anythings.org

I am a huge Buffy the Vampire Slayer fan. Ask my boyfriend and my roommates: I watch it constantly, and I listen to the musical all the time. If Buffy could be a religion, I would be a devout follower.

Since Buffy is no longer on television, I’ve been going through a bit of a Buffy drought. Once the comics appeared on the scene, I began reading them sporadically, waiting for the paperback volumes to be released to purchase them. I caught an article on the New York Times about Issue #12 and Buffy’s lesbian “experimentation”. This isn’t the first time Joss Whedon has included lesbianism in his series.

For those not familiar with the Buffy the Vampire Slayer television series, Willow - a witch and Buffy’s best friend - develops a lesbian relationship with a fellow witch, Tara, during college. After Tara’s death, Willow begins dating a potential slayer.

Joss Whedon has often said that making Willow a lesbian wasn’t so much about her being a lesbian, it was about her finding in love in someplace unexpected, regardless of whether it was a man or a woman. As a character, Willow’s most obvious trait was her ability to love anyone wholeheartedly, and Whedon played on that trait in her relationship with, and grieving of the loss of, her girlfriend. While BtVS wasn’t the biggest pop culture hit during its seven year run, it was a show that used science fiction and fantasy story lines to highlight true life experiences and the struggles teens and young adults face growing up.

Besides, there’s nothing more fabulous than a show that takes the “high school is hell” metaphor and turns it into the basis for an entire seven season show.

From the NYT:

In a new issue of the “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” comic book series, being released Wednesday, Buffy sleeps with a fellow slayer. And, oh yeah, she’s a woman.

It’s an unusual development for a lead character of a series, whether on television or in comic books.

The story line “evolved naturally,” said Joss Whedon, who created Buffy for the 1992 film and the 1997 television show, which ran for seven seasons. Mr. Whedon is also executive producer of the comic book, published by Dark Horse Comics and promoted as “Season Eight.”

He has written several stories for it, including an opening arc that introduces Satsu (pronounced SOUGHT-sue), one of nearly 2,000 slayers activated in the television show’s finale. One of Buffy’s prized disciples, she ends up sharing her bed.

Mr. Whedon has developed their liaison over several issues. In No. 3 Buffy is overcome by a “Sleeping Beauty” spell undone only by a kiss from someone who loves her. In No. 4 Buffy realizes that Satsu saved her. Last month the pair discussed Satsu’s feelings. Buffy, although flattered by Satsu’s attentions, said the risks of involvement were too great.

“People who love me tend to … oh, die,” she said. Or, she added, they leave, because “sooner or later everybody realizes there’s something wrong … something wrong with me, or around me.”

My favorite part, however, comes from none other than Mr. Whedon himself:

But before fans start blogging frantically, they should know that Mr. Whedon is clear where this is headed. “We’re not going to make her gay, nor are we going to take the next 50 issues explaining that she’s not. She’s young and experimenting, and did I mention open-minded?”

I can’t wait to read this issue! Nerd alert…

[Image from Dark Horse Comics, NYT]

By now I’m sure everyone knows about Amy Winehouse being asked by the Grammy Awards producers to cover up her tattoo’s nipples for her performance, but can we just pause a moment and reflect on how this is being reported to media outlets?

Every article I’ve read says the Grammy producers “expressed concern” over her tattoo’s nipples. I highly doubt that was what actually happened between the producers and Winehouse’s camp. Of course the producers have concerns, but I doubt they are for the good of the American public, especially since the FCC just slammed ABC for a partial nude butt shot on a show that aired five years ago and is no longer even on TV.

But the thing is, the Grammy producers didn’t “express concern”: they told Amy to cover it or she would lose her spot on the awards show. Of course, they couldn’t afford to have Amy back out at the last second, so they were hoping she’d realize this was her moment to prove herself to those who have doubted her and she’d lay down like a dog and cover up the nipples. Can you blame her? With all the negative press she’s been getting lately she had to find some way to refocus everyone’s attention on her talent as a singer rather than her talent as a burn out druggie.

I mean, it’s a topless woman tattooed on her arm. Was it really necessary for her to cover up for the Grammy Awards when almost every picture of Amy has it visible to the naked (no pun intended) eye?

By now, I’m sure you’ve all heard of the writer’s strike. Personally, I stand with the writers. The internet is not too new. The television and film industry has an opportunity to do something huge with these contracts, something that the major record labels never did. The major labels reacted to the internet with fear by utilizing DRM technology and basically saying they don’t trust their customers. The record industry committed suicide. The television and film industries, however, in their [hopefully] upcoming deals with writers will realize the internet’s potential and harness the power of unlimited opportunities.

Everywhere I turn, there are websites (even CNN) asking readers to submit their thoughts on how the writer’s strike will impact them. These websites are asking their readers “how will you survive without TV? What will you do instead of watching TV?” Is this really a question we need to be asking?

In a culture of burgeoning waistlines and increasing cholesterol levels, do we really need to encourage the masses to sit on their butts and watch TV? I’m sure Blockbuster, Netflix and other video rental centers are going to see a huge increase in movie rentals when everyone’s favorite programs start going into reruns. Maybe - just maybe - instead of relying on the various forms of entertainment provided by the Idiot Box, you should consider something a little less sedentary. Walk the dog, you probably have one. Play with your kids, clean your house, wash the car. Get your house ready for the winter. Or, if you’re into knowledge, read a book. While it may not get you off the couch, it’ll get your brain working a way that television just doesn’t.

