anythings.org

I made a point to stay in this Friday and watch Women’s Murder Club to see just what ABC made of the book series. My first impression was not one that was enlightening or empowering. The main female homicide detective on the show gets caught in a situation where she has to chase after someone on foot - not once, but twice, within the first 20 minutes of the show. I couldn’t help but look (because, sadly, I am a woman who loves shoes) at her footwear. Both times? Wearing high heels.

Definitely not optismitic about this show.

I adored Knocked Up. I thought it was a funny movie - better the first time than subsequent viewings - that put a rather serious life issue into an amusing context to help people cope with the seriousness of the plot. But as a feminist, I have a problem with it.

While I understand it was a comedy about two adults getting into an awkward situation, with one of them semi-prepared for it and the other not even close. I even get that the movie wasn’t about Katherine Heigl’s character, Allison. I totally get (and was amused by) that fact that the movie is about Seth Rogen’s character and how he comes to grow as a man and accept his impending doom role as a father.

What I don’t understand, though, is why Katherine’s character did not even consider getting an abortion. I would have been able to accept the plot more easily had she even considered the option, instead of just glossing over the somewhat sticky subject. When works in the major spotlight such as Knocked Up decide to ignore all of the options available to a woman who finds herself with a bun in the oven, it makes it more difficult for young women to discuss all of their options if something similar happens to them. Movies like Knocked Up are, essentially, taking us back to the ideal that if you get someone pregnant, you better be ready to marry them and be in it for the long haul. While the two characters didn’t get married in the movie (and Heigl’s character actually turned down Rogen’s proposal), they were involved in an intimate relationship, and the movie made it appear that they moved in together after the birth and remained together years afterwards. I feel like the film’s creators opted to not include abortion as an option in the film because they didn’t know how to balance the seriousness of the subject with light-hearted (and occasionally crude) humor, like they did with an unexpected pregnancy. I understand that abortion is a heavy topic and could have potentially caused the comedy to take a turn for the worse, but they didn’t even try.

I understand the limits of a film and I can grasp the concept that the creators of the film may not have had adequate time in the film to include this plot in the movie. Allison’s “decision” to keep the baby didn’t even feel like a decision. It felt like someone coming to terms with the fact that they were pregnant, accepting it, and moving on. There was no decision because her character wasn’t given any other options. I’m not saying she should have had an abortion (although I would have) because then there would have been no movie. What I’m saying is the creators of the film could have spent 2 minutes discussing her options and then show her character coming to the decision that she wants to have a child and that keeping it is her choice.

Keeping a baby is never a simple choice for a young and single career woman. Knocked Up made it look like a young and single career woman has no other option than keeping a baby.

The scary thing is, if the Supreme Court continues going the way it does, no woman will any options other than having the baby - or adoption. To me, Knocked Up is a frighteningly realistic perspective on what the world could look like after the end of Bush’s presidency.

(Granted, it was a very amusing movie that I opted to eventually become an owner of.)

[images via getty]

The Feminist Wetlbanket is a weekly column where Liz looks at popular culture from a feminist point of view… and then beats it down with her sharp words. This week, she gives you a closer look inside something near and dear to her: Harry Potter.

I should probably preface this by explaining the background of this project. When I was a Women’s Studies student, I wrote a topic for an advanced upper division core course doing a feminist analysis of Harry Potter. While only 6 books were out at the time (and I only had a quarter - 10 weeks - to work on the project), I pursued it with full force. I’m actually in the process of applying to graduate school in the hopes of turning this small (it was 25 pages, so not that small) paper into a thesis or dissertation. With that said, please know that this project involved mass amounts of research and is still an unfinished work.
When I began this investigation/obsession, the last things I thought I would find were rape and gay bashing (among others) … but I did. Because this project was (is!) so intense, I have broken this up into several articles. This week? The rape of Dolores Umbridge.

It has been fairly well document in various interviews that J.K. Rowling heavily researches almost everything - from names to creatures - that go into the series. Nicolas Flamel, from Sorcerer’s Stone, is a real person and the story she used draws greatly from his legend. Many of Rowling’s mythical creatures, names, and spells have a root in some legend, fairy tale, or story that she has borrowed from (something her critics are quick to point out). Knowing this about Rowling, the way she utilized the mythical half-man half-horse centaurs in Order of the Phoenix came as quite a shock.

