Disgust Down By The Sea

In less than 11 months, "American Reflexxx" has accrued 1.5 million views on YouTube. The video, a social experiment by artists (and couple) Signe Pierce and Alli Coates, follows Pierce the night she strolled Myrtle Beach wearing just sky-high neon green heels, a micro mini-dress, and a chrome face mask. Against a backdrop of blinking amusement rides and technicolor souvenir shops, Pierce is spat at, verbally assaulted, tripped, hit on, laughed at, run away from, called a man, and pushed to the ground by total strangers-- all in less than an hour.

I first saw Pierce's work--as a self-proclaimed "reality artist"--on Instagram. In an onslaught of colors pulled from the Lisa Frank ads of yesteryear, she aims to question traditional notions of gender and sexuality and disrupt patriarchy, capitalism, homophobia, and other societal tendencies. "American Reflexxx," specifically, brings attention to the terrifying reality of transphobia and mob mentalities in the US.

The production is markedly low-budget, Coates recording with a single handheld camera and only editing the clip's speed. Both the editing, the theme, and the aesthetic of this video remind me of Harmony Korine's Spring Breakers, an homage to the gritty (but beautiful) reality of drug- and sex-dominated beach cultures.

"American Refluxxx" is uncomfortable to watch, and that's the point. By also being weirdly mesmerizing, Pierce manages to gets eyes on her works and--more importantly--minds on her various troublesome subject matters. And 1.5 millions minds realizing how tragic and warped the behavior in "American Refluxxx" is, is a start in the direction of positive change.

Documentary for Social Change

Most people that I've encountered that hope to make it in the documentary world have some form of passion for social justice. Of the many news outlets and organizations I've encountered, the most effective at producing social change has been Witness. With tag of "See It, Film It, Change It", the organization works to train citizens to be active in social movements through the power of film and photography. Citizen journalism that is collected is often turned into larger films that are used as evidence in international cases. I find their series on Gender Based Violence to be highly effective. The cover issues from sex worker safety to feminicide to equal pay in a range of countries. The series is worth watching not only because they are great short films, but also because they are giving agency back to the people of these areas. Oftentimes documentaries for social change take a distant gaze and a bias based on the filmmaker's history. Instead these films bring you into the minds of the women, making them the agents of social change. This story is interesting about the differences in women's work. 

Genna Davis at IC

Genna Davis an Academy Award Winning Actor and Founder of the Genna Davis Institute on Gender in the Media. She recently visited the beautiful Ithaca College on Tuesday, March 31, where she addressed Gender Equality in the Media.

Genna Davis Institute for Gender in Media is a non-profit program which engages film and television creators to dramatically increase the percentage of female characters---and reduce danger stereotyping --in the media made for children 11 and under.

In her speech she addressed that in almost all her roles she plays is a strong women.  This is true through her part of the first female President on ABCs hit show Commander in Chief.  Currently, Davis plays Dr.Nicole Herman on Grey's Anatomy.

Some of her other films included Toostsie, The Fly, Beetlejuice, Earth Girls Are Easy, Angie, The Long Kiss Goodnight, Stuart Little and A League of Their Own. <----- My TWO FAVS!

Some very interesting points that I feel were valid in her speech are:

• Males outnumber females 3 to 1 in family films. In contrast, females comprise just over 50% of the population in the United States. Even more staggering is the fact that this ratio, as seen in family films, is the same as it was in 1946.
• Females are almost four times as likely as males to be shown in sexy attire. Further, females are nearly twice as likely as males to be shown with a diminutive waistline. Generally unrealistic figures are more likely to be seen on females than males.
• Females are also underrepresented behind the camera. Across 1,565 content creators, only 7% of directors, 13% of writers, and 20% of producers are female. This translates to 4.8 males working behind-the-scenes to every one female.
• From 2006 to 2009, not one female character was depicted in G-rated family films in the field of medical science, as a business leader, in law, or politics. In these films, 80.5% of all working characters are male and 19.5% are female, which is a contrast to real world statistics, where women comprise 50% of the workforce.