Beyond that, there’s the actual sides of the debate that are more important than the fact that people are going to have to live “without TV” for an undetermined amount of time. The big wigs are saying that the internet is “too new” and it’s future is undetermined, therefore, it’s impossible to negotiate media used on the internet into new contracts. I laughed when I heard this. Yes, the future of the internet may be undetermined… but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t negotiate for what exists now, and leave room in the contracts for vague options. It really is about money: not for the writers, but for the big corporations, and just how much they can keep from the writers.

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.

Liz is back from a short hiatus with The Feminist Wetblanket: a weekly column that combines feminism and two of her favorite things to poke fun at: media and popular culture.

I think it is very necessary to begin this week’s column by pointing out that I love Ugly Betty. The witticisms are amazing, and it is just so deliciously evil at times that I want to explode with joy that someone finally managed to get good programming on television. But after I explode with euphoria, I realize that no matter how much I love the show (and America Ferrera), I can’t get past the fact that it perpetuates terrible stereotypes of both men and women in pretty much every episode.

Now, part of the problem with Ugly Betty is that Selma Hayek borrowed (ok, took) the show’s premise, characters, etc, from a Brazilian* telenovela. So part of the blame for the stereotypes portrayed in the series rests with its original creators. Since I live in the United States and don’t speak a language other than English, I’ve never watched the original Ugly Betty. I apologize for my ignorance.

The basic idea behind Ugly Betty is that Betty is a fish out of water at Mode magazine, where she is the Executive Assistant to the Editor in Chief. Betty isn’t Ugly, she’s just not Mode material. The good news is that - most of the time - Betty is happy being a fish out of water at Mode, she doesn’t want to fit in with people she views as deceitful and vapid. She loves her odd clothes, braces, weight, and ethnicity. But what we, as viewers, love the most about Betty is her heart of gold. But what I hate the most about Betty and her Mode cohorts is that they uphold stereotypes that can be extremely damaging.

First off, we have Betty. She’s surrounded by gorgeous men and women basically everyday of her working life. What do we learn from these vapid, cruel, and fashion-obsessed lot? That pretty girls (and boys) can’t be smart. You have to be ugly, like Betty, to be kind and intelligent. While Betty can be slow to pick up on insults from her co-workers, we don’t see this as a flaw in her: we see Betty as innocent and full of kindness.

We see the exact opposite in Amanda, Mode’s receptionist. Amanda is beautiful, but let’s face it, she’s a shallow bitch. Only concerned with fashion, her weight (which she should be, since she binge eats), attracting the right men, and succeeding at Mode, Amanda is exactly the type of person Mode caters to. She’s cruel, heartless (most of the time), and obsessed with getting things her way. She’s just dumb enough to buy into anything anyone tells her is fashionable (even if it is essentially a body condom), and she has surprisingly little ability to think for herself when it comes to fashion and pretty much anything else in her life. She’s the classic “pretty, but stupid” girl we all sat next to in high school. She’s pretty ugly.

And the gays (whom I love dearly) on Ugly Betty are only men, and they’re only flamboyant. While I get that the show is about fashion and a certain type of gay man is attracted to the industry, it isn’t helping the stereotype of the flamboyant gay when Willie tells Mark that something he did was “too gay”. I wasn’t aware that you could be “too gay”. Can you be “too straight”?

The only gorgeous and smart women on the show are Alexis and Willie - both of which have terrible flaws in them. Alexis, well, her intelligence can be attributed to the fact that she used to be a man and she’s just carrying that over from a previous life. Regardless of her intelligence, Alexis is hellbent on punishing her brother and father for their rejection of her. Which is interesting because he brother didn’t have an opportunity to reject her: she rejected him because he was too much like their father. Willie is just as hellbent on getting things her way. She even goes as far to have an affair with Bradford Mead, trick him into divorcing his wife, and again trick him into marrying her. Willie is so busy sleeping her way to the top that we forget she’s extremely talented. Alexis and Willie, while intelligent and beautiful women, are downright evil. The phrase “the devil wears Prada” takes on new meaning with these two women: they further prove that when women are extremely beautiful and intelligent, they can only be evil.

So whether it comes to the ugly girl with a heart of gold, the pretty ugly girl, the “too gay” gay, or the devil in a woman’s clothing, Ugly Betty consistently lets us down with their portrayals of men and women. Even Selma Hayek’s guest spot portrayed women negatively: she lead Daniel on and broke his heart, all for a magazine cover that would ensure her success. I don’t know about you, but that was the worst way I could think of them to portray a feminist in the series. It makes my tiny feminist heart break that Selma Hayek couldn’t managed to put together a show with women who are beautiful, talented, intelligent, and nice with normal flaws. Hey, maybe we could get a lesbian in there? Real women, like us at dollymix (k I realize that was corny, but it’s true!).

The author would like to extend her heartfelt congratulations to Ms. Ferrera for being the first Latina woman to be nominated for - and win - an Emmy for Best Actress in a Comedy. Liz has loved Ms. Ferrera since she first saw her in Real Women Have Curves, and she’s glad to see she’s still rocking the same gorgeous normal body with confidence in a town that values Nicole Richie and Angelina Jolie sized women.

* this is incorrect. The series was adapted from a Colombian telenovela.

[image from getty]

So now that Addison is no longer an attending on Grey’s Anatomy, there seems to be something missing. I didn’t realize it before, but in the photos it becomes extremely clear: all of the head physicians in the series are men, including the Chief of Surgery. Notice the dark blue scrubs? All men. What happened to a diverse cast? Way to completely eliminate women from the positions of power, Shonda.

Please note: I know gonads are in both male and female bodies, I was just going for the alliteration.