things: first, that the male student felt that dating a girl who exhibited what he considered unfeminine traits, even just once, somehow called his own masculinity into question, thereby proving something we'd been discussing all semester long--in defining other people, you ultimately say something about how you define yourself. Second, I felt the need to push against the women in the class's ire a bit. Earlier, almost all of them had agreed that "women" would order the vegetarian meal. Since several of them now expressed an individual desire to order the steak, by their own definition, they were not women. When confronted with this syllogism, several students protested that they had been deliberately asked to stereotype themselves. I acknowledged that was true, and then ended the discussion by asking them to consider how often the circumstances in which they live ask them to stereotype themselves in similar ways.
This is the second way I would like my students to be culturally aware. I feel like getting them to see the ways in which they are connected to and constructed by the world around them, even through small things like the activity described above, can show them that critical thinking is not just for the classroom. It can help them make sense of a larger world that may not respect them as individuals, as much as they are taught that our society values the strength of the individual above all else.

Thoughts, friends?

Why Tina Fey Needs to be My BFF

I'm so sorry it's been a bazillion years since I last posted. I just had to share the following passage from Tina Fey's recent Vogue interview. Fey is asked about her personal style and responds thusly:

I spend most of my time in my daily life trying to be like a fashion noncombatant. My hands are up! I'm not even trying! That said, to talk about the impact of fashion is really interesting. I think so much of it is tied into feminism. I am a post-baby boomer who has been handed a sort of Spice Girls' version of feminism. We're supposed to be wearing half-shirts and jumping around. And, you know, maybe that's not panning out. But you can tell different generations of women by whether or not they wear that Hillary Clinton blue power suit or the reappropriated Playboy-symbol necklace worn ironically. I think women dress for other women to let them know what their deal is. Because if women were only dressing for men, there would be nothing but Victoria's Secret. There would be no Dior.

How much do I love that she turns a vapid question into an opportunity to criticize equally vapid, commercialized third wave feminist politics? The answer: A WHOLE LOT.

Also, that comment about women dressing for women seems layered and interesting. I totally agree that as women, we tend to see a lot of power in the way we visually represent ourselves, and I agree that we tend to gear that power toward intimidating other women. The last sentence, though, seems to suggest that "dressing for men" can only mean turning yourself into a sexual object, whereas wearing high fashion, like Christian Dior, pays no mind to the male gaze. I think that's a bit too black and white, but I understand her general meaning, I think.

I love that Vogue is running interviews like this now. Thanks, Tina, for showing the world that smart women are totally foxy.

In which I am (almost) as awesome as Shakespeare, or, Take that, Thomas Middleton!

In the lyric poetry class I'm taking this semester, we've not only had to read and critically analyze poems, we've also had to produce them in order to examine things like form and meter in a more hands-on way. Though I'm by no means a poet, I am especially proud of the last poem I wrote for class, and I wanted to share it with you. The assignment was to take a quatrain from an existing sonnet that we read and expand it into a full, quasi-original sonnet. This is what I came up with.

(The first quatrain is from Shakespeare's Sonnet 93)

So shall I live, supposing thou art true,
Like a deceive'd husband—so love's face
May still seem love to me, though altered new:
Thy looks with me, thy heart in other place.


Which ignorance be worse—presuming feign'd
Affection pure, or feigning falsehood right?
Both ask the heart be tightly trained,
And love obscure us from a harsher sight.

If knowledge power is, and dumb be bliss,
Then dumb I'll be, pray gods my lips shut fast!
If thou in secret find another's kiss,
My power's mute, but that our time shall last.

And since the moon cares not for constancy,
I'll just take light from your security.

------------
What do you think? I'll gladly accept suggestions for titles, as I can't think of any.

Quick hit: Girls Investigate Our Views On Media

This video is the first of four released by the Women's Media Center (WMC). In it, young women discuss the media in their lives, how they feel about it, and whether or not it represents them. They're incredibly socially aware and articulate, much more so than I was at that age. It makes me very happy to see young women express themselves this way. I think I've found the charity I'm donating to next year!

