Everybody Loves Raymond...Not Debra

Since my last few blogs have been about how women have been constantly stereotyped, I thought I'd try to do a blog about men! It's rare- but men are indeed stereotyped in Hollywood. An interesting and different perspective can be read in Jake Brennan's (Askmen.com writer) article "Has Male Bashing Gone Too Far?". He has a theory that there is a current market for "guy" characters (the stupid, lazy, unromantic version of the actual male) in Hollywood. He mentions the character Raymond in Everybody Loves Raymond as one of the perfect "guy" examples. Brennan's article is quite convincing because he surfaces that women are hypocritical beause we love this "guy" stereotype and yet we hate it when women are stereotyped. Although, I am sympathetic for Brennan and other men (not "guys"), I feel that the character Debra in Everybody Loves Raymond is an even worse stereotype for women. This is because she's a bitch. But I'll start with Raymond first...

Raymond is the stupid, dorky, lazy husband who happens to be wedded to the beautiful know-it-all wife Debra. Raymond is constantly getting himself into trouble: when he eats his mother's cooking after he eats Debra's or when he mistakenly tapes over his wedding ceremony with a football game. He means well- he's just stupid and lost without his wife. But it's all Raymond's fault at the end of the day. The audience knows this and also knows that Raymond is not malicious. So of COURSE we love Raymond. But do we like naive Raymond or the know-it-all Debra more?

I personally like Raymond more. Even though he stereotypes the average man to be selfish, lazy, and dumb, he is more likable. Hence the title Everybody LOVES Raymond. What would the title be if it was the exact same show- but focused on Debra? It would be Everyone HATES Debra. I naturally don't like Debra because she's controlling, emotional, overly-critical, and just plain bitchy. Even though she is smarter than Raymond (a plus for women) she is hard to like because she is constantly yelling. Even though I have been in similar situations as her and sympathize, I do not feel like her bi-polar tendencies are ever justified. And as an audience, we get the impression that she is just plain crazy because she is yelling one minute and then crying in the next. And as I woman, I have never needed "a good cry" for no reason (this is the subject for an entire episode). Trust me men, we are not all like that!

I know my purpose was to write about how men are stereotyped and this just turned into another "woman post". I'll find a better example ASAP.

The Real "Housewives"

The never-ending Housewives series on Bravo: staged/instigated drama, bling, and the... wifely duties? It's interesting that the word "Housewives" is apart of the title- because I think viewers see more designer clothing than housewife interaction between husbands and children. Simply put, this show's purpose is to make viewers angry and jealous over the shallow drama that seems to be the symptom of all housewives in the United States. And the title should really include the word wealthy in it- because every housewife is at least a millionaire. Unfortunately, the term "housewife" had negative stereotypes long before this show. And this show EXPLODES these stereotypes.

In the first season of The Real Housewives of New York City, Jill's shining "housewife" moment is when she storms out of designer Luca Luca's runway show because she was not given front row seats. From the same season, "housewife" Countess Luann chooses having a night life over spending her evenings with her children- despite the pleas of her 10-year old son. In the current season of The Real Housewives of Orange County, "housewife" Gretchen (who is technically not even a wife yet- she's only engaged) is remembered as the woman who enjoys vacationing, shopping, and flirting while her loaded fiancé dies in the hospital. Bravo is obviously only concerend with entertaining their audiences. Reinforcing and even strengthening the housewife stereotype seems to be far from their conscience. Associated Contenet writer JM Kellam makes an interesting point in his article "The Women of the Real Housewives of New York City": "The women on The Real Housewives of New York City all have their own jobs and, as far as I can tell, their own maids. So why would they allow Bravo to title them 'housewives?'" This seems to be present in every season and in every different city. Again, Bravo is desperate to find a group of dramatic, rich women.

Even though I am sure many viewers have noticed that Bravo has stretched the term housewife to include these women, this show is still imprinting into viewer's minds that this is how ALL housewives behave. I also believe that expanding the show to cover three different locations has only worsened the reputation for the normal housewife. This influences viewers to believe that if women from three different locations in the United States act exactly the same- then this must be the personality of all housewives.

I was not aware of the damage Bravo has done to my generation until I was having a conversation with one of my friends. We were talking about whether we would ever consider being (or having) a housewife. My male friend said the following: "I wouldn't mind, but she would have to be useful. I wouldn't want her to sit around eating bon-bons all day and watching soap operas." When I questioned him why he felt that all women would automatically be lazy instead of productive, he said: "Well that's all I see on TV. If she actually cleaned, cooked, and took care of children- then I would be fine with that."

Even before this show aired, I remember encountering similar situations growing up. My teachers and coaches would always ask me why my mother couldn't constantly volunteer. When I would say she was busy, they would say almost the exact same thing as my friend- "Busy watching Soap Operas?" Little did they know that she was busy taking care of my severly disabled brother. My mother recently told me that she understands why a lot of women choose to work instead of taking care of their children. She said its because working is a LOT easier than taking care of your children all day.

I really hope this series doesn't last much longer because its just ruining the already ruined reputation of the "housewife."

