Chris Brown denied visa to enter UK for scheduled shows

Chris Brown had to cancel several shows that were scheduled to be performed in the UK after being denied a visa to enter the country. He was refused admission because he had been found "guilty of a serious criminal offence." Last year, Brown pleaded guilty to assaulting his ex-girlfriend Rihanna.

In a statement, the Home Office said: "We reserve the right to refuse entry to the UK to anyone guilty of a serious criminal offence. Public safety is one of our primary concerns."

My first thought after reading this was to be glad that officials in the UK Home Office were taking violence against women so seriously.

What do you think?

Britney Spears challenges photo altering

Please read this letter to Britney Spears, written by Melissa at Shakesville.

In it, Melissa mentions how Britney decided to release, side by side, both unaltered and altered photos taken during a recent shoot for Candies.

These kind of made my day.

Simply, human

There's an article up at Cinematical on movies with well-rounded female characters written by men - their examples include Alyssa from Chasing Amy and Lianna from John Sayle's Lianna. I'd also suggest almost anything by Joss Wheaton, as well. Monika Bartyzel, the author of the article, suggests this:

The best rationale I can offer is that men who can successfully write women are those who don't try to write as women. What I mean is -- they write naturally and rationally rather than with specific and often stereotypical tropes in mind. There might be classically "feminine" elements to the story, but the path and thought behind them is, simply, human.

And, of course, I'm not saying that we should let things lie status quo. Some men can write truly beautiful female characters, but the world still needs more screen words written by a women's pen.

Spot on. I think this is inextricably linked to the idea that women are an Other, that we are indeed Bugs Bunny in drag - women are men dressed up in eyelashes and lipstick.

This notion has come up a lot in the Sotomayor nomination, that because she is a woman, a Latina, she can't be a blank slate (ie white, male). Women aren't human, we're something different all together. And to some screenwriters, this idea is just dominates any dialogue, which results in massive, dominating, suffocating stereotypes.

I was watching The Garage last night and turned it off after 30 minutes because the female romantic lead was just ridiculous. Matt, the main character, had some level of nuance, but Bonnie Jean was basically a cardboard cutout that moved. The main scenes I saw her in included her walking up to Matt's car (all legs and breasts, thanks cinematography) where he asked her out after just learning her name, and then their date which included classy shots of her clothes choices, them driving around and then making out. The character had no substance; she wasn't human. She was a teenage boy's fantasy in flesh - a beautiful girl just wanders up to a boy, says yes to a date, and then makes out with him. Very few (if any) girls exist like that in real life.

Once screenwriters, directors, cinematographers, and movie industry folk start thinking of women as human, we'll actually see more realistic female characters - you know, as fellow humans.

Hollywood and Pay Discrimination

Check out this brilliant breakdown of pay discrimination for Hollywood actresses by Stephanie at Bitch Flicks.

She looks at the top 15 actors and actresses, Oscar nominations and wins, box office grosses and Rotten Tomato rankings and finds that across the board, films with the top 15 actresses have higher critic ratings while grossing $735 million to the men's $746 million. Additionally, the actresses garnered more Oscar nominations and wins than the men, yet were paid collectively less than half of what the men made.

The top earning woman was Angelina Jolie (27 million) and the bottom earning woman was Kate Winslet (2 million). In comparison, the top earning man was Harrison Ford (65 million) and the bottom earning man was Vince Vaughan (14 million).

Stephanie writes, "Will someone please explain to me how this isn't blatant gender-based discrimination?"

While these are some of the highest paid women in the world, they are still victims of the pay discrimination that influences women everywhere. From the waitress working the third shift to Kate Winslet to Lilly Ledbetter, women experience pay discrimination, even the women American media idolizes. Every woman is at risk.

Let this list remind us of how sexism and the notion that women are somehow less than pervades our culture, seeps through its pores and infects everything we touch, even - especially - our paychecks.

Sexist, Homophobic MPAA Rates Bruno NC-17

Hm. So, I guess it's been a while. Some of you might remember me, but for those who don't, let me briefly re-introduce myself before jumping back into the thick of things. I'm Ryan and I was invited by Katie last year to participate in the discussion on this blog from the male perspective. Well, at least from the bitter liberal male perspective. Anyway, I'm from Providence, Rhode Island, I'm turning 23 in a few weeks, and I tell bartenders and people on airplanes that I'm a screenwriter, but I've never actually sold a script (though I did act in a friend's short film, but we won't speak of that again). Fingers crossed that that fact changes this year. Anyway, on to the topic at hand.