A not-so-Glee-ful experience

I refuse to stop watching FOX's Glee, and I feel kind of bad about it. Kind of. I've been a fan of Ryan Murphy's offbeat, quasi-stereotypical style since the days of Popular, second on my list of Most Underrated TV Shows Ever (Freaks and Geeks tops that list, in case you were wondering). I think Popular did a great job of relying on stereotypes just enough to let the audience know that it was actually decrying those stereotypes. Glee tries to do the same thing, and so far, fails miserably at it. I really really wanted this show to be awesome. It's a musical, for one thing. In my world, there can never be enough of those. For another, it stars Lea Michele, who blew my mind with her awesomeness in Spring Awakening and is poised to be Broadway's Next Big Thing. While the pilot episode was filled with heart and promise and that transcendent cover of "Don't Stop Believing," the following episodes just keep going more and more into tokenism territory. There's not a woman on the show who's not a self-centered shrew, except for maybe Mercedes, the young black woman who refers to herself as "chocolate" and repeatedly spouts phrases like "Oh no you di'n't!" and "You betta watch yo'self, white girl!", and Tina, the quiet Asian with a secret. But the most complex and compelling characters (and the ones that have me thinking seriously about not watching the show anymore) are Kurt, a gay student who's just come out to his hypermasculine father (played brilliantly by that forgotten treasure of the 90s, Mike O'Malley), and Artie, who is in a wheelchair and was the protagonist of last week's episode, oh-so-originally titled "Wheels."

Kurt is flamboyant, dresses in way too much lame', and idolizes Broadway songstresses. Sure. okay. I expected that from television. It's not the greatest, but whatever. I think the great thing about Kurt's portrayal is his relationship with his father. The give and take of his dealing with Kurt's sexuality is heartwarming and honest, and though he doesn't agree with it, he loves his son enough to go to bat for him when he is discriminated against. They also have real conversations. Kurt frequently reminds me of what Rickie Vasquez might look like if My So-Called Life were a comedy and on the air today. Anyone who has seen that amazing show knows that that is a significant comparison. Here's hoping Kurt's character arcs continue to be complex.

And now to Artie, the reason for this post. There's been a great deal of discussion online regarding last week's episode. Some has been negative, some positive. I agree with a bit of both. I second Bitch Magazine's assertion that the episode contains a fair bit of "crip drag," especially in its closing number, wherein the entire cast performs a wheelchair dance version of "Proud Mary." Get it? "Rollin', Rollin'..." Yeah. They went there. I also agree with this blogger, who says the following about living with a disability:

[Artie's] portrayal as a kid who is frustrated and hampered by his disability yet is doing his best to live with it is such a much more realistic portrayal of what its like to live with a disability than other portrayals where the disabled person is a rude, bitter, sarcastic bastard who uses his disability as an excuse to avoid the real world (I'm looking at you, House), or a plucky, peppy go-getter who barely seems aware of her disability because gosh-darn it, its just a little ole minor inconvenience that doesn't really impact her life. When you have a disability, you are always, always acutely aware of it, and you live in a perpetual state of frustration over it - or so has been my experience. You can't let it stop you, and you just have to work with it as best as you can, but it's something that colors everything you do and every interaction you have with any other person and it is a source of constant frustration.


As someone who has spent every day of her life in a back-and-forth negotiation with physical ability, it really made me happy to see Artie expressing those struggles as well. Even as I lamented the fact that the young man playing him is able-bodied (disabled actors are notoriously unemployed, unless they're Marlee Matlin, and even then the majority of her roles boil down to either "She's so brave!" or "Oh, look, she's actually normal!"), I couldn't help but appreciate the obvious work he'd done to get inside his character's head. I guess I'll stick around to see what happens.

Quick hit: Yay Canada!

I'm totally loving this article from Canadian newspaper The Star. I really wish that more people thought like that. Even the pro-choice bits don't come on super strong, which I really appreciate, since that's one issue that I struggle to find a position on, as a Christian Feminist Edit: She does call pro-lifers "anti-choice," which is a rhetorical move I don't support at all.. I heard about the new Gail Collins book that the author mentions on NPR as well. It sounds really interesting. Plus, there's a Mad Men reference, so I want to hang out with the author a lot now. Any thoughts on the article?