According to centaur legend, they are not the docile, kind, and all-knowing creatures that Rowling chose to portray them as. The first centaur was a production of rape, and this beginning defines the remainder of centaur legend (1, p59). When invited to a wedding, the centaurs “attempted to rape and abduct the bride and other women” (1, p63). Centaurs were considered dangerous because they had “exaggerated masculinity” due to their “human male element being combined with the sexual potency of stallions, and thus they were characterized by violent lust” (1, p63). There were very few female/women centaurs to use as companions, and this was also blamed for their voracious sexual appetite.

In Order of the Phoenix, Rowling creates Dolores Umbridge: the amazingly unlikable Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher who works for the Minister of Magic. Umbridge searches unwaveringly for ways to discredit Dumbledore and expel Harry. When she threatens to perform an illegal curse on one of Harry’s friends in order to get information about Dumbledore’s whereabouts, Hermione comes up with a plan to save them all: she’ll lead Umbridge into the forest and let the centaurs take care of her. It is worth noting that Hermione, a female character who is extremely intelligent and known for her book-ish tendencies, is most likely sending Umbridge to this punishment knowingly. Rowling has made a point of using Hermione to provide the readers with information because she is considered to be very knowledgeable. It is worth arguing, then, that Hermione would know the violent history of centaurs and took Umbrdige into the forest knowing that she would suffer rape at the hands of a very violent group of half-men half-horses.

It is surprising that Rowling, known for the intense research of things she puts into her books, would use centaurs to “punish” Umbridge. Some evidence provided by Rowling helps to point us in the direction of discovering Umbridge’s true punishment. Umbridge’s usually neat appearance is changed in her hospital bed: her “mousy hair was very untidy and there were bits of twig and leaf in it, but otherwise she seemed to be quite unscathed” (2, p849). Despite lack of physical evidence, the students know something terrible has happened to her because of her physical and apparent mental states. When Ron jokingly makes the sound of hoof beats, Umbridge frantically sits up in her bed and looks for the source of the noise. Her reaction to this sound and her shock like state are symptoms commonly experienced by rape victims (RAINN). Why Rowling chose to punish Umbridge this way when she could have used many other means is unknown. The rape of Professor Umbridge is perhaps one of the most horrifying instances of violence against women in the entire series.

Please note that this is a feminist reading of a text. It does not mean that I believe Rowling intended for these things to happen. When a work is published, it becomes something that is up for interpretation by many different disciplines. A feminist reading of a text finds hidden meanings and reads against the grain - it does not say anything about the author’s intentions.

EDIT: 10/21/2007
I feel that a clarification about this article needs to be made. My article was not in any way claiming to be about - or even know - Rowling’s intentions as the author of the series. Let me say it again: I am not writing a piece about what J.K. Rowling “did” to Umbridge, nor am I writing one about what she meant to do. I am writing a feminist analysis of the series from my feminist perspective (which probably differs from yours). For me, this means I am reading the book against the grain (not how it was meant to be by the traditional reader) regardless of what the author’s original intentions were. I am also uncovering hidden meanings and symbolism. When a book is published, or a any other work is created, that work becomes something separate from the creator’s intentions that is up for interpretation. When you do close readings or try to uncover hidden meanings, you are not claiming to know what the author meant to write, say, or do. This type of analysis has been applied to some of the greatest works of fiction, such as Dracula, and other less prominent, but equally as important books and movies (such as The Baby Sitter’s Club and Pokemon).

If you do not understand my intentions in this piece, I encourage you to not read it. You will only be angered or confused about what I have written, and you will try to argue against it based on the things Rowling herself has written or said. This is not about J.K. Rowling. This is about Harry Potter, which is a separate entity from her altogether. To prevent the idiotic responses than ran rampant before I closed the comments, you must register with a valid email address to comment. To clarify, one final time, this is not about Rowling’s intentions. This is about uncovering hidden meanings and analyzing them from a feminist perspective.

References:
(1) Lawrence, Elizabeth A. “The Centaur: Its History and Meaning in Human Culture.” Journal of Popular Culture 27.4 (1994): 57-68.
(2) Rowling, J. K. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. New York: Arthur A. Levine Books, 2003.