(http://seejane.org/research-informs-empowers)

The Women of Wall Street

Everyone's seen The Wolf of Wall Street. And if you haven't, you need to get on that. Seriously, watch it. It's a miracle you've been able to hold any sort of conversation with people since its release. Just kidding, I saw it about a week ago. But I mean, look at this face:

Leonardo DiCaprio in "The Wolf of Wall Street"

Anyway, if you have heard of it, you're aware of the certain misogynistic themes that run rampant throughout the entire 180 minutes of the film. But Meghan, it's a biographical film! It's supposed to be funny! They have to stay true to the characters! And yes, I do admit that there's something outrageous and alluring that sets The Wolf of Wall Street apart from the other hundreds of thousands of "Men-Are-Powerful, Women-Are-Sex-Objects" films, but it's interesting to think about how the movie would've actually went if the roles were reversed.

And that's where Los Angeles writer, Nicole Donadio, comes in. A couple of weeks ago, she released a video called "The Women of Wall Street", a parody of the original The Wolf of Wall Street trailer. Line for line, and almost exactly shot for shot, she recreated the trailer, but with a twist. All of the roles switched genders. The concept is more impressive than the actual production of the video, but in my opinion, it was very well executed and edited. First, here's the original trailer:

And here's Donadio's version:

At it's worst, it's a silly parody of a blockbuster film. At it's best, it's a nod to the inequality of women in not only the film industry, but the corporate world as well. What I found extremely interesting were the surprisingly negative comments on the Youtube page. Commenters treated the word and the concept of "feminism" in a very critical light. Although "feminism" has always been viewed as a dirty word (known to many as "the F-word"), I found it alarming how many people took the time to express their hatred for not just the video, but the feminist ideals behind it. Regardless, I'm all for these kinds of videos starting discussions and bringing to the surface some of the issues of gender that are mostly shoved under the rug. Props to Donadio, and I'm excited to see if this sparks any more critical parodies.

And in case any of you are interested, here's a link to a well-written critique on The Wolf of Wall Street from a feminist stand point. Because you know, feminism.

Getting a little ticked...

Our reading this week struck a cord with some of the other reading I've been doing for our group. We're looking at personality, obviously, so a simple search on avatar personality led me to a book written by David Bell. Bell talks about embodiement, or lack thereof, and of some of the history of the "gender rights movement" for lack of a better term. He mentioned that in the late 90s, a movement developed to keep female gamers out of these online worlds. Women responded by creating groups of girl gamers that used terms like geekgrrls and others. They fought back much like we saw in Ada's story.

Bell also talks about the "cross dressing" aspects as well. He mentions some specific cases of female lesbians being seduced by homosexual men believing the female avatar is actually a man. He then speaks of the sterotypes of maleness and femaleness. The idea is that you must exagerate the sterotypes in order to be a believable avatar.

Up until this point in my reading, Bell had only ticked me off to a mild extent. Then he pushed me right over the edge. He began discussing race and computing. He classed individuals into 3 groups, the Information Users, the Information Used, and those that lack information. By information, he of course meant lack of access. His whole thesis apparently revolved around this point. Apparently minorities and women LACK the needed skills to effectively use the internet and VWs, and it is another ploy by those in the upper tier to keep us all in our proper places. His book was published in 2000.

I growled a few times, skimmed the rest of the work and chalked it up to the hairbrained schemes of the moronic, until I found he's actually published several works on this subject. That really made me angry. While I can see his viewpoint about access, I do not accept his idea that some people (mainly women in his opinion) lack the skills to participate flly in the digital age. To me it is akin to an article in a gaming magazine from several years ago in which the author suggested to his male readers that they should introduce thier girlfriends to gaming through things such as Spiro, or other cuddly, easy games. The author was inundated with enough letters from angry female readers that even he had to admit that perhaps he was wrong. In the year 2000, when Bell was published, I was teaching 7th grade life science at an at-risk in Virginia, where my students were far more technologically savy that I was. Even in 2000, most families had a computer in the home. Though Bell does admit that he graduated from grad school when computer took up several rooms.

