Tag: popular culture

Changing Pop-Culture to Change Ourselves [Understanding Popular Culture, Part 4]

tekanji

In the opening of this series, I talked about how popular culture influenced us because it’s all around us. I talked about how it becomes the elephant in the room because of that. But what I didn’t talk about was how popular culture fits into our battle to change harmful cultural paradigms. And, really, that’s a glaring oversight that I intend to correct right now.

You see, I came across a post today (… oy. by Julia) that gave me one of those headsmacking, “OH!” moments. Not because I agree with her — far from it, I’m about to spend this entire post rebutting the points that she made — but because I finally understand the basis for the argument that [x] concern needs to be shelved so [y] and [z] concern can be taken care of first.

I. Chicken or the Egg Syndrome

So much of what happens in comics seems to be based on predispositions of society. The sexualization won’t really change until society changes and doesn’t, as a whole, view it as being so acceptable.

I’m not going to dispute Julia’s assertion that “much of what happens in comics seems to be based on predispositions of society,” because, well, I agree. Popular culture draws its themes, plots, dialogue, stereotypes, and all that other good stuff from our existing culture. Nothing exists in a vacuum, and it would be naive to pretend that the treatment of women in comics/movies/etc. is self-contained.

But, at the same time, nothing exists in a vacuum. Popular culture doesn’t just draw from society, it is part of what shapes it. Popular culture has been around as long as societies have existed — being inspired by, reinforcing, and ultimately shaping society. Because of this, presenting the problem as linear — “culture –> popular culture” — is misleading. The reality is that the relationship is a circle, with popular culture influencing society and society in turn influencing popular culture.

II. Debunking the “Cause-Effect” Theory

Simply stated, my issue is with the cause and not the effect, because the effect will not dissipate until the cause is eliminated. I would truly like to see things change! But in order for that to happen the root of the problem has to be attacked, and that root is so large that it will take decades, probably, even with all the troops called in (and hopefully behaving themselves).

Bearing in mind what I said in Section I, I’d like to now turn to Julia’s argument that her “issue is with the cause and not the effect, because the effect will not dissipate until the cause is eliminated.” Well, it should come as no surprise that I disagree with the way in which she chose to frame the issue. Here again, I have to say that the “cause-effect” relationship she sets up is misleading because it oversimplifies the issue.

What root of which problem? The sexualization of women? Well, that’s just one facet of the oppression that women face. The patriarchy? Two problems there: 1) it’s an abstract concept, not a concrete problem to be solved, and 2) it supposes that gender inequity is the root of all oppression. Even if you use the word as I sometimes do, as a feminist shorthand for the oppressive institutions that legitimize hierarchies of power, “fighting oppression” is a starting point, not a path to success.

There is no concrete “root” because the problem of oppression intersects all kinds of different cultures. And, frankly, the group who we often think of as our feminist foremothers didn’t just fail to solve the problem of oppression because they didn’t have enough time, but because their idea of what the “root of all oppression” was too narrow. You can’t solve oppression by telling everyone to adopt your particular brand of tunnel vision.

III. The Importance of Recognizing Intersectionality

Let me clarify about the “particular brand of tunnel vision” thing. I don’t think having tunnel vision is a bad thing. We all have our pet topics and that’s cool. Some of us are more focused than others. Studying popular culture is probably my main focus, but since I love cross-sections I also keep abreast of other topics such as feminist issues,
human sexuality, and general oppression work. I don’t think that this is inherently better or worse than someone who chooses one topic, or even a smaller subset of topics, to focus on.

In fact, I’d go one step farther to say that the only way I think we’ll ever have a chance at winning the battle against oppression (as much as one can “win” such a thing) is if we wage this war on multiple levels. I believe that every fight we fight — whether it be against domestic violence or raising our voices against the overabundance of “sexy girls who kick ass” in popular media — is a valuable one. I believe every stride we make, however small and however flawed, should be appreciated.

That doesn’t mean that we have no right to critique it, but rather that the critique shouldn’t be done from a “our time could be spent better elsewhere.” Maybe your time could be spent better elsewhere, but you do not speak for me. If what speaks to you is fighting sexism on a societal level and shelving popular culture, then that’s wonderful! I, for one, am glad that there are activist out there who tackle issues that I don’t have the time and/or energy for.

IV. If the Goal is Unattainable, Why Bother?

And we can’t just snap our fingers and change society. Nor will a small group of people have that large of an impact on the world, in this case. It’s a monumental, impractical and impossible task to attempt, that at this point in time will lead to failure, and then disappointment, resentment and anger over that failure.

No matter how many times I read this quote, all I can think of is, “Oh, come on. Let’s be serious here.” The same can be said of feminism, or civil rights activism, or, really, any cause where people struggle against the way society is. It’s an uphill battle with few victories, and if you’re fighting for the glory you’d just as soon be better off cheering from the sidelines because it ain’t gonna happen.

But, faliure as a reason why we shouldn’t fight for our pet projects? Faliure? I mean, sure, there are some days when I look at what we do to each other and feel that the cause is hopeless. My blogging doesn’t stop the misogynists. It doesn’t stop the feminist infighting. It doesn’t stop the sexualization of women, inside or outside of comics. And if that’s a goal I expect to attain then, yeah, I’m going to fail.

When I, and I suspect many other people who fight oppression in whatever form they like best, say things like “ending the sexualization of women in comic books” is a goal of mine, I don’t mean that it’s my expectation that I, personally, will lead the crusade that once and for all eradicates the way women are used and abused in comics. I’m pretty sure that’s not what Girl Wonder thinks either. That kind of goal is known as a “long term goal” — which means that it’s the ideal that we strive for with our activism. It gives us a common goal from which to form a community.

Maybe one day this community will be big enough to make an impact. Maybe it won’t. But it’s stupid to just give up on fighting for what you believe in because you might not be around to see the main goal come to fruition. And, really, if everyone thought like that then the goal wouldn’t come to fruition! Fighting oppression starts with education — education of ourselves and spreading the awareness to others. If even one person becomes more informed on the issue, and therefore less likely to unthinkingly endorse it, then haven’t we already won?