[images from getty]

Researchers from Aberdeen, Bristol, Edinburgh and Glasgow universities discovered that high-IQ women saw marriage prospects fall dramatically, but men with high IQs had little trouble finding a mate. They found that for each 16-point rise in a woman’s IQ, her marriage prospects declined by 40%, but the man’s chances of marriage increased by 35% with each rise.

Did it ever occur to these researchers to stop for a moment and ponder if these women (and men) simply did not want to get married? Duh.

And more to the point - I thought we’d established that IQ wasn’t exactly the best thing to measure other things by? Just because you’re intelligent does not mean you can function well enough socially to get someone to propose.

The funny thing is, this came from an article about a “fabulous” woman who could not find a man because he fabulousness gets in the way. I don’t know how about her, but when someone tells me they speak five languages, I stop speaking with shock, not intimidation. This woman doesn’t sound very fabulous to me. She sounds self-involved and arrogant.

I think her mistake on the date with the doctor probably wasn’t her speaking five languages and chatting up the owner in Italian: it was probably the fact that she spent her date showing off her language skills to another man.

After my hetero lifemate, Cate, tore this list of 50 Things Men Wish You [Silly Women!] Knew apart, I decided to take a whack at it myself.

5. If you’re truly interested in us, don’t play hard to get.

If you’re truly interested in us, don’t not call us three days after an amazing first date just to “play it cool”. It’s called cool for a reason: your inability to follow through with a promise no longer makes you hot. It makes you a dumb ass.

9. I’m hot for you, not your sister or your friend or your coworker.

Because making fun of the insecurities women have (which, by the way, are encouraged by society and men who buy into ads using sex to sell things. Axe, anyone?) is the best way to make her love you. I’m also very doubtful that your girlfriend is the only woman you’re attracted to.

11. Don’t be afraid to ditch the makeup. Natural is sexier.

12. Leave the eyebrows alone. Plucked ain’t pretty.

Going to have to go with Cate on this one: if natural is sexier, can I stop shaving my pits, pubes, legs, etc? What about my mustache (if I had one)? Next time I have a zit the size of Mount Rushmore, I’ll embrace it naturally instead of covering it up.

13. You can have sex with us any time you want. Seriously.

18. But you can have sex with us any time you want. Did we mention that?

I’m actually more concerned with how this harms men. Newflash: men do not want to have sex 24 hours, 7 days a week. There are times when they do not want to have sex. Shocking, I know, but true.

14. When the game is on, we will pay attention to you if you’re nice about it. Bark, and we shut down.

BARK? Are you SERIOUS? I don’t think I have ever “barked” in my entire life. I am not a dog, I am a woman.

21. I just may lie to make you feel good. Don’t be angry about this. You really weren’t looking for the truth anyway.

Because, clearly, no one in my life knows BETTER THAN A MAN what I really am looking for. Lying does not make me feel good. It makes me feel belittled and stupid. It also makes me think you’re an idiot who doesn’t have what it takes to dish out the truth.

23. You’re really bad at faking it.

We wouldn’t have to fake if you knew what you were doing. Did it ever occur to you we’re faking it just so the boredom will stop so we can go practice “looking natural”?

27. Err on the side of  hot; I love to show you off.

Because my greatest goal in life was to be a trophy. And I wasn’t aware that you could be “hot” with a unibrow and hairy armpits.

40. You can pick the movie, but have a reason.

So can you. And the reason can’t be one of the following: breasts, cars, explosions, fight scenes, or sex.

43. Anytime you cook for us, we’re happy.

Anytime you cook for us, we’re happy. The same goes for laundry and other household chores.

47. And we love it when you hang with us guys, too.

Just as long as they’re his friends doing something manly (like drinking beer. Or maybe #31: Chicks who drink beer are hot. Better yet: chicks who drink beer and watch the game. Better still: chicks who buy us a beer during the game.), it’s ok. But if they’re your guy friends, I guarantee instant jealousy.

50. Never say, “I know you better than you know yourself.” Nobody does.

Oh really? See #21.
I have one thing that I wish all men knew: stupid lists like this really do you no good and teach nothing to no one. No woman will “learn” for this list - and not just because it’s printed in Men’s Health (keyword - MEN’S), but because it’s a ludicrous piece of junk. By the way, this is completely heterosexist. Does this apply to gay men and the things they wish their partners knew? Doubtful. Women are not stupid, nor are we inadequate. We are just as intelligent as the next person and we don’t need a list of 50 things men wish we knew.