The Great Disney Princess Role Model

Growing up, my idols where the Disney Princesses. They are probably the reason why I wanted to be a in musical theater (my first play: Peter Pan at 13- coincidence?). Everything about them seemed so perfect: beautiful, thin, musical, the center of attention, and adored by gorgeous heart-throbs. While I was still sweet and cute, I convinced my parents to buy nearly every Disney Princess film. I even bought Sleeping Beauty with my own money as a teenager. I can probably recite every song and dialogue in the Disney Princess "collection". I think its easy to say that the Disney Princesses probably constructed a lot of my views on love and how to be the perfect woman.

Good thing reality hit when I actually started dating in high school. I finally learned how men (boys) really are. I also learned how lame it would be to actually model my life after these princesses. Although I still have a soft place in my heart for these movies, I want to analyze a few things that I feel parents should question when subjecting young girls to these fantasies.

1. Snow White: The character Snow White probably wins the award for "Damsel in Distress" out of all the Disney Princesses. When overwhelmed, she flops herself down onto the ground and cries. She is oblivious to evil (her scary stepmother and poisonous fruit). And she only sings about housework and meeting her future prince. Not to mention- she is a great house cleaner and "mother" to the seven dwarfs. She then marries the first man who kisses her! Off to start her REAL life...

Lesson to girls: Sing, marry the first man you see, and take shady fruit from scary strangers.

2. Beauty and the Beast: According to Kathy Maio's article "Women, race and culture in Disney's Movies", Disney promised its viewers that they would present a more progressive female role model. But the only real improvement to Belle is that she loves to read. One positive is that she does stand up for herself: she does not accept Beast's aggression and she does not fall for the town heart-throb Geston (but he is rather stupid so its understandable). The big problem with Belle is that she sets herself out to change her captor Beast. As Maio points out, a real modern-day Belle would actually be a battered woman than a positive miracle worker.

Lesson to girls: Never attempt to escape from your abusive male companions and it is YOUR job to change them.

And please remember, there are many more examples of these weak female traits in EVERY Disney Princess. Perhaps its in Disney's best interest that they have taken a break from the Princess films.

Skanks in the City

I have always had mixed feelings about HBO's hit series (and movie) Sex and the City. On the one hand, you have a highly entertaining show about women who essentially get what they want. And they want money, successful careers, close friends, and lots and LOTS of sex. Or do they want love? Or sex and love? I'm still not exactly sure- even after I walked out of the movie.

Creators of this show give audiences the impression that this a show about the modern-day, independent woman. The show progresses date-by-date. And lunch-by-lunch. Apparently the modern-day woman is constantly on the prowl for men- or else she is considered a prude. In fact, the character Charlotte is portrayed as the "good girl" because she strives for marriage and a family. Let's remember that Charlotte has had her good share of" sexcapades". Not to mention, I have no idea how all of these women can be so successful in their professional careers because all of their free time is consumed by men: shopping for their dates, lunching while chatting about their dates, and finally- DATING.

Even though having promiscuous sex and successful careers are definitely qualities of an independent woman, this show gives audiences the impression that ALL women are obsessed with men! These characters are fashioned to be the ideal model of the modern, independent women- so women of all ages can aspire to be like them. However, if the ideal independent woman is consumed by men, then ALL women must be consumed by men. That is not liberating at all.

Shelton Hull's 2003 article "Modern Woman as Love Machine: The Post-Feminist Landscape, as Projected by 'Sex and the City'" exposes great specific examples of why this show should not be a role model for any female of any age.

50 First Dates: Lazy Hawaiians and fun brain injuries

Set in picturesque Hawaii, 50 First Dates is just another unapologetic Adam Sandler movie. Even though I do enjoy a good parody, this film just explodes the stereotypes of native Hawaiians. In Michael Tsai's article "Pidgin Holed" from The Honolulu Advertiser, Tsai explains the all-to-familiar Hawaiian stereotypes occurring in this movie: " To varying degrees, these films demonstrate that Hollywood is more than willing to resort to familiar perceptions of the Islands as places of lush natural beauty, populated (sparsely) by large, lazy people who sing, dance, play and eat but, oddly, don't work very much."

These all-to-common stereotypes of native Hawaiians are nothing compared to the character Ula (pictured above: actor Rob Schneider). Ula is a pot-smoking, washed-up, Pidgin-speaking native. The caricature Ula is of course Sandler's scheming side kick in 50 First Dates (he needs one in every film). In Tsai's article, he mentions how several viewers felt that Schneider's Pidgin language was incredibly over-the-top because it did not resemble Hawaiian Pidgin in the least bit (contained elements of Spanish and Native American). Sandler (or Hollywood) obviously supports looking for as many cheap laughs as possible.

What surprised me most about this article was a comment by Kirk Uyezu, a Hawaiian native who saw the film. He felt the film was exaggerated, but he was not exactly offended as Hawaiian:

"'They seemed more like North Shore types,' he said. 'I could see them being like that.'

And Ula?

'I think he's more like what someone from the Mainland would think locals are like.'"