V. Conclusion

There is no one way to fight for what we believe in. There’s no one topic, no magic button to press to get where we want. We all push our way through life doing the best we can. And, yeah, we’ll make mistakes. We’ll let our anger get the better of us and we’ll hurt each other. And it should be talked about and it should be discussed.

Because, really, discussion is what we all need. We’re not always going to agree, and we’re not always going to understand why another person does something else. And, you know what? That’s perfectly fine. It’s not all thinking the same way that’s the goal, it’s learning to understand our differences and change ourselves so we can change society.

Pimp Your/My Oppression

Luke
[First a big shout-out to Tekanji, Lake Desire and Shrub.com for giving me the chance to guest blog! My name is Luke and I rushed this post out to press once I read jfpbookworm’s great post below that I think is a good branch-off point. I warn, however, that this post is a real behemoth in length. The more I went back to it, the more I added on so you might want to pack a ham-sandwich before diving in or something. Anyways, i’d love to get your feedback, thoughts, comments, criticisms, etc.]

We’ve all seen them.

It’s some night-owl hour and in-between reruns of Roseanne and ElimiDate you see for 30 seconds the uniquely American bazaar of young, thin, often blonde women with flowing hair and large breasts: In some form, you see “The Yes Girls.”

All-too-discreetly advertising itself as none other than a phone-sex line for men where young women dressed (or undressed, for that matter) in lace and satin seductively grasp their phones, bodies supine with eyes gazed towards the camera whispering lines of “We always say ‘yes’” like they know exactly what customers of the phone-sex line would want to hear in some meta-rape fantasy sort of way.

But phone-sex lines aren’t by any means some taboo cultural anomaly servicing the closet desires of perverts or deviants. Rather, their persistent popularity speaks largely to the ways in which men’s (and women’s) sexual identities are shaped—let’s make it “warped”—by what they’re told their fantasies are and in turn reinforced to fantasize again and again.

So placed between Roseanne, perhaps the lone television representation ever of a working-class white America with a stereotypically unattractive and wholly uncompromising woman actress at the helm who articulated a big “fuck off, Dan Quayle” season after award-winning season and ElimiDate, the “reality-TV” hit where petite, scantily clad women compete in a lascivious macho fantasy for the attention and affection of a man, usually tall, white, muscular and unable to hold a non-sex ridden conversation, in order to avoid getting “eliminated” each round, watching The Yes Girls gives us a jump-off point as to how men specifically are taught/cultured/socialized to think about women and sex. The two seemingly become synonymous if you begin to imagine what such commercials essentially say to men: “They’ll do anything…they never say no…they only wants sex…I must have her…I must have them…I must have sex.”

Even as I’m writing this, I’m hearing about how yet another season of The Bachelor is coming to ABC. Forget that every, and I mean EVERY relationship post-Bachelor has crumbled, forget that there is hardly a gender-equality of male and female bachelors and bachelorettes (didn’t ABC only make ONE The Bachelorette?) people love to see not just the paternalistic Cinderella chivalry fantasy anymore, they want to see one pimped out for the new age.

So if that’s what men are conditioned to want, to see as the ideal fantasy and to revolve their sexual and gender identities around, how do they go about achieving a constant state of sex with young women (who are often white, Latina, or mixed race)? If that’s the fantasy, then what’s the situation of the reality and what men are advised and told to do about it and how to go about it?

Based on the flurry of men’s “how to get women” books published largely in the past several years, you sense that what was once the immediate concern of meeting a soulmate, a wife, a husband, a life-partner has become one centered on men meeting and sleeping with as many “girls,” “bitches” or “chicks” as possible.

Like Samantha Jones drawing on the so-called liberating power of no-strings-attached sex (or “sex like a man”), the goal of “getting laid” then comes at a cost of women being seen as new hybrid of animal-commodity. That is, “animal” in the sense that these men’s advice books weave an intricately bullshit guide which adheres to the beliefs that #1, the behavior of women, like animals, is by nature predictable which involves a lot (and I mean a lot of animal watching), and #2, women’s bodies are the only things valued that one must possess through the consummation of sex—and I mean a lot of sex. And “commodity” in the sense that women, reduced simply to women’s bodies, are seen as goods that exchange hands through “purchase” by way of deception, backhanded-coercion and manipulation by men under the guise of having “skills” with women.

Just read the titles of some of these books that have boldly emerged recently in a symbol of immediately impressive yet ultimately fleeting macho bravado based identity:

–What Really Works With Women: Do What Works, Get What Matters To You (2005)
–The Complete A**hole’s Guide to Handling Chicks (2003)
–The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists (2005)
–The Layguide: How to Seduce Women More Beautiful Than You Ever Dreamed Possible No Matter What You Look Like or How Much You Make (2004)
–How To Succeed With Women (1998)
–Seduce Me! What Women Really Want (2003)
–How To Get The Women You Desire Into Bed (1992)
–The System: How To Get Laid Today! (2003)

The covers alone of many of these books tell a story in itself. On the cover of The Complete A**hole’s Guide to Handling Chicks, we have the classic macho trucker/truck mud flap decal and sticker of a caricatured large-breasted woman with hair flowing in the wind.

In The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists, we see another silhouette this time of women sprawled out in sexual stripper poses while the shape of a man twice their size stands proudly drawing upon celebrations of pimps and the prostitution of women.

Perhaps most ridiculously in The System: How To Get Laid Today! is a drawing of a young woman dressed in a corset, leather thigh-highs and cat-ears on knees and elbows seductively drinking a large bowl of what appears to be milk.