In the year 2006, British comedian Sascha Baron Cohen brought the character Borat from the HBO series Da Ali G Show to movie theaters. The film was subsequently ruined by overzealous frat boys walking around drunkenly quoting the film, but it was a fearless (and quite hilarious) look at how ass-backwards this country is when it comes to many topics, with racism taking the forefront.

Now Cohen has turned to the last of his characters to make it to the big screen (though no one really remembers Ali G In Da House). Bruno (a film in the same mockumentary style, but from the perspective of a gay Austrian fashion icon) is set for release on July 10th of this year and it has already caused a controversy. As first reported on the news and blog site The Daily Beast, Bruno has received a rating of NC-17 from the Motion Picture Association of America, the same people who told my parents not to let me see the South Park movie when I was thirteen.

Briefly, for those who are unfamiliar with the MPAA, they're a volunteer group of people who sit in a room, watch movies a couple of months before its release, then decide whether it should be rated G, PG, PG-13, or R. However, every once in a while, a film surpasses those ratings and winds up with an NC-17, meaning no children under seventeen are allowed into the theater. Period. Even if their college-aged cousin is with them. The big deal here is that when a film receives that rating, it becomes an uphill battle for the film to actually make money. A quick comparison: the highest grossing film with an NC-17 rating is campfest Showgirls, which made $20.3 million. The highest grossing R-rated film of all time is Biblical snuff film The Passion of the Christ, which made $370.8 million.

Bruno has received this rating in regards to its supposed graphic sexual content. From the original post on The Daily Beast (beware mild spoilers):

Among the objectionable scenes is one in which two naked men attempt oral sex in a hot tub, while one of them holds a baby. In another, Bruno—a gay Austrian fashionista played by Baron Cohen—appears to have anal sex with a man on camera. In another, the actor goes on a hunting trip and sneaks naked into the tent of one of the fellow hunters, an unsuspecting non-actor.

Knowing Cohen's style of comedy, I can't imagine any of those scenes go on for more than a few moments for fear of being exploitative, but this isn't the first time the MPAA has forced a film to cut some of its content to receive an R-rating. But that's been well documented already, so I won't get into that.

What I will get into, however, is the MPAA's willingness to automatically comdemn anything more graphic than a gay kiss in a film. The 2005 film Bad Education by Spanish auteur Pedro Almadóvar, in which male actor Gael García Bernal plays multiple roles, one of whom is a woman who performs oral sex on a man. The scene lasts a whole two seconds and yet the film was rated NC-17 for "a scene of explicit sexual content."

But heterosexual oral sex? A-okay, evidently.

As for the anal sex scene, clearly when a man does it to a woman--or even when a woman does it to a man--for some reason, it's not a problem. Keep in mind the latter example did not have to cut a single scene to get down from NC-17 to R. They simply appealed the rating.

So we've gotten over the fact that Milk notwithstanding, gay sex is largely taboo to the MPAA, the members of which to this day remains a secret (to be fair, Milk wasn't exactly graphic either). So you would figure a group as staunch and as moral as that would certainly disapprove of a horror film with a prolonged rape and torture sequence that was a remake of a film infamous for the same thing, right? Guess not.

Can someone tell me in what world is it okay for three degenerates to brutalize and rape two teenage girls for ten minutes straight (and eventually kill one of them), but two men having sex on camera for a fraction of that time just goes too darn far? A friend of mine tried to argue that the scene was done in such a way as to make the villains more villainous. Sorry, but it's just exploitative and mean-spirited. Plain and simple.

The MPAA has a longstanding issue with letting countless horror, action, and just about every other genre of films that depict brutal violence against women get away without a scratch, while simultaneously condemning films based on homosexual content, or even excessive female nudity.

