The Culture Nerd's Guide to Olympic Coverage

I'm not a long-time fan of the Olympics.  I never harbored any secret yearning to be a gymnast, as many young girls often do - even though I was prime age for Magnificent-Seven-worship.  I have vague recollections of "The Dream Team," and there's of course the lingering memory of the bombings in Atlanta in 1996, the kind of tragic event that a little kid never forgets, but also never really understands. On the whole, the Olympics meant little to me as a child.  They were something that came to Atlanta when I was nine, and to Salt Lake City when I was fifteen.  I paid a minimum amount of attention.  In fact, when I went to college and met someone who was a self-proclaimed Olympic junkie, my first thought was, stupidly, "There is such a thing?"

In short, I've never really known how to get excited about the Olympics.  In the early 2000s, there was a lot of talk about the Olympics possibly becoming obsolete, with national investment dwindling, and the suggestion that host cities were better off not draining their resources into a venture that would ultimately become nothing more than a ghost town and a tarnished trophy of glory days.  And, since I had never particularly cared about the Olympics, I thought this might be an accurate description of the cultural trend.

Since then, two things have changed, and whether independently or connected, I'll never be sure.  It seems as though the world cares about the Olympics again - but maybe that perception is because I care about the Olympics now, for the first time.

Now I can't possibly understand how the Olympics couldn't be exciting.  By utter definition, it's designed to be both compelling and infectious.  There's something so winsome about bringing the world together in good-natured competition and sportsmanship, mingling the tradition of years past with the hope - even reassurance - that we can peaceably coexist on this planet even despite age-old differences in culture, language, race, and religion.

I began to realize this in Vancouver, in 2010, and am rediscovering it with London now.  (I thought maybe I was just a Winter Olympics kind of girl, but turns out Summer suits me just fine too.)  And something else I love about the Olympics, beyond the promise of diversity, unity, and global consciousness, is the idea that there's so much to learn.  There's so much data involved in the Olympics - from rules of a sport, to its scoring systems, to each athlete's individual strengths and weaknesses.  The nerd in me delights in trying to upload that into my brain, so that participating in the games becomes that much more engaging and rewarding.

It's this concept of Olympic information and the communication thereof that seems to be a double-edged sword in these London Olympics.  When the games are taking place in another country, the responsibility falls to the media of each nation to bring the news back home.  And when there's only one American news network providing coverage, the responsibility of information to an entire country of people falls on one corporation.  Monopoly of media inevitably causes problems.  We do, however, still live in a society where access to information is at an all-time easiest, and the London games are being touted as the first Olympics to take full advantage of social media outlets.  Theoretically, this means that news out of London should be synchronized, and made available to the American public in a fairly undiluted and unbiased format.  After all, it is news.

Alas, this ideal is only half-fulfilled.  Just as there is good and bad to, well, everything, there is to social media and its uses, and I fear the Olympics media coverage in the United States shifts easily and nonchalantly towards the bad - or at least the disheartening.  (I mean, there's a segment with Ryan Seacrest called the "Talkmeter," comparing American athletes' popularity with Angelina Jolie's right leg at the Oscars.  This doesn't seem like the harbinger of great reporting.)

Every day, as Olympic events are going on in London, information is being posted to the internet: real time reactions, results, and reports.  But if you want to watch them?  You might be able to see them live through NBC's website, if you have a good internet connection and already pay for cable.  (I do, and still couldn't access the videos.)  The best option is to wait until NBC's primetime televised Olympic grab bag, where they present the events of the day in chopped-up pieces, so that not only is there no excitement in wondering who won thanks to the days' spoilers, but also no stretch of time long enough to stay truly engaged before Bob Costas pops up, tells us what we should think about what just happened, and slingshots us into the middle of another notable American highlight we have no context for.  I can see the merit in this design: it's bite-sized pieces of the games so that Americans with busy schedules can see the highlights, like a clip show, and get the "most important" information.  

