"Can you believe it?"

Yes, I can, which is why I enjoy this show. :)

Speaking of Christina Hendricks, where can I find episodes of Kevin Hill?

.

"Hey, what did you think of the movie Julie and Julia?"

Jokes.com
Donald Glover - We Get It
comedians.comedycentral.com
Joke of the Day Stand-Up Comedy Free Online Games

Does anyone still like Coldplay, much less wear a Coldplay t-shirt? Unironically, that is.

Also, I don't watch The Real Housewives of Atlanta, but I do watch Mad Men. Uh oh . . .

Jokes.com
Exclusive - Donald Glover - Live Forever
comedians.comedycentral.com
Joke of the Day Stand-Up Comedy Free Online Games

I come from a "predominantly black family", too! But I have seen Sideways. Uh oh . . .

.

Open letter to white male TV writers

who incorporate blackface in their programming to punctuate their views on historical and contemporary racism:

Don't do it.

End of letter.

[Edited on 9/29/2009 for further explanation.]

Why? Because you aren't that much better than the people you are mocking.

1. The majority of people who appear on your shows, meaning Mad Men and The Colbert Report, are white American men. You have a few white women and some token black people. I'd be shocked to see a Latino, East Asian, Pacific Islander, South Asian or Middle Eastern person make an appearance.

2. You don't have any black people in power on your writing staff or working behind the scenes in general. How do I know this? Because if there had been any black authority figures working on your show, those blackface scenes would not have happened. There would not have been a can of shoe polish within a mile of your studios.

Stop trying to convince yourselves and the people around you that you're "not racists" and that you're "the good guys." You do not have the awareness or the facility or the right to employ racist imagery for profit.

.

"You seem pretty smart. You got a sports coat."

I watched the Community pilot tonight. I would have liked it more if it wasn't centered on Joel McHale's pursuit of a woman who is both younger and better looking than he is. If I wanted to see a shamed lawyer pay his debt to society by associating with a group of poor, unfortunate souls, I'd watch The Mighty Ducks again for the 5oth time.

Yes, readers, I'm going to watch Community again next week. But who doesn't like a good Emilio Estevez reference?

And yes, that's Trudy from Mad Men. Good for her getting work. On a network show, too!

.

The chicken came first.

On Race and YA Lit, by Neesha Meminger, Racialicious.

. . . years ago when I was submitting my first (admittedly awful) manuscript to agents, some of the nicest rejections I received were accompanied with, “Your novel has much to love, but regrettably, we already have an Asian author for our list.”

Now I understand The Brushoff – I’ve provided plenty of those in my life and do not resent or judge other providers of same. But to be satisfied with ONE author representing an entire continent that consists of countries as varied as Korea, Sri Lanka, Uzbekistan, and Nepal? Seriously?

All you have to do is stroll through the aisles of a bookstore to see that the fantasy, mystery, romance genres are stocked full. And not with fantasy, mystery, or romance by authors of Color. Those, if and when they exist, often get stocked in the African-American, Native-American, Asian-American, Latin-American, or Multicultural sections.

Given the choices that agents, publishers, and major bookstores make about what they acquire and how they promote it, does the market inform what gets published?

Or does what gets published actually inform the market?

It's the latter.

This week I had a related discussion with one of my male colleagues [Hello, and please leave a comment!] about women in television. It is the same argument I have with many male people about the representation of women in American media. Their side usually goes like this:

"I see women in television all the time. There's Lifetime, WE, Oxygen. Men only have Spike. Even though men comprise the leads on almost every scripted and nonscripted series on television, along with almost all the substantial secondary roles, that reflects the demand of the audience. If women demanded more TV shows about women, then networks would produce them. Studios and networks don't want to lose money. You shouldn't blame them for producing programming for men, by men and about men (specifically white, ostensibly heterosexual and Christian men) because that's what audiences want. Why do you hate capitalism?"

That was a compilation of sentiments, not direct quotes. During my last conversation like this, I wanted to start screaming and throwing things. It usually takes my Dirty Girls story to get the other person to accept that I have a valid, informed position about media representation, despite the fact that I've been writing about this for over two years and I have a degree in film production . But by that point in the discussion, the other person is irritated by a multitude of issues, mainly the fact that I won't back down because I know what I'm talking about.

Each time I have this conversation, I try to get better at it. Yet it still amazes me when people are oblivious to their own privilege and the effects that it has on everyone else. Which leads to the screaming inside my head.