Dare venture into the book descriptions and you’ll find the animal-commodity storytelling continues flavored with the old “nuts and sluts” mentality made famous during the Kobe Bryant rape trial:

“We’ll take you from the day you’re born to the day you die and show you how women can be manipulated, frustrated, and ultimately dominated throughout the course of a man’s life. By illustrating the insanity of the female mind, we’ll show you why the flawed chick psyche causes them to continuously fall for the a**hole, no matter how many times they get burned.” – From the book description of A Complete A**hole’s Guide to Handling Chicks

Or you check out similar-themed websites like FastSeduction.com where you see things like:

“You have to be the MAN who has all the sexual power. And when a woman (no matter how hot) sees and feels the presence of a man whom she recognizes as the dominant one while SHE isn’t, she does what every woman does – that is SURRENDERS to the more powerful being. And all that acting like she’s hot and knows she’s the stuff and all those other “head up in the air” tricks are just a test and a way to weed out all the men who are less powerful than her and don’t know their role as a MAN.” – FastSeduction.com’s “Be the Alpha/Dominant Male”

Ultimately, these books provide a crude and patriarchal and thus attractive-to-men analysis of why, if they haven’t “gotten any,” the women they want aren’t attracted to them. Of course it’s the same spiel that’s been revolving in pornography for year and only now seen in the forms of Eminem’s celebrity and the pandemic spread of “pimp” in the American lexicon: Women must like being treated terribly and that’s why they deserve what they get. Women must like bad-boys. Good-guys and nice-guys “finish” last.

To women, of course, the message then becomes that they should validate and be attracted to these images. Women must like being objectified and degraded, why else would they allow themselves to be put on a meat-rack on shows like ElimiDate? Why else would women like the delinquent Mark characters or the abusive Fischer characters on Roseanne and why else would women send love letters to convicted killers like Scott Peterson. He’s a bad-boy misunderstood with a soft-spot inside, really. Women, remember, it’s your job to change him and take away the beastly exterior. Or in other words, be like Belle before he runs out of rose petals and runs out on you, right?

Read the back-pages of any so-called “Magazines for Men” like GQ, Maxim, FHM, or Stuff and you see it’s older cousins in shady black-and-white rectangle ads: “Pheromones proven to drive women wild!…100 pick-up lines guaranteed to work with the hottest girls.” Listen to any recent episodes of Tom Leykis and you’ll hear “Leykis 101” in which men are taught specifically how to “bang chicks” through deception and macho posturing.

The message is clear: This is how you get that and we know this works because they instinctively respond to it—it’s in their DNA. You’d almost think you were learning how to catch Sockeye salmon off the Alaska coast. What lure do I use? Where do I go? When do I know to “go in for the kill”?

Head off into Amazon’s “Bestsellers” or autobiography section and you find the hugely popular I Hope They Serve Beer In Hell by Tucker Max. Max, a Duke law-school grad who writes about his supposed true-life escapades, proclaims proudly

“My name is Tucker Max, and I am an asshole. I get excessively drunk at inappropriate times, disregard social norms, indulge every whim, ignore the consequences of my actions, mock idiots and posers, sleep with more women than is safe or reasonable, and just generally act like a raging dickhead. But, I do contribute to humanity in one very important way: I share my adventures with the world.”

Again, even more telling than the subject of controversy itself is often the cultural response to it. Read any of the many five-star reviews in which men and women have bought, read and proudly promote the book to others and the attitude of praise and dismissal of any criticism of such praise is unbridled:

“Make no mistake, Tucker Max is a vile vile person, but his own admittance. And if you try not to think to much about his victims…er…marks…er… girlfriends/hook-ups, then this is a hilarious book.” – Jake Mckee

“For the people who think that he’s some terrible person who has sex with poor innocent girls, give me a break. It takes 2 to tango as they say. As my wife put it, if there weren’t so many whores in the world he’d have a lot less to write about.” – Travis Stroud

“Tucker Max is pure genius. An excellent writer, and even better comedian, he has Michael Jordan’s bball skills when it comes to women, and an eclectic, highly exciting group of friends and adventures he chronicles in this absolute must-read book.” – Michelle Park

“This stuff can make you laugh until you pee your pants, but I would only recommend it for those who can take racist, sexist, and despicable jokes lightly for that seems to be the life of Tucker Max. In other words, this book is beautiful.” – Samantha Miller

“I loved this book. The stories are funny and remind me of my college days. Good times, good times.” – Jeff White

So the response then isn’t that his behavior lacks repulsive qualities deserving of unflinching dismissal but rather that his life is humorous to women and men and a cause-of-envy to young men in particular. Like he says, summoning all the bad-boy machismo he can, “I Hope They Serve Beer In Hell.” He knows he’s going to hell (well, assuming one believes in it) and that’s why he couldn’t care less. He’s a bad-boy and a “rebel” engaging in behavior so supposedly gutsy that it is suggestively a this-is-how-I-did-it guide as to having “success” with women. Why else would many aspiring sports-athletes read biographies and autobiographies about Michael Jordan, Brett Favre or Tiger Woods? “Know the legend, be the legend” as the saying goes?

But this type of macho posing behavior isn’t new and Tucker Max, as much as I hate to say it, doesn’t deserve all the blame. Look at what he probably grew up watching. Films like Animal House, Revenge of the Nerds, Old School, Road Trip, American Pie and National Lampoon’s Van Wilder all celebrate the stereotypical prime of sexual masculinity through the oppression of women: have as much sex with as many women as possible regardless of consequences, engage in high-risk drinking and drugs without any negative repercussions, feel no emotions, display little conscience and give the middle-finger while yelling “feminazi man-hating pussy faggot!” to anyone who says different. It’s college and that’s what you’re supposed to do in college, right? Or, as the Sean Michael Scott character in Road Trip says with his famous Stifler charm “Think about it Josh, you’re in college. The window of opportunity to drink and do drugs and take advantage of young girls is getting smaller by the day.”

The unfiltered Virginia Slims message here is the same. To women and young girls, this says that there’s a proper way to act as women and to have fun, to have some sort of an authentic experience. Worse yet, the message is that the only thing they have going for them is their bodies and by extension, the approval from men of their bodies and the use of those bodies for sex.