Knee-jerk reaction on my part? No. As someone who follows the film industry like my life depended on it (if I had a life, that is), this is just another infuriating entry on the long list of things the MPAA has done that causes me more stress than it should. Eventually, homosexuality will become such a common thing (let's give it twenty years) that these kinds of things probably won't matter much in the future. But in a world where violence against women is so commonplace in itself, I get the feeling we're going to be seeing plenty of films like The Last House on the Left in that same future come out highly recommended by the people I work with and the idiot at the movie theater who tried to convince me to see that instead of Sunshine Cleaning.

So until the MPAA pulls its collective head out of its ass, expect more of these entries from me as more situations like this arise, as well as me pointing out hipocrisy on how women are treated in film and the industry itself in general. And I encourage you to check out the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated for more examples along the same lines. An interesting note, the film was ironically rated NC-17 because it featured scenes from other films with the same rating. Go figure.

It's good to be back posting here. I hope to contribute on a weekly basis, and I'll be focusing mainly on the entertainment industry and other medias, but I'll veer off into other territories if I discover something appropriate for this blog. Either way, thanks to Amelia and Katie and the other bloggers for having me back and you'll be hearing from me very soon!

Feminist of the Week: Halle Berry

After reading this latest interview excerpt with Halle Berry, I'm pretty much in love:

Berry says, "You know that stuff they say about a woman being responsible for her own orgasms? That's all true, and, in my case, that makes me responsible for pretty damn good orgasms.

How refreshing is it to see a woman publicly talk about 1: orgasms, 2: giving herself orgasms, and 3: that she actively enjoys it.

"(They're) much better orgasms than when I was 22, and I wouldn't let a man control that. Not anymore. Now, I'd invite them to participate.

"I've learned my tricks. I know what I like. I do not wait around. I initiate. And I'm not all about frequency; I favour intensity."

Calling into the Oprah show in America on Friday, Berry revealed she felt inspired to talk openly about her sex life after Esquire named her their sexiest woman.

She said, "I was astonished. I was like, 'I've just had a baby. Don't you guys know..? This isn't the year to pick me for this.'

"I thought, 'Well, you know, it might be a really good year to talk about some things and talk about what sexy really is.'"

And she joked, "When I mentioned the big 'O' I'm sure when people first read it (article), they thought I was about to talk about Oprah."

Berry admitted that if her romance with boyfriend Gabriel Aubry ever ended, she wouldn't be looking for a toyboy to satisfy her sexually.

She confided, "Men in their 20s? Forget it."

Halle Berry: proving the importance of women's pleasure in her sex life since 1966.

Argh.

I was watching the news before work this morning, and they were reporting on Andy Dick's arrest for sexual battery and marijuana possession. As they were wrapping up the story, one of the news anchors said,

"Oh, too bad, that sure dosen't sound like him."

Oh, really, random substitue news anchor. Do you know Andy Dick well? Because if not, maybe you should keep your personal comments to yourself. Save the pity for someone who wasn't just arrested for exposing a teenage girl.

Moron.

Wanted: Snuff porn and women-hatin' in a two hour package

Note: this post contains plot spoilers. Entirely predictable spoilers, but nonetheless be warned.

You know, I really regret not walking out of Wanted and asking for my money back. I also really regret not expressing how much I hated this movie to the male friends I saw it with.

Wanted was about as close as you can get to snuff porn without actually watching something illegal. The movie's only redeemable quality is that the script decided to throw in some existential fate plot themes at the end, just to break up the monotony of violent garbage.

The camera angles made me nauseous. Fight scenes, which were the entirety of the movie, were shot in such a shaky manner that I felt like I had eaten twenty pounds of nachos and then rode state fair rides for three hours straight. Then they were slowed down, randomly, so that the audience could get a good look at the blood and bruises. Know what is the only thing more exciting than two hours of violence? Two hours of slow-motion violence. Oh yeah!

Not only did the movie glorify violence, the protagonist's goal of using such violence is to "be the man". Several times in the story, the protagonist fervently wishes for someone to utter the exact words, "you are the man!" When someone does, it is only in recognition of his violent ways and hot love interest. In case you did not catch that, violence is exciting! Killing people on command, emotionlessly, is the definition of manhood! Where's the moral of the story? When I could find one, it was that the purpose of life is to be as much of a badass violent jerk as possible. Because that's exciting, whereas being a normal citizen is pathetic.