Lack of demand does lead to certain shows getting canceled and certain books not flying off the shelves. However, if the people who control the supply of media don't believe that certain demographics exist (or would prefer that certain demographics didn't exist at all), the audience can never demand what they don't know about.

.

The one where Joanie's fiancé rapes her.

The scene below is from Designing Women, Season 3, Episode 20, “Stand and Fight”.

Mary Jo: If kicking a man is such great defense technique, how come you almost never see that on TV? I mean, you’re all the time seeing women get raped, but you almost never see a man get kicked there.

Charlene: Oh, I can answer that. Because the TV network censors won’t allow it. I mean, at least that’s the way it used to be.

Mary Jo: How do you know that?

Charlene: Well, because Rhonda Fay Knuckles, who graduated high school with me in Poplar Bluff, is in fact married to a network censor. Which in itself is incredible since Rhonda Fay had the filthiest mouth of anyone I ever knew. I mean, she would even answer roll call with, “None of your damn business.”

Mary Jo: That’s incredible.

Charlene: I know.

Mary Jo: No, no. That they can show a woman being raped on TV, but they can’t show woman defending herself by kicking a man in a certain . . . sensitive area. You know what gets me even more is that twisted ankle business. That is so annoying.

Suzanne: What twisted ankle business?

Mary Jo: Oh, you know how they always show some young, blond thing in high heels with her bosom popping out of the dress. You know, running away from some monster or killer or something. And she’s doing pretty good, she’s making pretty good time, until [Mary Jo snaps] she twists that ankle. And then she just lies there till the monster polishes her off. I mean, I guess that’s what you get for having big breasts and running around on three-inch stilts.

Suzanne: What do you want her to do, Mary Jo? Stand up and beat the tar out of Frankenstein?

Mary Jo: Yes! I want a movie where some woman stands up and beats the tar out of Frankenstein. Or Jason or Freddy Krueger or whatever, and does it before her friends get killed. I want a movie where a woman with a gun knows how to use it, and doesn’t let some man wrench it out of her wimpy little wrist. I want a movie where the hero is Charlene, not Charles Bronson.

[Applause]

Charlene: I kinda like that idea.

I really like that idea. I am tired of seeing women attacked in my media. I was so upset when I was watching Mad Men earlier this week. You can see clips from the episode, "The Mountain King", explained by Creator/Executive Producer Matthew Weiner here. Or, you can watch the entire episode here. The AMC website describes the scene as such:

In Don's office the same afternoon, [Joan's fiancé Greg] asks Joan to "pretend I'm your boss" and forces himself upon her despite her protest that "this isn't fun." He pins her to the floor, saying, "This is what you want, right?"

Way to euphemize, AMC. Apparently the network has no problem showing a rape on screen, but heaven forbid they put the word "rape" in print.

After the scene aired, I could barely finish my breakfast, and breakfast is the most important meal of the day. I quickly remembered the following study that I found earlier this year on Feministing:

A recent report by NOW-NYC's Women and Girls in the Media Committee (WAGM) uncovered the startling fact that a number of films in circulation today fail to accurately warn against the sexual content they contain. The Motion Picture Association of America is in charge of assigning detailed and precise ratings to films. And they are not doing their job.

In response, WAGM spearheaded a campaign aimed at the MPAA and its failure to include warnings of rape and/or sexually aggressive behavior in movies where these abominable acts are clearly depicted. The committee compiled a list of 144 films released between January 1996 and March 2006 that had received either an R or NC-17 rating with mention of sexual content, but no specific mention of rape or sexually aggressive behavior (which we have defined as any non-consensual sexual contact/behavior that does not result in sexual penetration). Of the 144 films screened, 31 depict rapes or attempted rapes, and 66 contain characters that are victims of sexually aggressive behavior.

I read the actual media report, and what troubled me was that many of the 31 films that depicted rapes or attempted rapes were mainstream R-rated films, like Con Air, The Good Girl, The Craft, and Disturbing Behavior. One could argue that these films reflect the American culture of rape. However, I am more concerned about these films--and television shows and videos and commercials and advertisements--normalizing rape and perpetuating the image of women as victims.

When I saw Joan's fiancé smashing her face into the carpet as he attacked her on screen, I felt demoralized. I saw the physical act of slut-shaming: Joan's fiancé was angered by 1) Joan's numerous past partners, and 2) the fact that she likes to be on top. So he attacked her.

I doubt that Matthew Weiner consciously knew he was doing this, but he effectively punished the show's strongest female character for owning her sexuality. In the process of attempting to elicit the viewers' sympathy for Joan's tragic situation, the show also reinforced the message that eventually, women who enjoy sex will always get what's coming to them. And not in a good way. :(

.