But to men, the message isn’t as closely examined or seen as having any sort of significance. Just as women are taught in this way to self-hate and reduce their own human being to an ass, breasts and vagina while validating so called “bad-boys,” the message to men is that this is what men do, this is what an authentic manhood looks like and this is what you want…this is how you’ll be happy. To so-called “nice guys,” the imagery leads to some dumbassed and disturbing deductions: “women like to be objectified, degraded and essentially treated like shit so even though I know something aint right, there’s no moral dilemma if I’m going to objectify, degrade and treat women like shit. Hey, at least I’m not a bad guy!”

So it’s clear then that young men are buying into these books and misogynistic attitudes in hopes of navigating the social scenes with some sense of direction in terms of women. And that I think is where a significant amount of unseen danger is. Not only does this supremely hurt women through yet again another form of men’s oppression of women, but it also denies men and young boys the ability to engage responsibly, honestly and freely.

We’ve all seen this. This reinforced sexist, homophobic and racist socially constructed cultural norm to nurture men simply as emotionally, physically, and sexually abusive whose only purpose is to engage in macho high-risk behavior, see women as animal-commodities and to have misogynist meta-rape fantasies by removing feeling any sort of personal human emotion, all sorts of attachment or desire for more in things like sex or relationships.

And this, to deprive men (and women) from living real lives and identities of free-choice without inflicting pain and suffering on others…to me nothing is more anti-male, man-hating or male-bashing than that.

What Do You See in This Cartoon?

tekanji
New Yorker Cover
New Yorker Cover: What Do You See in It?
  1. What was your reaction when you saw this cover?
  2. Are you familiar with the New Yorker and its covers? Do you think that influenced your reaction? If so, how?
  3. After further reflection, did you see something different than your first reaction, or did the details of the picture just reinforce your original idea?
  4. Please share any other thoughts on this cover that you may have.

I’m not going to get into my own opinion of it yet because I want your honest reaction not influenced by what I think. So, readers, I urge you to look at the picture and then comment without reading other comments or visiting the original post. Of course, if you want to make a second comment for after you’ve seen other people’s opinions, I think that would be awesome, too.

Via Alas, a Blog.

"Tramp Stamp"? How classy of you.

tekanji

Update: I’ve been in touch with Tian (which was basically why I was waiting to make a final decision… which I meant to mention in the original post and totally forgot). Apparently “moderated” doesn’t necessarily mean the same thing on Blogger than it does here — as it was set up to filter spam. Since he agrees with me that the comment was inappropriate, he has removed it. I’m keeping the original post below, although I no longer have any question on whether or not to keep it on my blogroll. Thank you all for your replies.

***

I’ve had a few qualms with Hanzi Smatter in the past when it’s come to women’s issues, but they were always minor enough to be outweighed by the good I see it as doing. You see, the purpose of the blog is to poke fun at the (mis)appropriation of Asian language (specifically Chinese and Japanese) for tatoos, products, and other items. It’s not exactly the hotbed for critical analysis of race relations or oppression, but I see it as fluff for a good cause.

Except, a recent post has made me rethink whether or not I want it on my blogroll. It’s not what Tian says, but rather what he has approved in the comments. For the link-phobic, the picture in question is of a woman who has a lower back tatoo.

The first one is from Pappi:

It reminded me of 貞 when I first saw it, maybe she’s aiming for “unfaithful” (as in “player” or “cheater”)? The location of the tattoo and the picture certainly don’t contradict that guess O.o

Although I wince at the stereotype that a lower back tatoo on a woman (it’s always a woman, you see) is slutty, that one itself wouldn’t be enough to cause a strong reaction from me. After all, it can be argued that the argument, while tasteless, is based on the tatoo and isn’t attacking the woman herself.

Emily’s comment, however, makes me wonder what Tian’s criteria is for moderation:

I can’t believe people are still getting tramp stamps. In addition to simply being ugly and skanky, having one is like wearing a sign around your neck that says I DO WHATEVER’S TRENDY.

Gendered slurs like “tramp stamp” and “skanky” are specifically attacking the woman herself, not commenting on the tatoo quality. In fact, they have nothing to do with the tatoo hanzi smatter at all, but are instead making a moral judgement on the woman in question, shaming her for being (assumedly) slutty, which of course is bad because good girls don’t enjoy sex.

I fail to see why this is an acceptable comment, and because Tian believes it is, I’m wondering if it’s worth my time (and my link space) to endorse his site anymore. Gender is not the only important issue, but I would be no more accepting of a feminist who allowed racist comments to be published unquestioned on her site. I don’t believe that you can fight one type of oppression and ignore the other one — even if the expressions differ, oppression is oppression and I don’t think you can rightfully battle one while endorsing another.

So, what do you think, folks? I’ve taken people off of my blogroll for less. In my position, what would you do?

Can We Only Win for Losing? [Understanding Popular Culture, Part 3]

tekanji

One thing that will invariably come up when discussing popular culture, especially where advertising is concerned, is that it’s stupid to talk about it because that’s what advertisers want. Take, for instance, the Burger King commercial that was talked about over at RMAN and on this blog, too. After some random LJ-er linked us to poke fun at how we got “upset” over the “humour” (cue me rolling my eyes), we both got a few negative comments on our sites. One over at Luke’s place really stuck with me, though.

Well, you guys are talking about the commercial, so I suppose it is doing its job. You noticed it didnt you?

Comments like those are far from atypical. The message is clear: if you do nothing, the message perpetuated by popular culture remains unchallenged, but if you critique the problematic product, then all you’re doing is spreading the message. It seems like a lose-lose situation, right? Sometimes I do wonder.

Is it true, though? Is it better to say nothing, then to spread the message through critique?

I. Value in Silence?

This one is hard for me to think seriously about. I have never been one to be quiet on an important matter, no matter what it costs me. Why else would one blog, anyway? But, what, if anything, is the value of saying nothing? The immediate answer here is that it mitigates the exposure of the product. Using the Burger King example again, if Luke hadn’t posted about it, likely I would have never seen it. I would barely have known about its existence, as I scrolled past the thread on the feminist LJ about it. By talking about it, we have made more people aware of it.