So besides the glorification of violence, what else did Wanted have to offer? The million dollar question, my dear readers, is the hatred of women.

Although there are a slew of men in the film (duh, it's an action film), there are only three women. Let's go over their roles.

1. Janice the fat boss - Janice was the bitchy boss that everyone in the audience should love to hate. Her shrill relentless tone and overly made-up face is supposed to be as comical as her girth. Women in power are fat and annoying, or so the writers of Wanted think. Our protagonist gets his comeuppance by telling her to stop being a bitch (seriously, that's the exact word he uses) and expresses some sort of vague pity for her grotesque fatness, which is apparently the reason why she could be such a horrible person to him.

2. Cathy the ex-girlfriend - Cathy is skinny, but she's also a whore. She sleeps with his best-friend, because that's what women do, you know. Them women always take advantage of teh menz. The only interaction she seems to have with the protagonist is to nag and complain. Then the movie switches to a completely unnecessary sex scene where the audience gets their fill. Because Cathy is skinny, she gets to be fucked. But she's still portrayed as a bitch, and a whore.

3. Fox the assassin - Jolie could have potentially played an empowered female role. Little to my surprise, nothing is further than the truth. I should have known as soon as her code name was revealed as "Fox". Jolie's only purpose in this film is to teach Wesley how to be bad ass, inspire him to magically curve a bullet with his awesome chauvinist powers to avoid hitting her, be the victim of a violent crime as a child to inspire her to kill people, show her bare ass for no apparent reason, make out with him in front of his ex to show that bitch how manly Wesley is, and then kill herself in the process of saving him.

What have I learned from Wanted? Well, I learned that if you're fat and a woman, you're a horrible bitch. I learned that if you are skinny and a woman, you're a horrible nag and a whore. I learned that if you are skinny, powerful, and a woman, you're a pornorific plot device who gets to play second fiddle to someone with less experience than you, have the honor of having sex (or at least appearing to) with the male protagonist, and then kill yourself for him.

I also learned that gratuitous violence is really really awesome if it is accompanied by horrible camera techniques, pointless slow-motion, and a complete void of morality.

Wanted looks and feels like a teenage porn addict and gun enthusiast's wet dream. If I did not know better, I would have thought that it was satire. Of course, the only thing more pathetic than someone thought that this could possibly be a good movie is that seemingly everyone thinks it was a good movie.

(Cross-posted)

Racism in the City

Well, I just got back from watching the Sex and the City movie, and while there are lots of things I could blog about (Samantha = totally feminist ending), I had a major problem with one aspect of the movie.

Jennifer Hudson's character was a "mammy."

Being one of only two characters of color in the film (the other being Charlotte's adopted Chinese child), Hudson was the movie's attempt to be politically correct. However, it was far, far off.

Hudson played Carrie's assistant, Louise. After Carrie has a major life crisis (no spoilers here, I promise), Louise helps her get organized, along with a variety of other tasks, essentially, as Carrie puts it, "saving her life."

Now, when its written out, it sounds okay, but seeing it all on the screen made me very uncomfortable.

In order for one to fit the mammy caricature, she must be:

"nurturing and protective of her white family,
but less caring towards her own children." She is..."self-sacrificing,
white-identified, fat, asexual, good-humored, a loyal cook, housekeeper and
quasi-family member."

Let's test that definition.

1. In the movie, Louise cares for Carrie for several months. When applying for the job, she claims she is qualified for it because she is the oldest of six. When Carrie asked what that was life, she responds, "crowded." Her family is never mentioned again.

2. She is self-sacrificing; the movie implies that she stays with Carrie at work far past normal hours.

3. She is the only person of color (over the age of five) in the movie. I'd say that is fairly white-identified (but, this could be argued against. She is shown at a party where the majority of guests were black, and her significant other is black.)

4. In normal, human terms Hudson is by no means fat. However, her weight has been debated in Hollywood, and she is the most shapely woman who appears in the movie.

5. Louise is not portrayed as asexual, so yay (I guess) there.

6. Humor is one of Louise's defining characteristics.

7. While she is not technically the housekeeper or cook, she is Carrie's assistant, which may be the modern day equivalent of the positions.

