Stupid, fat, male catastrophes

I finally found a good, solid male stereotype! The stupid, fat, American father! Nobody tops Homer of The Simpsons and Peter of Family Guy. This blog maybe hard for me to write objectively because these are my two favorite television shows of all time.

Here is a list of all of his inherent flaws just because he is overweight.

1. Lazy
2. Stupid
3. Funny because of his stupidity
4. Bad father
5. Alcoholic
6. Somehow marries a hot, smart wife. But why does she fall for him if she's so smart?
7. Because they are SO lovable!
8. And they're always lower middle class.

In The State of the United States, a blog geared toward understanding American culture from a foreigner's perspective, The Simpsons is cited as the OVERALL classic example of the American stereotype. Meanwhile, Annalee Newitz makes an interesting comparison between Roseanne and The Simpsons in his blog Why I Hate The Simpsons.

So why do I still love these shows so much? I'm not exactly sure. My boyfriend thinks the bright colors really help because they make viewers happy. I suppose these shows also remind me of my childhood. I feel like a hypocrite admitting that these are my favorite shows on my blog devoted to revealing negative stereotypes in Hollywood. Perhaps it's because none of these stereotypes apply to me. I guess its natural for people not to be offended by things that do not affect them. It's difficult to find humor that does not hurt some group of people. Maybe that will be my next mission- to find the perfect humor for everyone.

Dramatic Titanic

I was 11 years old when Titanic premiered in movie theaters. And boy, did it move me! The Romeo and Juliette tragic romance is probably the reason why Titanic was my favorite movie for years. Like I said, I was also 11.

Last night, I revisited this old favorite for the first time in probably two years (yes I loved it for THAT long). After taking a class in college about stereotypes used in film, it has been a lot harder to enjoy films because I am realizing that they are everywhere! So when I was watching Titanic last night, I started to catch handfuls and handfuls of stereotypes. And it made me amazed that I never realized this before- even at 18 years old.

The most obvious contrasting stereotypes I caught last night was that of the stuffy, cold, and heartless Briton vs. the warm, caring and lovable Irish. For example, Mr. Ismay is actually a historical character who was the Managing Director of the White Star Line. He was in fact British and also did indeed shamelessly climb into a life boat while there were still women and children aboard. What director James Cameron exploded in his movie was that Ismay bribed Captain Smith to speed up the voyage beyond safety- making him at fault for the tragedy. Accroding to Wikipedia, this was a rumor that circulated but was never proven true by any of the ship's surviving crewmen. More British stereotyping is seen in the crew characters when they are trying to control the frantic passengers during the ship's sinking. They themselves go insane and start screaming and man-handling passengers. Also, the characters Rose and her mother Ruth were portrayed as snobby American socialites (Rose in the beginning) but I find it interesting that these actresses are both British. I guess Cameron thought only Britons could play snobby and wealthy well.

The Irish in the movie are all composed and just plain lovely. All of the doomed third class children who have lines in this movie happen to be Irish. A conflicting portrayal is given to the historical Irish character Mr. Andrews who was responsible for the ship's design. Andrews is seen in a positive light and manner the entire film even though it was his fault for the ship's lack of boats and its design that increased its sinking potential. Still- we love and sympathize for Mr. Andrews. Also- all of the lovely romantic music seems to have an Irish influence. So I guess Americans will always love the Irish and hate the British.

I was also bothered by the typical tragic portrayal of the lost woman whose only answer to her problems is to kill herself. How many times have we seen this?! Why must women be so helpless that the only thing that can save us is a swaggering male?

A British shopping website called Ciao has an interesting review of Titantic because it is from a British citizen's point of view.

Beneficial Reality Shows

The first reality shows sought manufactured drama. This was achieved by either shutting away groups of strangers in a small house or by impossible competitions. These kind of shows (i.e. Real World, Survivor, etc.) are obviously still present today (i.e. Real World, Top Chef) but are defined as the crappy television. When most people hear the word reality, they think of ridiculous drama, contrived situations and awful human beings that unfortunately exist.

