Nikita Reboot: One Step Forward for Asian-Americans, Two Steps Back for Women

Thanks to the CW's fairly aggressive marketing campaign, its pretty hard to not be aware of new Nikita reboot airing this fall. While I will admit that the television network is to be applauded for casting Maggie Q., an Asian-American woman, as the title character, this show looks to be yet another edition of the objectification of women under the guise of empowerment. (I also would not get too excited about the racial casting of the show - of the seven other actors listed on wikipedia for the series, six are white).

The show is essentially about a thin, attractive woman that kicks butt while wearing tiny and/or tight clothing. I know there is an actual plot buried somewhere in the explosions and gratuitoous clevage shots, but as far as you can tell from the promo clips, it is clearly not that important for you to understand in order to enjoy the show.

I honestly should not critique this show so harshly; after all, I did enjoy watching such shows as Dollhouse and Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicles, both of which sexually objectified the "strong female characters" in some manner or another (though I would argue that for the Sarah Connor Chronicles, the objectification landed solely on the character of Cameron, leaving Sarah Connor to portray a more realisticly strong and gritty woman, who wasn't going to wear tight leather pants to a shootout). That being said, the poster for this show is what really makes my blood boil:

Beyond simply being dressed in a sexually provocative manner, (and in an outfit that is certainly not the most practical for fighting, or the most comfortable), Maggie Q. is shown with a large tattoo of a phoenix on her hip. Admittedly, the tattoo is real and not just a photoshop job, however combined with the revealing leotard outfit and loose, fan blown hair, the tattoo leaves me with the impression that the CW is showing off a prized wild horse that has been branded, but not entirely tamed. If the CW had chosen to portray the actress in, say, loose cargo pants, and a tank (even if it showed significant cleavage), I might believe that this show was about an empowered woman. Instead, I cannot help but feel that I'm watch yet another version of the Fighting Fuck-Toy - a woman there to be aggressive, only so far as it is sexually pleasing to men and the male gaze of the camera.

Second City Translates the Life Lessons Disney Provides for Young Girls

I am not always a fan of the renowned comedy/improve troupe based out of Chicago, but I fully in love with their new series "Advice for Young Girls from a Cartoon Princess." While jumping onto the already very full "Disney is the Devil" bandwagon, this series provides a fresh, cute way to point out the issues with the messages that popular children's movies are teaching to young girls.

So far there are only segments for Belle (my favorite) and Ariel, but supposedly a Cinderella segment will be coming soon.

Sorry Pretzel Crisps, at least one New Yorker Begs to Differ

In the last week or so, this advertisement has start to pop up around NYC, a classic case of a marketing department not -quite- thinking through the implications of theirs message. Maybe a cracker-type snack can never be too thin, (though I would beg to differ there), but human beings certainly can be; as one commenter over on Jezebel notes, this ad copy also is the slogan of many pro-anorexia groups.

One NYC resident decided this negative message needed a dose of reality. So, instead of just whining or blogging about the ad, (like I am doing), the man added some extra copy to the bus advertisement, pointing out to anyone waiting for the bus that actually, you can indeed be too thin, and that advertisements such as this one have a negative impact on how we view our bodies.

The Disappointment of So You Think You Can Dance

After watching six seasons of So You Think You Can Dance (I missed the first one), I think it is time that I came to terms with the fact that the show is, at its core, sexist, a rigid enforcer of gender binaries, and sometimes just out and out creepy (thanks executive producer Nigel Lythgoe a.k.a Creepy Uncle Nigel, I think I'll dedicate an entire post to you at a later date).

Part of the problem is that I want so badly for the show to live up to my expectations. That isn't to say that the show does not have moments of beauty and magic, from time to time it does. Some of that comes from the dancers, some of that comes from the choreographers, sometimes its a combination of things. More often that not however, I am finding myself wanting to throw something at the tv in disgust at something a judge said, horribly sexist choreography, or even just the horrific costumes. Are those occasional moments of beauty worth sitting through the rest of the show? Possibly, but I am getting closer and closer to getting fed up and saying no.

Let's break down some of the recurring themes that drive me so crazy

1) The "sexy seductress" storyline

There is some variation on this story, but generally speaking at least one (if not more) routines a performance night will be based around the idea of this bombshell sexual woman somehow seducing her clueless/ignorant/dorky partner. Sometimes, this is ok, and there have been routines that I thought were fun that did follow this theme...but it gets old. It also puts a strain on the female contestants to -be- that crazy sexual, beautiful woman, a strain not placed on the male contestants. But speaking of the men...