But at the same time, it has a few negative outcomes, especially when it's the only design for the citizens of the United States to experience the Olympic coverage.  (Again, media monopoly?  Problematic.)  The format condenses an entire day's worth of information, excising simultaneously the sustained joy, excitement, and energy of the Olympic competition.  If you'll allow me to adapt it to the age-old, over-used adage: it gives us fish, without teaching us how to fish.  Watching NBC's primetime coverage is like being spoon-fed information that has been boiled down for us.  It's already bottom-lined, essentialized, and wrapped-up with a bow of shiny American pride.  We don't have to know anything about swimming to understand that Michael Phelps is the best swimmer ever.  We don't have to see entire games or matches, just the last five minutes, or whatever NBC deems most important.

It's this suggestion as well that is somewhat disconcerting about bullet-pointing the Olympic coverage: in that NBC has to condense a whole day's worth of competition into roughly four hours, it also means that they choose what is "most important" to show.  What results is a tendency to editorialize on the assumption that Americans wish to be entertained by the Olympics, and only care about the American athletes' medal count to boot.  And there's no other option.

This editorializing seeps into even the most basic commentary on many Olympic events.  In women's gymnastics, the Russian team was subject to American commentary, which portrayed them as a group of "divas," and Aliya Mustafina in particular was repeatedly referenced as being stubborn, haughty, and difficult to work with.  The American team, however, was portrayed with zest and zeal, and NBC even found a story to sell: the Tragic Tale of Jordyn Wieber.  Wieber's failure to advance to the All-Around competition by only fractions of a point, despite being expected to make it easily, sparked a sensational story that basically resulted in her representation as the Martyr of Women's Gymnastics.  There was more focus on Jordyn Wieber's loss than there was on Gabby Douglas' and Aly Raisman's triumph - and hardly any mention of Kyla Ross and McKayla Maroney, the Fab Five's remaining two, at all.  Instead, the team performance commentary was centered around "winning one for Jordyn Wieber," and it worked.  It got to be that I couldn't even hear mention of Jordyn Wieber without tearing up for the tragedy of what befell her at the games.  The association between Aly Raisman and Jordyn Wieber was so insisted upon that even during Aly's performances in the All-Around, the camera kept cutting to Jordyn in the audience (even though she was there, with McKayla and Kyla, to support Gabby and Aly's shot at a medal).  

The idea that the American media needs to decide first what Americans care about, in order to ensure their ratings, leads as well to a nasty whiff of ethnocentricity in American coverage.  I am all for American pride, and giving the American athletes a spotlight in front of their country.  I'm also all for learning more about the athlete's backgrounds: NBC is very good about airing interviews with the athletes, and clip packages letting the audience know the athlete's back story, and often family life as well.  That's been great, and helps to connect the viewers to the games and the athletes competing in them.  But in contrast to the onslaught of American coverage, there's hardly any illumination of anything not-American.  A tribute to the 7/7 victims of terrorism in London was omitted from NBC's Opening Ceremony coverage.  There's also been no mention of the fact that this Olympics coincides with Ramadan, and many Muslim athletes are choosing to adhere to their fast while in the competition.  Stacking this with the portrayal of the Russian women's gymnasts as diva villains, and it's hard not to reach the conclusion that apparently America just doesn't care about anything else.  

This only validates the pre-existing perception of the United States as a nation whose people can't be bothered to imagine anything beyond their borders because whatever might lie there is insignificant at best.  Only this time, a major corporation is nourishing this damaging stereotype, and the very real seed which lays at the root of the "ugly American" caricature.  What's worse, those citizens who do want more exhaustive, inclusive, and unbiased coverage are not only left to watch the Olympics without it, but are also at risk of being called "unAmerican" for a point of view that simply extends beyond the borders of our backyard and the myopic lenses of the media.  Putting forth any complaint about the coverage is seen simply as internet hatred, the vitriol of young people who idly bitch about anything and everything.  Deaf ears abound.

I get that NBC has to make money.  I get that they have to sell an engaging story.  But the underlying takeaway from the exaggeration of these concepts is that the media doesn't trust the intelligence and emotional investment of the American people.  We are being condescended to, with programming that bottom lines a wealth of nuance in athleticism, history, culture, and sportsmanship, and sensationalizes only our own involvement in the tradition.  Ultimately, it feels antithetical to what the Olympics is really about: bringing the world together on common ground, where culture simply means pride and patriotism for the athletic accomplishments of all nations.