8. She is a "quasi-family member" in several ways. She exchanges gifts with Carrie for Christmas, invites Carrie to her wedding, and discusses her heartbreak with her.

So ultimately, Louise fulfills 7 (maybe 6) of the 8 "qualifications" of a mammy caricature. This is unacceptable in our "post-racial" world. What do you think? Is this too much analysis? Or does it have merit? How can Hollywood change these things. I know Sarah Jessica Parker co-produced the movie; would this have happened if a women of color had had more decision making power?

When You're Fat, You're Not Just Fat

Five years old, my first diet. Seven years old, being declared officially "overweight" because I weigh ten pounds over what a "normal" seven-year-old should weigh. Ten years old, learning to starve myself and be happy being constantly dizzy. Thirteen years old, crossing the border from being bigger than my friends to actually being "fat." Fifteen years old, hearing the boys in the next room talk about how fat (and hence unattractive) I am. Whenever I perform, I remember the time when my dad said he didn't like the dance I choreographed because I looked fat while I was doing it. Every time I dye my hair I remember when my mom wouldn't let me dye my hair in seventh grade because seeing fat people with dyed hair made her think they were just trying to cover up the fact that they're fat, trying to look attractive despite it (when of course it's obvious what they should really do if they want to look attractive, right?) - Nomy Lamm, It's a Big, Fat Revolution

Fat hate is constant. Turn on your TV. Ride the subway. Open a magazine. Eavesdrop in a restaurant. Because when you're fat, you're no longer human. Your body is open to discussion and debate everywhere. Your health is analyzed by strangers, and you're constantly reminded that you are unattractive. You are sneered at. You are laughed at openly. You are pointed at.

But, at the same time you are invisible. Your existence is ignored in films. Clothes featured in magazines are not made in your size. Doors are slammed in your face, as they are held open for other people.

Because, in case you didn't know, fat people are not human, and they don't deserve respect. And they are also pretty stupid, which is why they constantly need to be reminded by strangers that their hearts are in danger, or they might have diabetes. Oh, and they are lazy. The only reason that they are fat is because they refuse to get off the couch and get to the gym.

Or not. Fat people know whether they are healthy or not. (Because fat can be healthy, btw.) They know the risks of a sedentary lifestyle because they watch the news and go to the doctor. They don't need to be told by you. Yeah, except they might not lead a sedentary lifestyle. They are active. They workout. They eat healthy. Because there is more than one way to become fat. Yes, they might be sedentary (but, the thin person next to you may also be). But, they also may have thyroid problems. Their bodies might be built differently than yours. They might be depressed and coping through food. But really, that's not you're problem. It's theirs.

And fat people do face a lot of problems. Fat discrimination is real. Fat employees make less a year than thin ones. Far less. Fat students are less likely to be accepted to prestigious universities than thin ones (but how do they know the students are fat? Most Ivy-leagues require interviews).

Well, maybe you would hire a fat person, but you would never sleep with one (that's the sentiment I've gotten from a lot of commentors here). You're just not attracted to them. Fat is gross. But why? Would you still think that fat was "gross" if you hadn't been bombarded with images and messages that thin in sexy? If you had been raised away from an image-filled media, would you think like that? A teacher once told me that in "the days of radio" women were attracted to deep voices and valued those deep voices in a potential mate more than their physical appearance. Just a thought.

Also, read this.

And, a few notes, I am not anti-thin. I realize that thin women face their own set of problems; however, there has been a lot of anti-fat hatred on this blog lately, which is why I chose to write about fat oppression. And this post is meant to be fairly gender neutral. Fat is a feminist issue. But, because this is sort-of a Fat Oppression 101 post, I wanted to encompass the problems that face both men and women. More gender-specific posts will probably follow. And, as the writer of this post, I expect commentors may say that I am just "bitter" or fat myself. Both are a little true. I am not a thin woman, and I feel bitterness when I see discrimination. But, I am also a beautiful woman who wants to change things a little bit.

Edit: I am closing comments on this thread. Comments have failed to be productive and only succeeded in insulting me, all feminists, and women in general.

Are Sex and the City and feminism incompatible?