But some networks have given myself and other television enthusiasts hope. TLC is the best example of this. Shows like Little People Big World and specials like World's Heaviest Man are about the lives of disabled individuals. They give healthy people a glimpse into the the daily hardships these subjects experience. Even though every television show's purpose is to be successful for material reasons, I am glad that they are doing something good at the same time. These shows are educating healthy Americans about things they do not know. I am hoping that this will make children (and even a lot of adults) think twice before they make an immature and cruel comment about disabled individuals faced with daily hardships they cannot control. I believe that humans are innately insensitive when they are uneducated and unfamiliar with disabled persons.

Some followers of TV Squad believe that Little People Big World exploits little people. Although I can see how people arrive at that accusation, I do believe that this show can only do more positive than negative. It shows how this family is just like yours and mine, with a few exceptions here and there. Forcing disabled people to hide in the shadows would only breed more cruelty because people are uncomfortable with what they do not understand.

Millionaire Matchmaker= not anti-feminist?

Season two of Millionaire Matchmaker just premiered two Thursdays ago. Matchmaker Patti Stranger offers this courting service to the millionaires who are having trouble finding "the one". Stranger's goal is to successfully "cure" these millionaires from their poor dating habits and to find their perfect mate suitable for marriage. The millionaires of this show were all men up until this season. I unfortunately did not get the chance to catch the millionairess episode.

Being that the majority of her millionaire clients are men, Stranger treats her women candidates as objects. She tells them to show cleavage, wear high heels and basically look absolutely flawless when they attend the meet-and-greets. In the season premier, she actually told one of these hopeless woman victims that she was too fat for the men and that she needed to lose weight before she was presentable. Let's keep in mind that these millionaire men are no prized pigs themselves. In fact, they are more-often-than-not narcissistic, thoughtless, older and unattractive. And you would think some of them have never seen a woman before! Of course, this is where Stranger whips them into shape and shows them how to properly woo a woman.

For the above reasons, I felt that a lot of women (and hopefully some men out there- the few that would even watch the show) would feel that Millionaire Matchmaker is incredibly anti-feminist. But I was surprised to find a few entries online that opposed my accusation- including an interview with Stranger herself. In an interview with Zap2It.com, Stranger states the following:

"'The rules never change. Men are men, and women are women," she says. "No matter how many times you think you're going to be equal to a man or you're going to become more the man, you're just going to emasculate the man. Then you're going to have a child on your hands. You really have to be a woman, a feminine woman. People think that's anti-feminist, but it's not.'"

In the rest of the interview, she defends this position more by saying that she believes a couple is the most successful if they assume their traditional gender roles. In other words, men will always be physical creatures, so women must be as physically appealing as possible in order to attract them.

After reading this interview with Stranger, I'm starting to see her point of view. Men do not have an anti-feminist mind. If they see a woman who is at least slightly sexually appealing they will seek her. If they are not intrigued, then they won't. This is how the world works, unfortunately. It's that plain and simple.

The upside to all of this is that Stranger does put these men in their place. If they are being an asshole or are seeking a woman way above their own level of attractiveness, she will call them out on it and tell them that they need to be more realistic in their expectations. At least we have SOME justification.

It's your fault that he's just not that into you...

Last weekend, I saw He's Just Not That Into You. I knew the reviews were not the best, but I was intrigued by the book's success. I've never personally read the book but nearly ALL of my girl friends have read it and swear that it changed their life for the better. To sum up my experience of the movie, I was very disappointed.