In the end, I've found that the best approach to being involved in the spirit and tradition of the games is to seek out information on your own.  It's not easy, because there's 205 nations competing, in 300 events, with 14000 athletes, and only so much time in the day.  But the information is out there: you just have to find it.  Even though it's difficult to watch events as they air, you can go to the London Olympics website, which is not only an encyclopedic resource for athletes, event schedules, and medal counts, but also features live, play-by-play coverage of all events in real time.  There's also an accompanying app to download, where you can customize your Olympic experience.  There's other nations' news broadcast sites too, and videos where the commentators are far more positive about the athlete's performances.  

When it's all said and done, the actual bottom line to participating in the unfiltered joy and unbiased appreciation of the Olympic Games is to exercise the true power of social media, the light and truth that's always on the other side of oversimplification and editorialized "stories" - the information is available.  The excitement is out there.  It's up to you to find it.

GQ and Sexism: Oops, They Did It Again!

Well, here we are again.  GQ has once again skyrocketed to the top of my "Sexism Shit List," this time with the spread titled, "Alison Brie and Gillian Jacobs Did This Lesbian Scene for Us."

Why you gotta be like this, GQ?  You're a men's lifestyle and fashion magazine!  I don't get it.  Because frankly, yet again, this photo is offensive.  And not everyone understands why.

It's not Alison Brie or Gillian Jacobs.  It's not, "It's such a shame to see young actresses whoring themselves out for publicity these days."  That's rude, and slut-shaming, and it frustrates me to see people understand that this spread is not right but are left of center on why.  This is not Alison Brie's or Gillian Jacobs' issue.  This is a societal issue.  This is a gender issue.  This is a sexuality issue.  This is a race issue.

The problem with this takes us right back to the male gaze.  Let me ask you: how many men do you see in this photo?  Zero, right?  Wrong.  The answer is one.  There is one man in the photo and he is the one who is looking at it.  Thanks, GQ, for reminding us that the male gaze is alive and well!  

There should be no man in this photo.  But this photo was designed by men, shot by a man, and published for men.  The women in this photo are not subjects; they are objects.  They are fetishized and presented simply as a girl-on-girl scenario.  

Which leads me to another complaint: the title clearly says that this is "going lesbian."  Um, GQ, this is not "going lesbian."  This is going "girl-on-girl for the sake of a dude," which, frankly, is only ever designed by dudes.  "For us!"  It's right there in the title!  This is for dudes!  But girls don't "go lesbian" for dudes.  Girls "go lesbian" for, well, women, and marginalizing the validity of that by turning it into a sexualized and objectified peep show is just disrespectful.  

Gentlemen of the world: we ladies are not here for you.  This may be tough to hear, but we are not here to be objects to your subject, or accessories in your fantasies about lesbians or dominatrices or schoolgirls.  It would be helpful if the media would take note of this and stop perpetuating the male gaze in its creative endeavors.

Because, again, everything is a choice.  This photoshoot was a choice, and those choices reflect the fact that the objectification of women is still defended as a "style" in creative media.  Sexism is not a style.  Sexism is ingrained into almost every societal construct and its pursuits - the media especially - and it needs to be removed.

And of course, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the fact that there are three female cast members on Community: Gillian Jacobs, Alison Brie, and Yvette Nicole Brown.  So what, did Yvette Nicole Brown's invitation to this photoshoot just get lost in the mail, or do I really have to wonder about this nasty little suggestion that America is unable to find anything other than white and/or thin sexy?

The worst thing in all of this is the idea that it somehow relates back to comedy.  If Yvette Nicole Brown were included, would this photoshoot therefore become more ironically comedic, as though she couldn't possibly be sexualized in a non-funny way?  With Alison Brie and Gillian Jacobs, it's clear that "sexiness" is trumping "funniness," but if you include their size-larger-than-4, African-American castmate, does that therefore change the tone of the shoot?  Oh, the fact that these questions are both disgusting and yet valid is not okay.  This is just further indication that the media's perception of beauty and the female form is screwed up beyond the telling of it - and it's because the standard being set ties inextricably back to the male's perspective: the male gaze.