With the Sex and the City movie premiering in London and about to come out in theaters soon, the news media has begun to spin their wheels over the show yet again. BBC News has this article about how men are often confused by the appeal of Sex and the City, especially to women who identify as feminists. British comedian Kate Smurthwaite asserts that you can't like Sex and the City without being a feminist:

"If you can watch the amount of sex Carrie, Charlotte and Miranda have without shouting 'harlot' at the screen; if you're not horrified by the idea of women having professional jobs, living alone, talking about sex, drinking alcohol, having children out of wedlock, experimenting with lesbianism, owning vibrators and all the other stuff they do, then you support a level of freedom for women that is a very long way off for a majority of women in today's world."

True, the women in the show live their lives however they wish, regardless of what society expects of single, 30+ women. They choose their careers and lovers on their own terms; for example, Samantha owns her own PR firm and her significant relationships on the show are with an older business man and a younger waiter-turned-actor. However, one could argue that the depiction of women on the show glamorizes and reinforces industry beauty ideals, that what liberated women really want is to spend $400 on shoes and get dressed up in order to find men. One of the men interviewed for the article said,

"It made it seem sexy and normal, rather than mind-numbing, to spend hours painting your nails. Its sleight of hand is to make this seem like a post-feminist choice, rather than sexual enslavement. As a man, I shouldn't really object - go right ahead, make yourselves look gorgeous for me and my leery mates."

I don't think we're at a "post-feminist" stage, but for his sake, I'll humor him. SATC promotes women making their own choices and doing whatever they want, but in a way, is it also showing women making choices that contribute to the patriarchal society in which they still function? Is it promoting female liberation only to have those liberated females choose to act in un-liberated ways?

One of the most interesting parts of the article is the comments. There are men who think SATC isn't feminist and women who enjoy it and identify as feminist, and men who like the show and women who don't. By and large, though, people like the show for its realistic portrayal of women (even if their shopping budgets aren't). SATC passes the "do two women have a conversation not about men" test* with flying colors; the women spend lots of time discussing other things besides men, especially as the series moved out of the first season. It's rare to find a show that has as many strong, central, complex female characters as SATC. When Joss Whedon is asked why he keeps creating such strong female characters, he replies, "Because you keep asking."

Some of the commenters don't like the show because they view the characters as shallow, "obsessed with men" and don't believe the often extravagant lifestyle the women lead. Others think the women shouldn't be using "men's behavior" and one commenter says, "Whatever spin feminists put on it, it's just not normal behaviour for women to act like they do on this show - women trying to be men. What needs to be stressed is that women are biologically different to men." I definitely disagree with that writer based on the strict adherence to perceived gender roles (what's normal behavior for women, anyway?), plus they don't sound like much fun.

I did, however, like what this commenter had to say: "I'm a single woman in her 30s: I'm not into shoes, not into fashion and not into endless hours of pampering & preening & I don't believe in romance. The reason I like SATC is that, like most HBO productions (Oz, Six Feet Under etc), it treats its audience like they're adults and doesn't patronise."

To make my own biases clear, I love SATC. Between my mom and I, we own every season on DVD. If I come across it on tv, there's a 99% chance I'll watch it. And personally, I think the women, even if they play into and encourage the consumerist culture we live in, do not embody this "slight of hand" where post-feminism convinces us we want to be objectified. To see this aspect ignores the complex relationships between the women and the other characters in the show, to reduce it to the wardrobe and shoe choices the women make. This viewpoint, in my opinion, doesn't see the nuanced characteristics of the show or the people in it and patronizes the show, to borrow a bit from the commenter above.

The show does have an influence on its viewers; there's a chance I wouldn't be nearly as comfortable with my own sexuality if I didn't watch SATC (or read Dan Savage). However, to assert this idea of post-feminist "slight of hand" trickery where women unknowingly decide to oppress themselves ignores the ways the characters break stereotypes and offer on-screen relationships that reflect real experiences. While the show may not patronize viewers, this viewpoint of simplistic female spectators does.



*If anyone knows who/where that idea came from, I'd love a link. Many thanks in advance! Edit: 5/15/08 Through sheer coincidence, I found out today that this originated in Alison Bechdel's comic strip Dykes to Watch Out For, now commonly known as the Bechdel Test. By the way, Bechdel's Fun Home is really, really good.