Sigh

So by now even if you haven’t seen the movie I’m sure you’ve heard some buzz about the new Transformers movie. Namely about two robots new to the movie franchise called Skid and Mudflap. Here’s some sources: The Huffington Post, and Chud. I just saw it last night. My reaction to the twins was exasperation. Their whole premise smacked of effort and I found it difficult to believe that Bay was not going for a Sambo meets JarJar Binks effect. The audience reaction is what intrigued me however. The audience did chuckle at the twins but the movie thought they were funnier than the audience did. They never got big laughs and the audience did not perceive that their constant fighting was supposed to be funny. The movie gave them more face time and more lines than most of the new characters  and while some people found them heh heh funny (notably whenever they would utter a swear or called someone a “pussy”), there were no guffaws. It gave me some hope that people can enjoy themselves at a movie without characters like that. Also the movie came equipped with the traditional–women who only talk about men and serve no real purpose save to run in slow motion from explosions.

Why would I go see such a movie? My fiance reserved tickets weeks ago. He has been into the Transformers since he was a kid. When we moved there were three full trashbags of Transformers action figures that came too. According to him, he had no idea the movie would be so bad. But I do wonder what if anything he would have noticed about the movie’s message about sex and race had I not been there. In fact he seemed utterly dejected once I explained what I had heard about the characterizations, however, I think it was more about realizing that he was dragging me to a movie that I didn’t want to see and less about outrage about the messages.

These were the heroes he grew up with and he was so excited for another movie even though it was undoubtedly going to follow a hackneyed plot that featured tons of explosions. He never for a moment had to consider any deeper message because well, the messages aren’t talking about them. The movie says that white dudes like him can be heroes no matter how nerdy. The media normally talks to him, not about him, and he did not really get why I was so irritated. To me it felt like a double whammy, not only did they have the tried and true hot chicks with no ambitions they decided to throw in tired sambo robots. The movie did not speak to me so much as about me as if it was impossible that I would be in the theater (although the ever presence of tired stereotypes normally ensures that I will not be there). I tried to get my fiance to empathize with me, likening it to someone physically assaulting one partner–the other shouldn’t continue the association. However, in this case it was a childhood friend of his that betrayed me, and it was clear he did not know whose side to pick. He was willing to ignore the indiscretions because, well, they weren’t about him. They rarely if ever are. To a degree I think I was jealous that I do not have the ability to ignore sexism and racism. There is plenty of media I can no longer tolerate–lots from my childhood, that I lost. I wish that I occupied a position  that the media spoke to and not about so that when I pontificated on race/sex, I could do so from an abstract point of view. I wish a movie was just a movie, or characters that just so happened to walk/talk/look like stereotypes could just be robots with nothing else to them. At the same time, it sure would be nice to see a movie without tired stereotypes being trotted out as if they enhance the experience. I wonder why the media thinks that white dudes like my fiance can’t enjoy something unless it has sexism/racism/testicle jokes.

Trigger warning.