It's unfortunate.  I wish GQ wouldn't publish photos like this, and I wish there weren't an audience for them, because clearly, they wouldn't be published if they weren't popular.  At some point, the misrepresentations of gender, race, and sexuality have to be righted, and GQ - and the media in general - has enough power to start those changes.  It's all in the power of choice.  But right now, they're making the wrong choices.

Author's Note: I'm also annoyed that the article missed a semi-colon.  But that's not the important thing to focus on here.

Born This Gray: Dianna Agron, Social Construct, and Proactive Social Revolution

My little corner of the internet has developed into a place where people repeatedly ask me the question, “What are your thoughts?”  It’s lovely and flattering, and has conditioned me to ask myself the very question with most input I receive - from the media in particular, and where creative choice intersects with intention, and breeds meaning and message.

And then there’s Glee.  The article that originally defined this blog was the reaction to the GQ spread in October of 2010, examining the sexist message that resulted from the choices involved in the shoot.  So when Glee and the representations of social identity cross paths, I usually have to ask myself:

“What are my thoughts?”

And then I take to the internet where I presume that people will actually give a crap.  So here we are!

But let’s back up.  Saturday night, Dianna Agron donned a “likes girls” shirt for her performance in “Born This Way,” instead of her usual “Lucy Caboosey” fare. 

Now.  This is a choice.  It means something.  (Personally, I thought she might have grown tired of wearing “Lucy Caboosey” because it was such an ass-backwards plot device for her character… but, alas.  Can’t be proved.)

No, most of the internet spent the night speculating Dianna’s sexuality, which, on the internet, has long been under a microscope in search for clues in either direction on the Kinsey Scale.  Then, this morning, Ms. Agron explained her choice.  In sum: wearing the shirt was an expression of the freedom to make a statement, in a show of support to the GLBT community.  She highlighted the importance of universal acceptance and love, and also negated the original assumption from wearing the shirt: she herself is not gay. 

It’s a long essay; there’s a lot to interpret, and a lot of good points, all of which kind leads to being easily distracted from the main idea.  Because there are people out there who are missing the main idea.

And the point is that it doesn’t matter.  Dianna Agron’s sexuality doesn’t matter.  Your sexuality doesn’t matter.  My sexuality doesn’t matter.  What matters is that we are still living in a world where it does. 

Recently, I wrote about feminism under the notion that social revolution first begins with reaction, and must eventually shift to proaction.  Well, ladies and gentlemen, Dianna Agron is being proactive.  And the reason people are getting tangled up in and tripping over her words is because our world is not there yet.  We are still a long ways from equality - and we’re the furthest when it comes to sexuality.  It’s generally ill-advised to compare the disadvantages across gender, race, and sexuality lines, but I feel it’s important to say that in some places there are still laws standing in the way of the marriage of equality and sexual identity.  It’s not just prejudice and stigma.  It is law.  And beyond that, gay people who come out into, or can’t escape from unsupportive and hateful environments are being bullied to the point of suicide.  This is an issue, and one that needs addressing.

As far as I’m concerned, the hubbub that has arisen from Dianna’s actions and commentary is what happens when a transcendent thought is brought into a constructed world.  At the very least, she sparked a discourse.  There are arguments left and right - and many are valid.  And I won’t deny that the consequences of her actions aren’t problem-free.  But what put the problems there are the smudgy fingerprints that color our world, and the constructions that society has built in both origin and reaction.

Many people posit that Dianna’s shirt implied that she herself was gay, and that by clarifying that she is not actually gay makes it seem as though she is presuming to know what it’s like to be gay.  I understand this.  I don’t see how Dianna wearing a shirt that says “likes girls” could send any other message, unexplained, than “likes girls.”  That is the point of “Born This Way” in the show, and in the concert - right down to the wardrobe itself.  Stylistically speaking, you don’t smack big block letters on a blank t-shirt without sending a Big Message.  That is the point.