I was told by my friends that the book is supposed to be self-help. It's purpose is to make girls feel better about themselves and to know that the jerk that they're dating is the problem- not them. The movie makes all of the females look like naive idiots who have no game. Scarlett Johanson's character is just a plain slut who thinks the married man she's seeing would somehow be a great husband for HER one day. Jennifer Aniston's character has a common law marriage with a man who wants to be with her forever but not marry her for some reason (but at least she finally cracks). Drew Barrymore's character has no style and falls for men on myspace like a thirteen year old girl. Ginnifer Goodwin's character probably has the worst game compared to any other tragic female character in Hollywood.

All of the men in this movie justify their positions very well. They are to the point and barely dwell on their flaws. In fact, the screenwriters make them look calm, cool and collected. And of course all of the women go crazy. All they do is dwell on their jerk boyfriends and husbands. They also tell each other what THEY are doing wrong and how they need to change themselves in order for the men to like them. Eventually, most of the relationships turn out for the "better." But one of the relationships bothers me the most.

Actors Jennifer Aniston and Ben Affleck play the long term couple who have a common law marriage. Ben Affleck never doubts his affections for her, but he is absolutely terrified about actually marrying the woman he loves. They are actually broken up a majority of the film because of his noncommittal ways but eventually get back together. They get back together because Aniston's character submits to his marriage-less standards. However, the predictable script ends with Affleck surprising Aniston with a proposal. But in the proposal he admits that even though he doesn't believe in marriage, he is willing to basically do it just to make her happy. Even though this pacifies the non-analytical viewer, I think that these actions make Aniston just look like a high maintence character because Affleck's character never agrees that marriage is actually the right thing to do. He just submits and in turn, looks like a "sweet" boyfriend.

This movie oddly made me feel more pessimistic about men and marriage. It seems like they all just submit to marriage in order to make us shut up and stop bugging them. I thought the book was created to make men look like the idiots- not women. The movie had the opposite effect.

Russ Bickerstaff offers interesting facts and opinions about the book and movie in his article " Book vs. Movie: He's Just Not that Into You." It seems like this project was doomed from the start and that the actual male authors of the book aren't that into the readers.

Friends= almost progress

Friends is probably one of the most universally liked shows by my generation. I remember my friends and I would always argue about which Friends character everyone in our group of friends was. I think that is what made Friends so popular- everyone could see similar traits of themselves and their friends in several of the characters. They of course are all so lovable because of all of the shenanigans they get into. In Hana 30th connections' blog about friends, "Gender Representation in Friends- Mr. Daley", Hana surfaces examples that show how every character is a stereotype of their gender. However, Hana is fair in that he/she does give examples of moments when these beloved characters break away from their expected stereotype by showing traits of the other gender. In this blog, I included some of her points and some of my own.

The Ladies.
Monica is the neurotic, cleaning-obsessed, friend that's a chef. This stereotypes women as being innately neurotic and that they should take a house-wife role as cook and cleaner. Monica also used to be overweight when her character was younger. By loosing an incredible amount of weight, this tells girls that they should always be pencil-thin. However, Monica breaks away from the typical woman stereotype because she is opinionated, stubborn, competitive and quite successful in her line of work as a chef. Basically, she is not the demure woman who is afraid to talk back to men. Rachel is the most normal girl of the bunch. She is your typical girl-next-store who is likable, not too intelligent, beautiful, popular, and a waitress who eventually lands her dream job as a buyer at Ralph Lauren. Rachel probably fits into the typical female stereotype the most. She is sweet and loves shopping. She is also not very smart. Her character is non-threatening to men because she is not that successful. She is also quite thin and beautiful. Again, like Monica, she goes against the female stereotype by sticking up for herself when encountered by opposition. She also is not the traditional homemaker and also decided that she wanted to be a single mother. Phoebe is the eccentric masseuse who almost borders on mentally deranged. She is not mentally present the entire run of the show. Phoebe fits the female stereotype by being quite naive, sensitive, and unintelligent. She goes against the stereotype by being openly promiscuous with men and by being carefree about her appearance. Although she is attractive and wears makeup, her clothes are always on the interesting side. She tends to do whatever she wants; she usually does not answer to anyone.