Instead of being offended, Uyezu assumed 50 First Dates was not making fun of him- but OTHER Hawaiians. So of course, this makes it OK? Funny for Uyezu- but not for the North Shore types he speaks of? Unfortunately, mainland Americans are not smart enough to think that Hollywood was only making fun of a specific group of Hawaiians- we assume ALL Hawaiians are like that. And I'm sure Hollywood wasn't making fun of just group of Hawaiians....

This brings me to the brain injury jokes in this movie. I saw this film before someone in my family had a brain injury. I did find parts of this movie insensitive (i.e. Ten Second Tom) but I did find the movie entertaining overall. I then saw the movie after someone in my family had a brain injury and I couldn't watch it all the way through. Uyezu's comment and my second viewing of the film made me realize that humans are only offended by things that we have personally experienced. As unfortunate as this is, I wish it wasn't true. And I have heard a friend of mine say "If f we can't make fun of that group of people nor that group of people- who can we make fun of?"

What is the best kind of comedy? I have a feeling it will always offend someone. I guess making fun of specific people who are inherently evil is OK- but I'm sure the rest of the world would quickly become bored.

Mad Men: Excuse for sexism and racism? Or reality?

I have recently become addicted to AMC's Mad Men. This drama is appealing to me because of its writing and historical documentation. Part of that historical documentation includes the racism and sexism that existed in 1960s. I have read several blogs (particularly HighJive's post on Racilicious) that express frustration with Mad Men because they believe this show is simply racist and sexist without any social commentary. Even though I do agree with these blogger's that this show is just about white America in the 1960s, I do NOT believe this show is racist and sexist only for entertainment purposes. I believe creator Matthew Weiner wants to factually depict the lives of these Advertising executives.

This television show does not go one episode without a racial slur or ass-grab. Int the third episode, the co-workers of the character Peter Campbell paid a Chinese family to surprise Campbell in his office. The family was wearing stereotypical Chinese clothing and had a chicken with them as well. Everyone in the office (all white) thought this was a great practical joke. As awful as this joke is, Mad Men has received wide praise because of its truthful account of racism and sexism in the 1960s. Jerry Della Femina worked as a copywriter during this era and founded his own agency. Wikipedia quotes Femina's reception of the show: "[Mad Men] 'accurately reflects what went on. The smoking, the prejudice and the bigotry.'"

Although 99% of the racism and sexism is met without any objection from any characters in the first season, the first episode of the second season foreshadows the social revolution soon to come in this era. In the picture above, the character Paul Kinsey is introducing his African-American girlfriend to his white, ex-girlfriend Joan Holloway. The scene ends with Joan upsetting Kinsey's current girlfriend by revealing her racism. Even though the scene ends with racism, Kinsey confronts Joan later in the episode and expresses his anger for her behavior.

The episode above definitely contains social commentary. It may not be as direct as some bloggers would like to see, but I believe that scenes speak for themselves without any direct commentary. Even in the first season when every instance of sexual harrassement and bigotry is met without objection or obvious commentary, it shows viewers how far we have socially progressed. This show has showed me a glimpse of what life was like in the 1960s without any censoring. I believe that showing viewers (particularly younger generations who did not live in this era) how things really were is more beneficial than ignoring the issue because it is too depressing. Even though racism and sexism will probably always exist, it teaches viewers why things are the way they are. And why people are still racist and sexist. If we can learn as much as we can about how life really was back then, it can help progressive people understand how to improve these social conditions that still exist.

Shallow Hollywood

Bobby and Peter Farelly's 2001 romantic comedy Shallow Hal seemed like a revolutionary idea: forcing men to looking beyond the physical appearances of women and appreciating them for their beautiful souls. With a very classical Hollywood narrative structure, Shallow Hal has an exposition, conflict, climax and harmonious happy ending: the spell over Hal to see "unattractive" women as physically beautiful is broken and he embraces that he is in love with obese Rosemary by deciding to marry her.

While this film is simple in structure and has the appearance of ridiculing shallow men instead of "unattractive" people (mostly women), Shallow Hal actually leaves audiences with the impression that conventional physical attraction is incredibly important and necessary in order to have a fulfilling love life. While nearly all of the "unattractive" characters in this movie have exaggerated make-up, we are expected as an audience to laugh at these portrayals. These overweight and "unattractive" characters actually exist in society. And most of the general population do not consider themselves to be perfect by any standard. This film explodes the fact that if you are not 5'10", super-model thin, nor flawlessly beautiful like Gwenyth Paltrow- you are SCREWED. Actually, you are only screwed until everyone else is put under a spell which makes you out to be a lot more attractive than you really are. This film gives audiences the impression that physical attraction is the only important thing to men when seeking a mate.

The hypocrisy of this film can be rather confusing. This is because the Farley brothers are either trying to get us to simply laugh at their movie OR they want to show the audience that we too are shallow. The Australian nineMSN website MovieFix has a great variety of opinions of this film that show you how this film is either respected, hated, or a mix of both. As for myself, I'm not really sure how I feel about this movie now after reading those reviews.