But Dianna explained.  And words like “disappointed” and “betrayal” get thrown around, because for 12 hours, Dianna Agron seemed to have told the world she was gay.  And then, in a single sentence - amidst one hundred others, it should be said - she told us she doesn’t actually identify as such.  The fact that there is an emotional reaction to this proves to us we are still living in a world where being gay or straight matters.  To those who felt relief at her clarification: please examine why exactly you felt that emotion and ask yourself why you would personally want someone - a stranger, basically - to be straight as opposed to gay. 

To those who felt disappointment at her clarification: I understand that, and I respect that.  I understand that it would be of huge importance to have a young woman in the spotlight announce that she is gay and proud of it in front of the entire world, and that the prospect of that being trounced in an instant is somewhat dismaying.  I understand that gay people being out in a public setting can only benefit the movement, and the gay community.

But, at some point, there should be no “movement,” or “community” - of any kind.  The truth is, we live in a heavily constructed world where certain people experience disadvantages because of the negative implications of minority and privilege.  Because of this, “movement” and “community” had to happen, and I 100% respect that.  But if we ever expect to achieve equality, at some point all constructions have to fall away - or at least fade to the background.  And in this world, hoping Dianna Agron is a lesbian is not terribly different from hoping Dianna Agron is straight.  Because it’s still a world where a person’s sexuality matters.

And the goal cannot be to stay in a world where someone’s sexuality matters.  Where someone’s race matters.  Where someone’s gender matters.  Race, gender, and sexuality can be important parts of someone’s identity, but at the end of the day, they cannot be definitions.  The value of a human being is in his or her humanity. 

The goal is equality.  And if we continue to tirelessly emphasize that we are all different, then we can never truly be the same.  We need to be living in a world where Dianna Agron can love whomever, and so can you.  And to me, that is the point - and Dianna’s point.  Just, love.  Love whomever, as long as you love.  Because anything beyond that doesn’t matter, and shouldn’t.

We are clearly not living in this world yet.  I daresay that notion prompted Dianna’s actions, and it’s ironic that her actions are again reinforcing it.  I don’t presume to believe that we can move into this world overnight.  There are schools of thought that simply have to perish, and hopefully in their stead we can proffer acceptance and tolerance.

But until we are able to live in said world, we are faced with instances such as this one, where we are forced to interact with a heavily-constructed society and examine the implications of the choices made by the people standing in a spotlight.  I don’t think you can disparage Dianna personally for the consequences of her decisions (they are clearly disconnected from her intentions, regardless of any opinion one could construe), but I do think the discourse arising from it ties very strongly into the steady but eventual shift from reaction to proaction with regards to how our society should be handling minority and equality. 

We’re just not there yet.  And I’d like to think that it’s people like Dianna Agron who are trying to push us into this world, where we can all love whomever, and be treated with respect, and the full benefits of equality.  I know I often come across as a cynic, but I have to believe that we can get there.  Minds have to be changed, and it will take awhile.  There will be problematic circumstances surrounding privilege and oppression that will need to be examined and evaluated.  Context will probably always trip us up every once in awhile, and coming to terms with that is frustrating.  And it may take awhile.  But we can get there, if we try.  We have to try.

I think, at the end of the day, human nature has historically been defined by an effort, or lack of effort, to understand.  Understanding was constructed in black and white.  Us, and them.  You are this one thing, and if you are not, it means you are this one other thing entirely.  Social construction operates in binary - those with power, those without.  Those with privilege, those without.  Those understood, those misunderstood.  Those in the majority, those in the minority.

It is human nature to want the world to make sense, to boil it down so it’s as black and white as the words on a “likes girls” t-shirt.  But in reality, we live in a world of gray.  Embrace the gray.  It’s problematic.  It’s challenging.  But living in a world of gray means that we can live in a world of tolerance and acceptance.  Living in a world of gray means  acknowledging that black and white is a problem, and that we must try to live free from construct.  And that’s the goal.

So at some point, we have to throw away the black and white on a t-shirt, the with-us-or-against-us attitude, and move forward.  Dianna’s apparently already there.

Author's Note: There is a follow-up to this post here.