And, really, I get that. A large part of the success or failure of advertising is measured by exposure. In that case, the Burger King commercial is the “winner” in the situation. Would my silence on the matter have made it a “loser”, though? Well, let’s examine my possible courses for action that wouldn’t perpetuate the commercial:

  1. Engage in a Personal Boycott:
    Well, this one is a failure already. I haven’t eaten a BK product in 6 years, due to health concerns and being uncomfortable with the business practices of fast food restaurants. In general, though, I’d argue that a single person boycott isn’t all that effective. Also, trying to explain to others the reasoning behind your bocott without being specific about the objectionable media kind of diminishes the effectiveness of the explanation.
  2. Be Vague About the Issue:
    Since the problem with the commercial is a problem of culture, it’s entirely possible to address the issue without actually referencing the commercial. This is not a terrible tactic, but it removes the important link between cultural problems and popular culture.
  3. Just Contact the Company:
    This is another option that isn’t a bad choice. Part of activism does hinge upon people making their voices known to the company. Sometimes the company makes a change, sometimes it doesn’t. However, this option is made much less effective if one cannot engage with the material in trying to spread the word about the issues.

As is probably obvious from my explanations, I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with any of those actions, but I don’t think that they’re enough. What, then, is so important that it’s worth the risk of making a bad piece of popular culture even more popular?

II. Risking It All For… What?

As you are probably starting to realize, popular culture is an important issue to me. Talking about popular culture is important to me. Criticizing popular culture… well, that’s the bread and butter of this blog. In my previous posts, I’ve made cases here and there for why popular culture is important, and why it’s not as frivolous as we might think. Now I’m going to talk about why I think it’s worth the risk heightened exposure.

Every time I critique a product, I am aware that it will bring at least one commenter who is like, “Nya-nyah, your post made me want to buy the product! Good job!” Generally the tone of the post is condescending, and since they are dismissing the subject I’m talking about (both of which are violations of this blog’s discussion rules), I ban them and move on. For the other people who disagree with me — you know, the ones who read and abide by the rules of polite discussion — I must say that have gotten into some interesting conversations about popular culture. And, even though our original opinoins weren’t changed, I think the act of debating the subject was valuable in of itself.

Going back to the Burger King example… honestly, how many people would read a post like the one I made and buy a burger there just to spite me, or just because they saw a funny commercial? Let’s be honest here; those people would be buying the burgers there anyway. Hell, I’m not even necessarily advocating a boycott here! What I want is awarenes on the issues that are raised in the commerical. And even those who are spiteful about the issue have been made aware about it, even if they disagree.

III. Conclusion

What it boils down to, I think, is that when I critique popular culture, it’s not to hurt the companies exploiting the stereotypes or cultural norms. What one, or a dozen, or even a hundred bloggers say about an issue doesn’t have a significant impact on a multi-national company. Even if we gathered enough people to get the commercial pulled, what does BK lose? It got its commercial out, it got a reaction, and it would get press from the boycott issue. Big loss there.

No, I talk about this issues because I want to spread awareness on the ways in which those stereotypes and norms come to be accepted by most people. And, hopefully, to help people challenge those views, and to be more aware of what’s being communicated to them in other kinds of popular media. Maybe I’ll reach one person. Or maybe none. But, really, I’m of the mind that awareness is never a bad thing. A hard thing to live with sometimes, but never a bad thing.

Debunking the Myth of Frivolity [Understanding Popular Culture, Part 2]

tekanji

“It’s just a(n) [insert medium here]!” “It doesn’t restrict what I do or say, so lay off!” “Why don’t you focus on a real problem like [enter “real” topic here].” The list could go on. They’re all different takes on the same idea – popular culture just isn’t important enough to study or critique. That’s all I seem to hear from anyone who doesn’t have the same interest in looking at pop-culture and its intersections that I do. So often, in fact, that I’m beginning to think that most people find the critique of whatever medium is being discussed is so heinous that the mere discussion of it must be stopped immediately or they think they’ll spontaneously combust.

In my introduction, I addressed the general concern of frivolity; namely I said that it wasn’t, indeed, a frivolous topic, but rather one that has immediate relevancy in our lives. In this installment, I would like to examine and debunk the common myths that make up the claim of popular culture being less important a field than traditional ones.

I. It’s Fiction, Not Real Life!

The claim that “it’s only a game/TV show/movie/whatever!” is possibly the number one argument that I hear against critiquing popular culture. It is said as if, because it’s considered to be “entertainment,” no messages can be, or even are meant to be, gained from it. So, while pop-culture is not always real in the tangible sense (a video game world is not 100% the same as ours, for instance), it is as involved in persuading people as this article, or a book, or any other “acceptable” medium is. And, like with any other medium, those who produce popular media use varying tactics — both subtle and obvious — to get their message out. Those messages, whether we want to admit it or not, do have some sort of impact on the way we view ourselves and others.More realistic?

When you have a story — in a novel, a video game, or what have you — the correlation to, and therefore the impact on, real life is probably the most clear. Take Lara Croft, for instance. In an effort to promote realism, she’s gone through a redesign that is meant to make her more accessible (or perhaps take the wind out of the sails of naysayers who think that she helps encourage the objectification of women).

On the one hand, a step towards a more realistic design can be seen as a good thing. When the players, both men and women, are exposed to women like Lara Croft who have a body shape no woman could ever have, it has a good chance of skewing their view of actual women; suddenly normal proportions are seen as “small” or “weird” or even “ugly”. But, making her more realistic — and therefore attainable — comes with its own set of problems.

As a gaming woman, I don’t find Lara Croft’s new proportions especially empowering or representative of me. It’s another message of how I ought to look so I can be sexy, confident, and poised. The consensus was that Croft was ridiculous, even from those who found her aesthetically pleasing. Now, she’s “realistic.” I could, theoretically, look like the new Lara Croft; she’s become within the realm of possibility existing.