The Boys.
Chandler is the sarcastic, joke-cracking, disgruntled businessman. He fits the male stereotype by being immature and afraid of commitment. He goes against his stereotype by revealing that he is incredibly insecure and sometimes jealous. Ross is nerdy, three-times divorced and a paleontologist. He fits the male stereotype by also being rather immature, insensitive to women, and successful in his career. Ross goes against the stereotype by having a tendency to complain (usually associated with women) and also by crying in one episode. Ross seems to be tuned-in with his feminine side the most out of all of the men. Joey is the struggling actor who loves to eat. He fits his stereotype by fixating mostly on food and women. He is also incredibly immature and childlike. He goes against his stereotype by being one of the more unintelligent characters television has ever seen. He also does not have a very secure line of work.

Overall, I believe the creator of Friends laid a good foundation for our generation to look beyond the expected stereotypes created centuries before.

Gran Torino a.k.a. White Clint's Burden

Two weeks ago, I saw Gran Torino in theaters. In this film, racial slurs are used so often that they become a form of endearment. I definitely stopped cringing after hour one. Besides the predictable storyline, I suppose this film was somewhat enjoyable. But Gran Torino did teach me that the white man (at least Clint) still feels a burden to teach non-whites how live successful lives in a civilized society. And if they are unteachable- they must be eliminated.

Gran Torino attempts to tell a story about a crotchety, racist, white man who befriends his Hmong neighbors after he saves their son from the wrath of the local Hmong gang. After he is showered with gifts (which is blown out of proportion), he feels obligated to attend his neighbor's party. There, he realizes that actually likes these "gooks" and finds similarities between himself and these non-whites. In other words, Clint's racism (although still present in his everyday speech) slowly digresses throughout the movie. He feels an obligation (either through annoyance or actual sympathy-- it's hard to say) to help this family. And boy do they need help: The girl nor the boy can't stand up for themselves, they can't fix a leaky pipe, the boy doesn't know how to get a job on his own, and NO Hmong knows how to do yard work or basic house maintenance. Whites are the only people with money in this movie. Clint's entire white family is obviously well off (yet lacking love-- so sad). And apparently the boy's family can't even afford to buy him tools for his new job because Clint buys them.

Besides Clint's neighbors, all of the non-whites in the movie are "the bad guys". This includes the main Hmong gang who terrorizes the community, the two African-American gang members, and the Hispanic gang members in the beginning. Every non-white in this movie is in a gang! Where are the white gangs? I'm sure they exist if all whites have similar racism as Clint and his Caucasian friends. Clint's white family is well off and successful- they only have rebellious teenagers. The other white young person is a boy who when flirting with the main Hmong family's daughter is encountered by the African-American gang members. Of course, Clint saves the day by scaring off the African-Americans. But the only thing he says to the white boy is "What are you doing here?". Obviously, this good American white boy does not belong in this tough neighborhood filled with non-whites.

Renee (not me) writes about Gran Torino in her blog Womanist Musings: "I continuously marvelled how Eastwood's character was able to assume such a position of superiority based solely in race and have this premise accepted by every single person of colour that he interacted with. " She reveals how Clint's superiority as a white male grounds the movie's plot. How could he teach this non-white family how to be successful "Americans" if they didn't look up to him? How could even SAVE this family from their morbid destiny if they didn't trust him nor ask him for help? Clint also had to detach himself from his own whiteness in order to help this doomed family. He alienates himself from his white family and white priest. He kills himself in the end in order to save this family. He knew he was going to die anyway, so he had nothing to lose by sacrificing his own life. This symbolizes that whites are alive and human-- and non-whites are naturally dead and not human. He had to die in order to give these dead, non-whites a chance to be alive.

Although highly entertaining at some moments, this film fails to stray from common stereotypes already seen in Hollywood about non-whites. It strengthens the stereotype that non-whites can only be American and alive with help from whites.