Strong Females as Characters Onscreen

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

"The Comeback," Part Two

I admit, I spent much of last night spitting fire over the sloppy execution in "The Comeback" and so my recap was not particularly well-thought-out.  But it's a new day, and I'm trying to temper my rage issues - so I come bearing more clear-minded thoughts on Glee's latest.

Honestly, the emotional manipulation and destruction of characterization would be bad enough, except the mud icing on this crap cake was that the whole thing was just poorly written.  The episode was supposed to center around the theme of various characters experiencing a "comeback" - among them Sue, Rachel, Will, and Sam.  But were there any actual valid comebacks on our screens last night?  I think not.  And therein lies the problem.  That fact invalidates nearly everything about "The Comeback" and renders it basically the most pointless episode ever.  

Let's break it down:

Sue

Okay, so Sue was depressed over losing Nationals and wanted to find a way to rebound to her old self.  This would be valid if we had seen her in a slump for more than oh, thirty seconds.  She wasn’t in “Silly Love Songs” at all, and so we’re just meant to assume she’s been in a rough spot - why?  Because she told us.  Hey writers!  SHOW, DON’T TELL.  I believe I learned that in the eighth grade.

Sue’s “comeback” was pretty much an illusion.  And do we even want her to be bouncing back to her old ways?  She’s out to destroy Glee Club again, which was barely enough conflict to get us through the first thirteen episodes of the show.  Sue scheming to ruin the Glee Club is old hat - and no duck is going to come out of it and surprise us with something new.  Wake me up when the writers come up with fresh conflict and a better use for Sue Sylvester, whose role as villain is becoming more and more threadbare.

Furthermore, the manner in which Sue achieved her “comeback” made absolutely no sense whatsoever.  Emma suggested Will help her by letting her participate in Glee club activities, then Will took her to a children’s hospital to in effect let Jane Lynch take over for Sue Sylvester for a few minutes, and then Sue decided to coach Aural Intensity because she “[has] the music in [her].”  Uh, no.  Sue wants to destroy Glee club.  And, if she wanted to coach Aural Intensity, that should have just been her initial action.  You know how often these character make decisions like that without any reasoning whatsoever?  All too often - we’ve come to expect it.  There was absolutely no need for Sue to spend the whole episode “finding the music” when her true objective was just to find another way to take down McKinley’s Glee club.  Logical progression - where are you?

And, while we’re on the topic, why on earth wouldn’t Sue have some choice words for her three former Cheerios whose last-minute lack of participation cost her the Nationals trophy?  Why wouldn’t there be any fallout from that?  And hey, maybe that’s actually a real reason to have a vendetta against the Glee club this time!  You know, that would have been interesting!   But it wouldn’t have involved a trip to the pediatric ward, so never mind then.

Rachel

Our poor dear Rachel has been dangled in and out of “coming back” for what feels like weeks now.  But she sang “Firework” last week, and now she’s raring to go!  So she devises a plan for her comeback - paying Brittany to set a Rachel Berry Style trend.  Naturally, this backfires disastrously, and it was almost sad to see it happen.  Rachel is quickly turning into a sad clown - admittedly, an adorably fierce sad clown with amazing vocals - but a sad clown nonetheless.  It’d be one thing if the leg warmers and animal sweaters didn’t catch on, but they did, because of Brittany.  So it’s indicated that it’s not the woolly sweaters and knee socks that are the problem - it’s Rachel herself. 

I’m sorry, was this character supposed to be experiencing a comeback this week?  No, she just got torn down instead, and the only thing that would make us believe she’s having a comeback is because Finn told us so, in a deus ex machina moment of epic proportions.  SHOW.  SHOW, DON’T TELL.  And what the episode showed us was that even though Rachel does appear to have some semblance of friendship in the Glee club, at the end of the day, no one looks at her and sees a firework.  She’s still invisible.  How sad.

It’s nice to see Rachel behaving more or less like her old self, but I’m tired of the character being abused by the writers to make her the butt of the other characters’ random discontent.  Having a character “comeback” does not mean undoing any sort of progress and returning the arc to where it was in the very first episode. 

Will

So, Will set up the episode’s premise, and, while simultaneously reminding us that he teaches Spanish at McKinley High, delivered a voiceover in which he declared himself back to his usual self.