[From A Lara Croft I Can Be by Lake Desire]

Lara Croft isn’t real. She’s pixels, vertices, skins… what amounts to an image on your computer or TV screen. But her impact on the minds of those who are exposed to her image, whether for good or ill, is real. And that impact is exactly what is, and what needs to be, addressed when we look at popular culture as a valid body of study.

II. What Makes a “Real” Problem?

Another favourite from the pop-culture bingo board is to make the argument that one should be focusing on real problems instead of this. You know, I’d really love to find the mythical quality that makes something “real” because it seems that everyone has their own opinion on what qualifies as a topic to be discussed. Women’s issues? Try again. Racism, that’s got to be “real”! Not unless it’s obvious. Oh, wait, I know, I know! Men’s issues. If they aren’t real, nothing is! That would be another negatory.

What I’m trying to say is that when you label an issue as “not real” in an attempt to dismiss the person speaking about it, the word “real” loses all meaning. It becomes shorthand for “things I believe in,” but, guess what? Just because you believe that one thing is more important than another doesn’t invalidate the subject at hand. Novel concept, I’m sure! You don’t think pop culture is important? Great, there’s the back button. Hit it and find a subject that does interest you.

Furthermore, this “I get to define what’s real and what’s not” argument is often used in place of actual criticism — dismissing the premise of the original argument means that the points made in it can continue to go unaddressed. Let’s take the controversial White Wolf game that spawned the original version of this post, Pimp the Backhanding. When it was brought to their attention, many feminist White Wolf fans e-mailed the company with their concerns.

The canned response that all of them got is simply shameful:

I’d recommend people that want to do something about actual abuse of women, as opposed to assaulting people because they are mocking the criminals that engage in illegal prostitution, check out this link, and go do something about it: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/01/08/congo.peacekeepers.sex/index.html

Or is it maybe too difficult to attack real world problems, so you would prefer to attack fictional ones?

Conrad Hubbard
White Wolf Publishing http://www.white-wolf.com
Sword & Sorcery http://www.swordsorcery.com
“Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries” – U.S. Constitution

Violence against women? Never!Mr. Hubbard envokes our “go focus on a real issue” argument here. He first of all makes the usual mistake of assuming that speaking out on one issue means that the person therefore cannot, and does not, involve themselves in other issues. Or “mistake,” I should say. I’m fairly sure that in Hubbard’s case, as well as many others, it’s a calcuated move aimed at making the activist look silly while painting the attacker as someone who is truly interested in the root of the issue. Too bad for Mr. Hubbard, it’s quite obvious that he chose the first relevant-looking news article he could find — revealing his argument to be the slap in the face it really is. (Pun intended.)

By utilizing his condescending “more real than thou” rhetoric, Hubbard was able to avoid a real discussion on the potential impact of Pimp on the audience that played it. The real life correlations — language of the game, the treatment of women, the gendered and racialized depictions of the characters, etc. — were swept under the rug as if they don’t, and can never, exist. But, I’m going to go one step farther here. I’m going to suggest that his assumption that he can define what a “real” problem is and is not is tied into his privilege.

In this case, privilege acts as a bubble, insulating a person from the fallout of culture. The problem isn’t “real” to him because he doesn’t have to see that the game feeds the very culture it draws from — nor does he have to see the real harm that the culture does. Racism, sexism, sex trafficking, violence against women… all of these are real issues, and all of them are utilized as themes in the game. And dismissing the way those real issues interact with society and culture because they’re contained in a game that is fictional is in no way, shape, or form a useful thing to do.

III. Jeez, Can’t You Take a Joke?

Continuing on with the Pimp the Backhanding example, I’d like to point to a disclaimer on the site:

Arthaus Games does not condone or support the illegal sex trade industry. Pimp is a fictional game about the humorous stereotypes created by television and film and is in no way representational of the true horrors of the sex trade.

I’d also like to revisit the part of Mr. Hubbard’s response where he argues that White Wolf is “mocking the criminals that engage in illegal prostitution.” The humour defense is quite common and is based on the assumption that if something is supposed to be “funny” it is therefore exempt from any criticism that may be levied on it. Don’t get me wrong, I think that humour and especially sarcasm can be an effective tool to combat oppression, but saying something offensive as if it’s funny isn’t a “get out of jail” free card for being offensive.

I think the game is “mocking” something all right, but I’m not so sure it’s the “criminals who engage in illegal prostitution.” Take, for instance, how they explain the dynamics between the “Macking Phase” and the “Backhanding Phase” on the website:

Each pimp in your posse can be used only once each round, either to mack a ho or to backhand one of the harlots an opponent tries to take home.

So, by normalizing gendered slurs against women (“ho” and “harlot”, both of which are currently used not only to deride prostitutes, but all women), including violence against said women as a desireable game element (“backhanding… the harlots and opponent tries to take home.”), and glorifying pimps while mocking prostitutes is “mocking the criminals who engage in illegal prostitution.” Right.Racism is funny!

Not to mention that I fail to see how a game that uncritically exploits the harmful, sexist, racist, and classist “humorous stereotypes created by television and film” in a way that makes it seem cool is “mocking” the “criminals.” But it’s really obvious how it mocks the “true horrors of the sex trade” that it’s clearly not representing.

IV. Conclusion

Even after reading all this if you think that popular culture is “frivolous” then that’s your business. I’m not asking every person to give up the causes they’re attached to and study pop-culture. Sure, I’d like people to be aware of and care about it, but at this point I’d settle for those not interested in it to just go elsewhere. I’m really sick of the “omg get over it it’s a…” comments that are obviously meant to shame me. Well, I’m not ashamed, because I know that this shit is important. And if I can help one person see the way popular culture influences their life, then it’s worth it.

Introduction [Understanding Popular Culture, Part 1]

tekanji

I originally wrote on this issue for the now defunct Shrub.com articles, but instead of simply reposting it like I did with the other articles I wrote, I thought it deserved a full out rewrite. Predictably, in my revising and expanding efforts, it grew longer than any sane post should be. So, please enjoy the first part of my open series on popular culture.