Police: ‘Rapist’ May Not Be Guilty In Husband’s Scheme

Secret Service Reveals Possible Craigslist Connection

Posted: 3:33 pm EDT June 3, 2009Updated: 11:24 pm EDT June 3, 2009

KANNAPOLIS, N.C. — Detectives turned their attention Wednesday night to finding an accused rapist who might not be guilty of any crime. Kannapolis police charged a woman’s husband with arranging for a stranger to rape her.”We need to determine for sure if this other party knows, or should’ve known that this wasn’t going to be a consensual act,” said Capt. Chuck Adams. Police said the husband went online to Craigslist to find someone to sexually assault his wife.Investigators were using the help of the Secret Service to scour computer files in an attempt to locate the stranger.It was mixed emotions for neighbors now relieved it wasn’t a random crime. “Thoughts go out to the woman and her family, terrible thing, but very glad its not a unsuspected random attack,” said Mark Russell.Eyewitness News did a search on Craiglist, and found twelve local ads for “rape fantasy”, and sixty entries for “role play.”Police emphasize that the victim in this case didn’t know about her husband’s plan.Neighbors in the Farm subdivision off Shiloh Church Road in Kannapolis were shocked to learn about the arrest and charges.Subdivision resident Herman Fons said, “How can you do that to a loved one? I’m stunned. I’m stunned.”Kannapolis Police Chief Woody Chavis is similarly perplexed. “It’s very unusual, and I’ve been in law enforcement a long time,” he said.Davis said the suspect went online to the Craigslist web site looking for something unusual: a sex partner willing to go too far. “He solicited him to enter his house and sexually assault his wife,” Chavis said.The man found online has not been charged with a crime yet, and Chavis said police aren’t sure yet whether he thought the wife was in on the plan.Sunday morning, while the couple’s 3- and 4-year-old children slept, the alleged victim awoke to see a man standing at the foot of her bed holding a knife, according to Chavis.One of the first clues police had that the husband was a participant was that he apparently did nothing to try to stop the assault. “There is no indication he did anything whatsoever to stop it,” Chavis said.Police confiscated the husband’s computer and gave it to the U.S. Secret Service, which found the Craigslist connection.Eyewitness News reporter Ken Lemon asked Davis why the husband would set up such an attack. Chavis replied, “I think that was something he wanted to experience. That was his fantasy.”While Kannapolis police have released the husband’s name, Eyewitness News is not using it to protect the privacy of the alleged victim in the case.

Source

This guy is not a “rapist”, he’s a rapist. Objectively speaking, he did rape a woman. She did not give her consent nor did he obtain it–if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck… I’m sure the excuse will be that he thought he was participating in a fantasy (there was a case like this in our crim law book wherein a husband told two guys to have sex with his wife, that she liked it rough, and if she complained that it was all part of the fantasy–what do you know, that wasn’t a reasonable mistake to make on their part). However, he never corresponded with the wife and was wielding a knife. Even if he honestly believed this was all part of an agreed upon activity, a reasonable person would have known better given the circumstances. How is it mutal and safe play when the parties haven’t communicated openly? Why are we trying to excuse someone for something so heinus? Do people regularly “accidentally” rape strangers because someone told them it was alright? Would we buy it if the husband told the guy to take money from his wife’s wallet and she’d be totally okay with it? We’d call him a moron and rightfully so.

Also I’m not so sure why the neighbors are relieved. Oh at least it was just some stranger of dubious moral character willing to threaten someone with a knife and rape them at the request of another–oh yeah, I’d feel much safer with someone like that roaming around my neighborhood. Oh and let’s not forget sharing the neighborhood with someone whose idea of a fantasy is having someone else be violated while he watches. He seems like a safe character to have around.

My heart goes out to the wife, I can’t even fathom how she must feel.

Feministe answers the question of “Is it wrong to murder an abortionist” posed by Slate.

Renee andKate Harding point out that the words and rhetoric of the movement have real world consequences.

I guess I’m still in shock–especially since the coverage in the mainstream media won’t call this the terrorism that it was but rather point the finger at Tiller for being an “abortionist”–a term which further erases the agency of his patients. It’s as if doctors who perform abortions trick women or ambush them and end their pregnancies when in reality it’s the pro life people who obfuscate the truth and force women into unwanted decisions with their “crisis pregnancy centers”. My thoughts are still jumbled up–and it doesn’t help that I recently made an appointment at a place that does perform surgical abortions, since they also perform other gynecological surgeries,  and I’m sure there will be protesters about. Of course, isn’t that what the assasination was about–not just to get rid of someone performing abortions but to frighten women away from obtaining abortions and frankly any other kind of health care from places that may offer abortion as an option. They don’t care about the women coming in for iud consultations, std testing, check ups, what’s important is that no one gets abortions–even if that means harming more women through lack of access to their healthcare providers as collateral damage.

I need more time to think.

By “I was abducted by two black men” I meant I’m going to Disney World.