2) Men Must Dance Like Men

This has been a common theme over the various seasons, as a critique thrown at men on the show who either dance too "femininely" (whatever that means), or without enough maturity. I can understand comments about maturity, though that tends to be an issue when you compare 18 year olds with twenty-somethings, but the comments on dancing "femininely" drive me crazy. There are times when a male partner must have strength, and act the macho man (ie, the paso doble, which I hate), however this is not always necessary. Why can't the male dancers display more delicacy, if that is the expression of their dancing and their bodies' capabilities? The reverse of this is also thrown at women who get into trouble for being "too strong," but that happens less frequently and not as vehemently as with men.

3) Women Must Wear Revealing Costumes, Especially for Ballroom.

This one is pretty self-explanatory. It is also a requirement that Creepy Uncle Nigel comment on how sexy a woman looks as part of his critique on her dancing. For ballroom I can quiet down the inner feminist (I feel like she needs a name, any suggestions?), but when female dancers are made to wear sparky bras during hip hops routines while their partner is normal street clothing, I get more than a little cranky. (See the picture posted a few days ago).

4) America Loves Your Butt

Whether it's a dance entirely focused on a woman's behind (thanks Mia Michaels, season 5), girls shaking/popping their rump as a significant part of a hip hop routine (all seasons, especially when Shane Sparks choreographs), a male contestant being forced to show off his backside, and his father doing the same, SYTYCD has an obsession with their contestants' backsides. I'm never a fan of diminishing people to a body part, and this is a reoccuring theme for both male and female contestants.

5) Add a Little Violence to your Samba

"even the spank was with the music" ~ Creepy Uncle Nigel

Violence against women is a tricky subject for SYTYCD. On one hand, it can be used tastefully, and for the purpose of telling a bigger story. Mia Michael's Addiction dance from season five is indicative of that - yes, it implied abuse, but it treated the subject with dignity and proper solemnity. Yet for every respectful treatment of the subject, there is a hip hop dance that shows a woman getting strangled (season five), or spanked (multiple seasons, most recently last week with Kent and Comfort), or any other variation. Even the respectful treatment sometimes borders on being uncomfortable for me, in that it is a theme that comes up too often - what is is about abuse that makes it such a great story? And lets be clear, its pretty much all male against female - the only reversal of this I can think of would possibly be the alien dance between Jason and Caitlin...but that also falls into the "seductress" category mentioned earlier.

6) Where Are the Female Hip-Hop Dancers?

The last time a female hip hop dancer made the show was Comfort in season four. Now in season seven, it doesn't seem too much to ask that there would be another female popper or bgirl? I cannot imagine that there are none that audition that are capable of making the show. I'm always nostalgic for Sara from season 3...surely she can't be the only bgirl out there that is capable of doing other things? It's not like the standards are that high - bboy Jose from the current season is certainly not very good at anything outside of his style.

I always watch SYTYCD looking for artistry and beauty...and fairly often just feel nauseous, or upset. There is a new web series, LXD (The League of Extraordinary Dancers0, that may fill the void left by SYTYCD. Dance is an artform that can fufill many roles...why does it have to uphold patriarchy?

Soft Porn Plane Commercial

Release earlier this week, this advertisement from Russian airline Avianova shows a group of men living out what college humor would have us believe is every man's wet dream - getting to watch a handful of hot women wash something (an airplane) clad only in skimpy bikinis:

In case you needed help deciphering why this advertisement is problematic, here's my top five reasons why this commercial is horrific:

1) Flight attendants don't wash planes - that job goes to someone else, and presumably is not done by hand with a bucket and sponge. That is simply not time or cost effective.

2) Not all flight attendants are models. Or female.

3) Flight attendants give you drinks, peanuts, and scold you for not wearing your seatbelt. They do not perform sexual services, or perform in a sexual manner (except maybe the girls on Hooters Airlines, I assume their job is based on somewhat sexuality just as much at 10,000 feet as it is on the ground).

4) This commercial is not actually selling the services of the airline, but the objectification of the female body under the male gaze (quite literally, considering the creepy COMPLETELY CLOTHED men watching. Got to love power dynamics).

5) The advertisement deprives the flight attendants' of their personal power, and undermines any of their desire to be considered professionals in their business, not simply objects of lust. In fact, thanks to the camera work, these women are pretty much just reduced to their body parts.

edit: Hooters airlines is not actually in existence anymore, having ceased public operation in 2006.