Popular culture is a pet topic of mine, especially when it comes to how it influences the way that we interact with the world. We are all immersed in it — from advertising that becomes more invasive as the years go by to whatever hobbies we choose to get into. Yet, despite how widespread the phenomenon is, most people are convinced that these things have absolutely no impact on our lives. To the extent that the study of popular culture — whether in a formalized academic setting, or just people examining their own hobbies — is seen as “frivolous”. It is my belief that labels like those stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of popular culture and how it works. In this series, I would like to explore all the facets of pop-culture in an effort to promote better understanding of what it is and why it’s valuable.

I. What is Popular Culture?

Before I can begin a discussion on the effects of pop-culture, I need to make sure that we’re all on the same page regarding what it actually is.

Popular culture, or pop culture, is the vernacular (people’s) culture that prevails in any given society. The content of popular culture is determined by the daily interactions, needs and desires, and cultural ‘moments’ that make up the everyday lives of the mainstream. It can include any number of practices, including those pertaining to cooking, clothing, mass media and the many facets of entertainment such as sports and literature.

[From Wikipedia’s entry on Popular Culture]

So, popular culture is really the culture of our current society. It’s what we do every day from watching TV to playing video games to what we cook and beyond. It’s what we like to do, what others like to do, what others would like us to do. It’s All Your Base and O RLY. Buffy and American Idol. Comics and manga; anime and cartoons. It was even Kabuki, once upon a time. And Wikipedia, the source of all the links? That’s pop-culture, too.

II. Why bother studying this stuff?

The bottom line is that pop-culture is in everywhere. It’s everything new and current. We can no more escape it than Oedipus could escape killing his father and marrying his mother. Because of this, not studying this topic makes it into the elephant in the room.

And, indeed, while we’ve been so busy ignoring the elephant in the room, a dangerous dichotomy has formed regarding the impact of pop-culture on people. They can be summed up as such:

  1. Questionable pop-culture media makes people do bad things.
  2. There is no evidence that proves that pop-culture makes people do things, so obviously it has no affect on us at all!

Over and over again, you see these two factions duking it out, sometimes to the point of muddying the meaning of words in their quest to make it “us” versus “them”. But, you know what? The problem is much more complex than a 100% argument either way can ever hope to encompass. And if people weren’t so busy telling us not to study popular culture for whichever of the two reasons they prefer, then maybe they could see that it does not have direct control over people, but neither does it have absolutely no affect on us at all.

Another problem with the two opposing factions, besides them being overly simplistic, is that they are arguing from the basis of causation rather than correlation. If pop-culture media did, indeed, have the power to make people do things, then a causational argument (either for or against) would be valid. But, it’s not a causational relationship in question here, but a correlational one. And correlation does not equal causation.

What does this mean? In short, popular culture will influence the way we think (correlation) but it cannot compel us to believe something we don’t want to believe or act a certain way (causation). And, indeed, studies that are starting to be done on this subject are finding that very thing.

Still, television and Pop-Culture have made significant strides in portraying the people of the LGBTQ Community in a positive and non-homophobic fashion.

For the viewers, this could have positive affects as well. Simply seeing more and more Gay men and Lesbian women in television, certainly in shows that happen to be the audiences’ favorites, could possibly reduce and perhaps even squash any anti-LGBTQ prejudices they could harbor. According to this newsbyte from G.L.A.A.D., a study done by the University of Minnesota found this to be true…

It could be argued that this is quite similar to when more African-Americans were featured in television and movies in the early seventies and how it affected White people’s view of that particular community. Or even women featured in more positive and progressive roles. The more one views a group of people in entertainment and Popular Culture with positive and progressive depictions, the more likely they are to develop an open-minded opinion of this group. It’s probably one of the best ways a society could rid itself of bigotry against those who have historically been at a disadvantage, especially when it came to culture and the entertainment world. With it becoming more and more common place to see people of the LGBTQ Community in television and movies, the possibility of ending cultural and hopefully legal discrimination against them seem to be greater. It’s about damn time.

So, why is it useful to study popular culture? In a nutshell, it is too large a part of our lives to go unstudied, by not studying it we open ourselves up to misunderstandings about its potential impact on us, and by studying it we can learn strategies to fight bigotry and hatred.

III. Where to go from here?

This introduction is intended to serve as a springboard to more deeply explore the importance of popular culture, the arguments made against studying it, and the attitudes that hinder it from being taken seriously not only in academic critique, but also in our daily lives.

While I have a few posts lined up, I don’t really know where this series will go. Since popular culture is a pet topic of mine, I often come across issues that I feel need to be explored further. I’m also writing this so I can have an easy reference to point people in when they play “pop-culture bingo” (meaning that they use the stereotypical arguments against examining pop-culture). Much more easy than typing it out over and over again, wouldn’t you agree? But, I guess, ultimately I’m writing this because I think popular culture matters. And I think it’s important for people to recognize that, even if they themselves aren’t interested in examining the impact it has on their lives.

Ultimate Utopia, Indeed

tekanji
Ultimate Utopia...?
When Squaresoft meets fans with video skills you get… Ultimate Utopia…?

So, OS.CB reader darth sidhe pointed me in the direction of a fan-made flash movie of a live action RPG. It’s actually a pretty well done production and many parts of it I was nodding my head and saying, “Yep, that always happens to me!” Now, let me make it clear right off the bat: I liked this movie. I thought it was a fun, funny, and well-done piece.

But I am nothing if not a feminist interested in the intersection of gender and video games, and so it logically follows that when watching this, even through my enjoyment, I spotted areas that were problematic in terms of gender representation (the racial representation didn’t sit right with me, either, but that’s not really my area of expertise). And me, being the obsessive blogger I am (packing for Japan? taking care of last minute arrangements for school? never!), wanted to blog on it. So, watch the flash movie then come back and read what I have to say about it (I command thee!).