In the frantic call, Sweeten said two men had bumped her 2005 GMC Denali, carjacked her and stuffed her in the trunk of a dark Cadillac. She implied that her daughter was with her in the trunk, according to Philadelphia police Lt. Frank Vanore, who listened to tapes of the calls.

Sweeten, who is white, described her assailants as black but otherwise gave few details about their appearance, Vanore said.

“It was pretty generic,” he said.

Notably, the article doesn’t mention the whole “black men abducted  me” until midway down the page. The media swarmed over this story and it went national quickly–although it seems the sensational nature of the crime was due in part to the whole black abductors. Now the local stations all want to discuss the racial implications of how fast the media jumped all over the story and believed it even when investigators didn’t.

So what does it mean that after Susan Smith and Charles Stuart people still buy “a black guy did it” as a plausible explanation?

Although the court split 6-1 on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the justices were unanimous in deciding to keep intact the marriages of as many as 18,000 gay couples who exchanged vows before the election. The marriages began last June, after a 4-3 state high court ruling striking down the marriage ban last May.

In an opinion written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, the state high court ruled today that the November initiative was not an illegal constitutional revision, as gay rights lawyers contended, nor unconstitutional because it took away an inalienable right, as Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown argued.

–L.A. Times

Feministing has a link to the Scotusblog’s discussion of her record.

The New York Times article discusses the implications of her ethnicity:

Judge Sotomayor has said her ethnicity and gender are important factors in serving on the bench, a point that could generate debate. “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” she said in a 2002 lecture.

She also once said at a conference that a “court of appeals is where policy is made,” a statement that has drawn criticism from conservatives who saw it as a sign of judicial activism. Judge Sotomayor seemed to understand at the time that she was making a controversial statement, adding that, “I know this is on tape, and I should never say that, because we don’t make law.”

Conservatives quickly pointed to such statements after word of her selection on Tuesday.

“Judge Sotomayor is a liberal activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important than the law as written,” said Wendy E. Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, an activist group. “She thinks that judges should dictate policy, and that one’s sex, race and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench.”

White House officials concluded that such statements, while perhaps providing fodder for opponents, would not be problematic enough to hinder her confirmation. Some officials have said in recent days that they relish the prospect of Republicans standing up against a Hispanic woman with her life story, because it would only damage the G.O.P. with a key voting bloc.

Isn’t it a bit naive to think that one’s ethnicity, wealth, and culture don’t already affect decisions all the time? Why is it suddenly a problem when a justice does not come from the traditional halls of power? Now we should be afraid that a judge will use personal experience to influence decisions–even though we’ve seen it before. Or perhaps we’re supposed to be afraid because white and male is considered a neutral status and therefore those judges will always be impartial since they have no interest. I’d have to say that’s naive at best and completely ficticious at worst.

Whenever companies come up with diet products they tend to be targeted firmly at women. Usually they’ll redo an existing product stick in artificial sweetneers, make it smaller, and maybe slap some pink on the package and call it things like decadent, or no guilt (because women should feel guilty for eating). But when these companies try to advertise low calorie foods to men, they must explicitly state that they’re for men–not like those frilly girly diet foods.

See: Fling. The Twix for dieters.

Not only is it 85 calories, the chocolate also sparkles.

Wrapped in a shiny pink and sliver package, this delicate “chocolate finger” is intended for women. The word “finger” is an industry term for a long, slim confection, Mars spokesman Ryan Bowling says, but with ads that invite you to “Pleasure yourself” in pink lettering, consumers might come to other conclusions.

The tag line on the package is “Naughty, but not that naughty.” A TV spot starts with what looks like strangers having sex in a store dressing room. Currently the candy bar can be bought only California and online, but if all goes well, Mars is hoping women will be having Flings all across the country.

Perhaps it’s named fling as a reminder of the relationship women are supposed to have with food–fleeting and guilt ridden? Or perhaps it’s only a fling since it doesn’t add unsightly pounds and inches? What’s the deal with the sexual innuendo?