I believe he is right that in some cases gender is over exagerrated to be believable, however, I found that usually this is a case of when someone is attempting to project an avatar they are uncomfortable with (ie man project female or vice versa). We won't even get into his thoughts on "furries" as he calls them, and those that would chose them.

Now let me move abruptly to my next topic of frustration for the week. Obviously, since Thursday, much ahs been discussed about violence in the media, ie violent games, movies, tv shows. Everytime some horrible tragedy occurs it's back to the theory of desensitation that causes the young (and not so young) to "lose it" and harm others. I've spent much time in conversation about this lately, and this is not my first post on the subject. But as I watch the things occuring in our world and the increase in technology being blamed for it I feel outraged. I have yet to find a single long term study that links violent media to violent behavior in the young. What I have found are studies that indicate that the "me" attitude of parenting has caused the young to feel isolated and powerless. Obviously there are many good parents in the world, many realize the committment required to parent. Others do not. When the incident at Columbine was blamed on video games and music I (as young as I was) asked why his parents weren't monitoring what they were doing? I find myself now wondering why, even at the age of 27, no one noticed that this young man had gone off his medication, or that something was wrong.

Some discussion in our class has revolved around whether meeting online is truly meeting, whether it is social. Forming friendships online can be just as vital as forming them in RL. No man is an island, why didn't anyone notice? I think again it leads back to the "me" attitude. Well, he stopped showing up to work at the prison, so he's fired, end of story. Why didn't someone go to his home and check on him? It would seem to me if the playing of violent video games is "making" children react violently, then why are parents allowing the games to be played by thier children? While it's not easy to monitor every aspect of what your children's lives, there is quite a bit that can be monitored. I knew most of what was going on in my classroom when I was teaching. I knew who thought they might be pregnant, who was taking drugs, who was living with someone other than thier guardian, who was reading what, and what games they played. I knew which girls braided hair for extra money, and I knew who was "dating" who. I was thier teacher and saw them roughly an hour a day. How can we live in a world where it is SO easy to stay connected, and yet no one knew this young man was about to snap, just like no one knew the young man at Virginia Tech was about to snap. How can no one know?

I think we're living in a time where everyone can be connected. I don't feel that there are classes. While my mother typically uses the internet for shoping, she also knows how to log onto a library system, retrieve materials, and do what she needs to do. She taught herself. Some of the greatest computer users I've met are women and minorities. These are the people that not only can do anything online, but when thier computer is broken, they know how to take it apart and repair it. Not because they had opporunity to learn as children, but because unlike those that have the resources (According to Bell), they cannot replace thier system when it breaks, they fix it. I once epoxied a telephone jack onto my computer when my modem port had broken. It worked that way for years. I've also helped one of my friends reduce her computer to parts in order to find that broken card and replace it. Remember, we are the people that Bell insists have no ability.

I know that this blog has been rambling, but of course during the course of writing it I've had three seperate conversations with my son, taken water to my husband that is recovering from Strep, and I've taken a second to feed my aged cat canned food. But hey, maybe it should be all about me? Come on folks, especially the ladies and minorities, please prove Bell wrong. And remember to take care of each other. Those of us in Grad school know what its like to be far from home, with no one to look in on you. I remember thinking that when I arrived here, 12 hours away from my family and my fiance that the only people that would miss me would be GRU and maybe Cox. Ironically, I quickly made close friends of several cohorts, and we have always taken care of each other. It's not hard. When someone is strapped for cash, take them leftovers from dinner, or invite them over. I can't count the number of meals I've taken to my friends, and how many I've gotten in return. When someone you care about is down, take them out for coffee, watch a movie together, it's just a couple of hours, and can mean the world. The night I called a friend and told her that I was miserable, she picked me up and we drove for three hours talking. Several weeks later, when her sister had an ear infection that sent her to the hospital int he middle of the night, I drove. It's not the things we watch as adults, or the games we play, it's the fact that no person is an island and we all need each other. SL gives us a chance to make connections to people, to keep in touch, and to take care of those, even when they are hours away.