I. The Making of a Utopia

I find the choice of name (“Ultimate Utopia”) to be rather interesting. I don’t know if it’s based off of a name of a game that Square released, or if it was just randomly pulled out of a hat of “likely names for a Square game”. Either, or neither, is possible. But, especially given the discussion on what makes up a utopia over at Ragnell’s place, I have to say naming it as they did makes me wonder if the creators thought about what the title might convey to watchers – especially given the obvious hierarchies inherent in the game/movie.

On the one hand, it could be said that the adventurers are seeking out said Utopia. That the world they live in – the world we see them in – is one without safety, without equality, and with every object you pick up having the possibility of drawing you into a nasty battle. On the other hand, it’s also possible that the world is supposed to represent an “ultimate utopia” for gamers – haven’t we all wished at one point or another to be part of a video game? In that case, the kind of “utopia” conveyed to the watcher is actually rather disturbing; it is a world where might makes right, where strict gender and race castes are observed, and where danger lurks around every corner.

II. You’re the Character Now, Man

Character Selection Screen As is traditional with Squaresoft games, continuing a game in Ultimate Utopia will lead you to a character selection screen. The names for the three games are, respectively, Kyle, Danny, and Man. Kyle’s game has the characters we will learn to know and love, while Danny’s game seems to represent Grease (the area is called “Rydell High”), and Man’s game plays on the lack of diversity of Square’s NPCs – as all the characters in it are Man himself.

I’d like to draw attention to the fact that the only woman in all three save games is the one in Kyle’s game. Kyle Moore, the leader, has in his party: Tunaidi Ansari, James Yao, and Megan Greener. She is, predictably, the last character in line when the game opens on their location.

III. A Woman After Square’s Heart

Say What?As this flash movie is as much a parody of Squaresoft as it is a tribute, I was not surprised to find that Megan is the stereotypical magic user. Not just any magic user, however, but the physically weak healer. Her HP is a staggeringly low 191, as compared to the others who have anywhere from 954 to 1023. As the healer, her MP is the highest: 360, as compared to 54 (the highest MP next to hers). Her weapon of choice? The staff. It does 12 damage, yay!

Throughout the battle, Megan is trashed time and time again. Daniel, their adversary, takes her down to 11 HP with his first hit. Of course, instead of focusing on healing her, the player does a “heal all” which gives her back a whopping 5HP. Bringing her total up to 16. For his next attack, Daniel goes for “Copyright Infringement” and takes Megan down with a hit that does 571 damage. Can we say “overkill”? At least when she gets revived she’s back up to full health. For all the good it does her, seeing as she gets “blown away” in Daniel’s next attack.

When she returns, does she heal her party (like, you know a healer *should*)? Nope. Mr. Player (and yes, he’s a man) has her do an “MP Up” spell. Learn how to play! Well, perhaps I was too hasty in my condemnation; running through the movie again, I realize that her only options appear to be “Heal All” (fat lot of good that spell does), “MP Up” (another useless one), and “Suicide”. I’m guessing the fact that Megan is vastly underpowered is a critique on Square’s use of women, or at least I hope it is.

But, the torture of Megan is far from over. Daniel’s next attack, Clap, is a confusion spell. Which misses everyone but Megan, and stays with her past death. I mean swoon. I mean… what the devil are kids calling it these days? The caveat, of course, is that Megan lands the killing blow (while still confused) after all of her teammates have been killed by Daniel’s devastating “Apocalypse Now” attack.

IV. Conclusion

Like I said before, I liked this movie. It was a funny parody, a nice tribute, and having watched it a second time I’m beginning to think that it may have also been a subtle critique of some of Square’s staple archetypes (like the lack of NPC diversity and gendered stereotypes). And, really, I would much rather them deal with Megan’s plight (the plight of practically all female characters in one way or another) by drawing attention to it instead of having it be part of the background noise.

To my fellow sisters-in-arms:

tekanji

Stop it. Stop invalidating me because of my reproductive choices. Stop telling me what is and is not worthy of discussion. Stop calling me names because I have a different sexual expression than you. Stop discriminating against our sisters just because they don’t have the same naughty bits as you. Stop telling women that they should not be allowed to choose their life’s path. And, for the love of little green apples, stop trying to make the only valid path in life the one you want to take.

That’s what the patriarchy does, not us. Get it?

So, stop it. Just fucking STOP IT.

Reflections on Octavia Butler

lake-desire

Octavia Butler died yesterday at 58 in a fall that led to a fatal concussion. Creating strong, vivid female characters, Butler is one of my favorite authors and a personal inspiration when writing my own feminist scifi stories. She was the first woman of color to be published for writing science fiction, and the first genre author to win the MacArthur Foundation Genius Grant.

In my women’s studies course last quarter, I selected Butler for a presentation on an amazing women my classmates and I heard too little about growing up. I explained that Butler reached people who weren’t represented among the white supremacist, sexist voice dominating science fiction, and used the tools of speculative fiction to imagine alternatives. My peers responded well to my presentation, and a few remarked that that Butler’s stories sounded like ones they would enjoy; they previously had little interest in science fiction. I passed out URLs for a pair of Butler’s short stories available online, and hope that my classmates found their way to them. I’ve included the links at the end of this post.

Other bloggers on Butler’s death

My lived sense of the way power and difference play out in the politics of futures our pasts propel us into easily owes as much to Octavia Butler as it does to Michel Foucault or to Donna Haraway or to Judith Butler, and that is saying something. It’s hard to convey what it means to me to know there will be no more Octavia Butler books to look forward to, each one always sure to be so much her own, never like anybody else’s, in a voice I felt I understood and came to crave, attesting to a world that seemed so painfully real and familiar to me, however alien.

— amor mundi

I haven’t read any of her books, but yet, I find myself sitting in front of the computer almost in tears…I thought I had time! I thought I had time to get to know her style, form a critique, maybe see her at a speech and then maybe walk up to her, pages in shaky hand, mouth dry, and ask her to look over my stuff.

— Woman of Color Blog

More on Octavia Butler

  • Short story: The Book of Martha
  • Short story: Amnesty
  • Essay on Racism NPR Podcast
  • Transcript from Democracy Now! Interview