See also: Pepsi Max the first diet cola for men

In this case they went for the tried and true method of sticking a bunch of “manly” images into the commercials to make it more attractive  to men–as usually seen by commercials for burgers with bacon on it. So we reaffirm that diet foods are for girls, but not this diet food because it has extra caffeine…mmm manly.

“Reflecting on Gentrification” over at Feministing.

There’s plenty of typical comments ranging from applauding the middle class for turning urban neighborhoods into sunshine and rainbows to proclaiming the gentrifiers are the victims here because their lovely improvements price them out of the neighborhood too. There’s also some discussion of whether being a gentrifier is ever okay and if it’s even possible to mitigate the harm to the current residents. Is cheap rent worth crowding out the existing residents? Is it all part of the housing game?

So I’ve been poking around bridal magazines and ended up buying one since it was just such an excellent commentary on the wedding business. When you open the magazine you’re innundated with ads, not just for the dresses but for every concievable accoutrement you could ever need or be told that you need. Not only are there more ads then content, but those ads are even more pointed at their appeals to emotion. It’s not like the cookie or candy commercials that insinuate that you’ll feel better if you eat them. It’s more like commercials for medicine. You can treat your perfect wedding with these goods and it MUST BE PERFECT FOR YOUR SPECIAL DAY.

First up are the jewelry ads. You would think that since presumably if you’re up to the bridal magazine stage, you’ve already gotten your engagement ring, but nevermind that. Never compromise on the true love of a diamond. Ever.The jewelry ads are followed closely by ads about your personal appearance on your special daaaaaaaaaay.

Even if you look like the industry standard of what bridal is–blonde, svelte, updo, perfect makeup, figure hugging gown, you’re never good enough. Your teeth could stand brightening, you could be blonder, don’t you dare break out from the stress of planning a big party that is supposed to adhere to thousands of rules predetermined by the very vendors you’re hiring. Its all the same messages women normally get only this time it’s about “love”. And in order ot have “love” you must buy the right things, wear the right things in the right way and more. May I add that the only bride that didn’t appear to be size 2s in the entire magazine were in a David’s Bridal ad for the “David’s bridal woman” line. I’d also like to add at this point that the brides of color were few and so very far in between. Two were in a makeup feature. One or two were advertising colored gowns (which wouldn’t be so bad if the wedding industrial complex didn’t look so far down their noses at women who don’t wear white/ivory/cream/champagne). The other women of color played bridesmaids. The only ads with black brides were David’s Bridal. If I were looking for a company that doesn’t try to erase my existence, they’d win in a landslide.

Nev compromise. Ever.

It's not love without it

Sure, love is great, but it could be platinum

You + this ring = meant to be

Practical rings are for dudes

The ubiquitous lose weight for your special day ad

The teeth you got engaged with aren't good enough for your special day

A special bridal edition of an Abreva ad

Even if you meet the bridal beauty standard, you could still be blonder.

Over at Shapely Prose, Kate Harding speaks about the sound byte stylings of traditional media shown in an article from Philadelphia Weekly.

Affectionately titled bigbooty

So what do you think of the image they chose to demonstrate “big girls basking in the summer sex appeal”?

Is this meant to imply that this is what a sexy fat woman looks like? Is it meant to show what the average fat woman looks like? It doesn’t seem subversive in the slightest since there is the presumption that it is more acceptable for black women to be fat than any other women. Additionally there’s the tried and true presumption about black women’s hypersexuality–does it get anymore obvious than a bethonged, nipple showing, big booty woman casting a seductive stare over her shoulder?

Also, is being mostly butt now considered plus size? Or is it just illustrated that way because of the fetishization of the black woman’s butt, so surely any heavy black woman must have a preposterously sized bottom?

Magazines don’t generally pick their images willy nilly, so clearly they want to communicate something with it. But with so many choices, which reading should the reader take away, really?