Bartlet for America

Last night I was watching the "Election Night" episode of The West Wing, and something struck me. When I first started watching the series, I identified myself as an audience member seeking solace from the horror that is the current administration. I soon shifted my focus to Josh, because I liked Bradley Whitford in Masterminds, starring Vincent Kartheiser. (bt-dubs, did anyone see Mad Men last night? That Roger Sterling is causing dra-ma.)

As I continued to rewatch Seasons 1-4 and I learned more about the characters, I moved onto CJ, then Donna, then Sam, and finally to Will. Surprisingly, I never saw myself as a Zoe or a Charlie, although I certainly enjoy their current roles in the above-mentioned Mad Men and Psych, respectively. During my previous viewings of "Election Night", I felt a strong Will and Sam connection, with a bit of Elsie Snuffin thrown in, too. But things changed last night as I watched the following scene (at 3:15 in the clip above):

President Bartlet has just won a second term in the White House. As the crowd cheers, the President and his wife Abbey walk off the balloon-filled stage.

ABBEY
That was wonderful.

BARTLET
That was fun.

ABBEY
How you feeling?

BARTLET
I feel great.

ABBEY
You want a glass of water?

BARTLET
No, I'm fine.

ABBEY
You seem a little dry. Sure you don't want a glass of water?

BARTLET
Yeah.

ABBEY
Maybe I should get you a glass of water, just in case. You could hold it in
your hand.

BARTLET
[beat] How'd you know?

ABBEY
You were off the prompter.

BARTLET
Just for a minute at the end. I couldn't see it.

ABBEY
It's all right. There are going to be more days like this. It starts now. It's going to be harder this time.

BARTLET
Yeah, I know. We can still have tonight, though, right?

ABBEY
You got lots of nights. Smart people who love you are going to have your back.

BARTLET
All right.

Now I am President Bartlet. Or I will be very soon. Maybe I have always been President Bartlet, but I didn't realize it. I am no longer the person who will write someone else's speeches or deliver someone else's news. I will be the person whose news gets delivered. Though I will probably write my own speeches. I am going to have "people who would walk into fire" if I told them to. People who will show up to lead. People who will show up to fight. It scares me. Because with great power comes great responsibility. Apparently I am also Spider-Man. Talk about a gift and a curse.

.

Uniquely gay, or just another cowboy?

Defamer joins the Ben Foster discussion by linking to After Elton's review of 3:10 to Yuma, by Michael Jensen. (Emphases mine.)

Ben Foster stars as Charlie Prince, Wade’s villainous henchman and second in command who oozes gay subtext.

To be perfectly clear, Foster’s part is actually rather small [dirty!], so don’t expect GLAAD to issue a press release taking director James Mangold to task for denigrating the gay community. That being said, there is also no mistaking that Foster’s character is indeed coded as gay and is done so to make him even more unsettling to filmgoers since being a murderous sociopath apparently isn't bad enough.

When we first see Charlie Prince, he is astride his horse, one hand draped delicately over the other with the limpest wrist this side of the Mississippi river. He is by far the nattiest dresser in the entire cast, and if that isn’t mascara he’s wearing when we first meet him then I’m Buffalo Bill.

Foster’s casting tells us a great deal about what Mangold intended for the character. He is a slight man, probably best known as Angel in X-Men: The Last Stand and as Russell, Claire’s sexually ambiguous boyfriend in Six Feet Under. Macho isn’t a word likely to often be used in describing Foster.

First of all, Mr. Jensen, if you're going to spend almost the entire two pages talking about Ben Foster, I'd rethink your choice to title your article "Review of Russell Crowe's "3:10 to Yuma". Second, I don't think most people remember that Ben Foster was actually in the third X-Men movie, considering his onscreen time totaled less than five minutes. Third, not all of us like our men "macho." Cases in point: the Spider-Man and Pirates of the Caribbean trilogies. No one in their right mind would call Orlando Bloom "macho," but that elf has done pretty well for himself.

#

Speaking of olde tyme closet cases, you all should have watched Mad Men last night. If you didn't and you do get AMC, then shame on you. I suggest you all read Todd's review on South Dakota Dark, and James Poniewozik's review on Tuned In. Also, Crista Flanagan of Mad TV made a surprise guest appearance, and she was adorable!

#

I will get to all of your comments soon. I'm so happy that you all left them. It has been a challenging time for me, and I appreciate your continuing to share your opinions here. Even if I don't always agree with every comment, I'm thrilled that you're reading and thinking about what I have to say.