Sharon Angle Thinks God Has A Plan

I'll admit, I really haven't paid too much attention to Sharon Angle up to this point. Endorsed by the Tea Party Express, Angle is the Republican nominee for the Nevada Senate seat in 2010, challenging incumbent Harry Reed. Other than that, I really hadn't paid much attention to her - after all her Republican primary opponent Sue Lowden was amusing enough with her statements that people should barter for medical services with barnyard animals.

But now I must thank Rachel Maddow for bring Angle to my attention, as she will undoubtedly provide me with much entertainment over the next few months. Her positions on issues are interesting to say the least, and up to this point as been running a reasonably successful campaign, with Angle leading Reid 48% to 41% in the most recent Rasmussen poll.

For today let's just focus on a great hot button issue: abortion. Now, it is one thing to be pro life - I might disagree, however I can at the very least understand the viewpoint. However, Sharon Angle is far more extreme than most pro lifers are; not only does she think that abortion is morally wrong for the average unplanned pregnancy, but also for women who have become pregnant as a result of incest or rape. Her reasoning for this is staggering, as she stated in a radio interview on the Bill Manders show back in January:

Manders: I, too, am pro life but I'm also pro choice, do you understand what I mean when I say that.

Angle: I'm pro responsible choice. There is choice to abstain choice to do contraception. There are all kind of good choices.

Manders: Is there any reason at all for an abortion?

Angle: Not in my book.

Manders: So, in other words, rape and incest would not be something?

Angle: You know, I'm a Christian and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things (Check out the audio here).

Yes, you heard right folks. Essentially, Sharon Angle is saying that if a woman has been raped, it is because God willed it to happen, as otherwise he would have interceded. Either that, or that God will somehow cause a miscarriage to happen without medical aid. Either way, I am certainly not comfortable with the idea of a God that would allow a woman to be raped for a greater purpose. That image of God most definitely does not coincide with the pleasant grandfather figure that I was taught about in Sunday school.

This is exactly the sort of issue that drives me crazy about politicians that use their religious as a political tool. I do not mind that my politicians hold religious beliefs, or that they are open about them. What does bother me, is when politicians make decisions that can affect policy entirely on the basis of that religion. Sharon Angle may be a Christian, and her God may tell her that her view is correct...but what about her constituents that hold a different view of a Christian God? What about those that are not even Christian? At the very least she could have stated the abortion is murder no matter how the child was conceived - that position would at least make logical sense to me, as opposed to this elusive "because God willed it" stance.

Nevada, will you please take care not to elect this woman? Thank you.

Sure, You Can Pose Nude...Just Kidding!

Feminist Bile Alert!

Jessie Lunderby, a 21 year old detentions officer from Arkansas, is currently on paid administrative leave pending the country sheriff's office decision on whether or not her nude photo shoot for Playboy's "Cyber Girl of the Week" violated the law enforcement ethics code. Somewhat problematic with the sheriff's office criticism is that Lunderby informed her superiors before doing the shoot, allowing them the time to let her know if this was some that she should not do. Instead, the sheriff's office waited until the photos had gone up on the Playboy website to inform her that her conduct was inappropriate, and that she might be fired for posing nude.

Now I full-heartedly consider myself to be a sex-positive feminist. Do I find Playboy to be misogynistic and demeaning, and Hugh Heffner to be a disgusting, though savvy, businessman)? Most certainly, however I do firmly believe in this woman's right to pose nude if that is what she wishes to do. I cannot imagine that being a female corrections officer brings in that large of an income, and with a husband and an 18-month old son it is certainly understandable why she would choose to do the photo shoot for financial reasons alone, never mind her personal attitude towards nude modelling.

In the various articles/clips I've seen about this, I've yet to find anyone who could explain how Lunderby's modeling would impact her job performance. As far as I can tell the argument against her is almost entirely a knee-jerk morality judgement (though the delay in informing her that this was inappropriate makes the whole situation appear like a set up to create an excuse to have her fired).

If she was working with children, then -maybe- I could understand the sheriff's office reaction; I would still disagree, but it would at least make more sense. However as presumably the prison she works at is for adults, who undoubtedly have had their share of sexual experiences, it seems somewhat ridiculous to claim that these photos will cause her to lose her authority with the inmates. That is demeaning both to her as it implies that she is not qualified enough to successfully do her job (in an environment that is definitely dominated by men), and to the inmates, as it presumes that they are not mature human beings who can understand that the officer shuttling them to and from the courthouse might be a sexual person. And who is to say that the inmates would have even seen the photos? Last time I checked not every male on the planet has a paid subscription to Playboy.com.

It sounds like if she gets fired, Lunderby will be taking this issue (and others) to court, and suing the county. Good for her. I hope that she gets the compensation that she deserves.