And then nothing else happened with him the entire episode.  He just yelled at Sue, took her to the children’s hospital, and watched Glee club performances.  Sounds about average to me.  Nice comeback, Will. 

Sam

I’m not even sure we were meant to count Sam in the theme of this episode, but for the sake of being thorough, I’ll give it a shot.  I’m assuming that Sam would need to be bouncing back from the humiliation of being cheated on in last week’s episode.  Remember, in “Silly Love Songs,” he told Quinn he’s pretty but he ain’t dumb and we all loved him a little bit for that?

Well, this week, it turns out he’s both pretty and dumb.  Because all those founded suspicions he had last week flew right out the window and he is now running a close race with Finn Hudson for the championship title of Most Gullible Boy Ever.

It’d be a comeback for Sam if he broke up with Quinn in the first five minutes, and then proceeded to rub it in her face with Santana for the majority of the episode.  But instead, the writers just dragged him through Sad-and-Desperate-ville and we just felt bad for the poor sorry bastard.  Sam’s delusions all fell through at episode’s end, thanks to some deus ex machina truth-telling by Santana, and any semblance of him having a comeback went straight out the window.

I just have no idea how you could try to build an episode around the theme of a comeback and then not make it pertain to any of the characters in any meaningful way.  It just reeks of bad writing and characterization.  I’m dead serious when I say that Glee is more puppet show than television show these days.  And it’s bumming me out.

Chicks & Pixar: Lady Protagonists Onscreen

 Yesterday, a friend of mine shared with me this open letter a woman wrote at NPR.org, to the minds behind the Pixar movies.  The piece basically states that, while Pixar movies are great, and have great female characters, there are still no female protagonists.  She was way nicer about it than I would be, and still got lambasted in the comments.  Cinematical posted about it here, and then you can read my friend's thoughts here.

Now, this article was originally written in the summer of 2009, and clearly it's gotten a lot of attention - but I still feel the need to add my two cents.  Because essentially, I agree with Linda Holmes and would like to back her up against the bombardment of townspeople crying, "Angry feminists!" at us.

Here's the thing.  Pixar actually has a lot of great female characters.  Most of them are strong, outspoken, intelligent, and independent.  But they are all peripheral.  You can make some arguments about the female characters inciting the story or being integral to the plot - which is great!  But they are not the protagonists.  Let's break it down:

1. Dory, Finding Nemo.  Dory is fantastic.  She's not pigeonholed into any gender roles or stereotypes.  She's endlessly optimistic, and her relationship with Marlin treads mostly in the realm of balancing his neurotic crazy with her own brand of neurotic crazy.  It's sweet and lovely, and no one's complaining.  But Finding Nemo is not Dory's story.  It is Marlin, and Nemo's.  

2. Jessie, Toy Story.  Jessie is hyper, sassy, independent-minded, and outspoken.  Great!  Young girls should know that it's okay to be all of those things.  But is it Jessie's story?  Nope.

3.  Colette, Ratatouille.  Who? you ask.  Ah, yes, that female chef who serves (no pun intended) as a love interest/foil for Linguini.  She's the only lady chef in the place, and is a total badass with her motorcycle and don't-cross-me attitude.  But I'm betting that most of you had to take a few seconds to remember who the hell she was.  Hence, not her movie.

4. Boo, Monster's Inc.  I don't care if the story doesn't exist without the girl.  She does not talk.  She is tertiary to Mike and Sully, as far as I'm concerned.

5. ElastiGirl, The Incredibles.  I love this lady.  She's a wife and mother whose husband's actions drag her back into a lifestyle she willingly gave up - and she kicks ass.  She's whip-smart, quick on her feet, creative, sensible, and exhibits no damsel-in-distress qualities.  She's a pivotal character in the film, but the central emotional conflict is between Mr. Incredible and Buddy/Syndrome, and it's these two who progress the action.

6. I cannot for the life of me remember the girl ant from A Bug's Life.  So there's that.

7.  EVE, Wall-E.  The movie is called Wall-E.  Do we need to argue this?  EVE is great - and her existence helps usher in the message of the movie, and the whole second act - but a) she's a robot, and b) the movie's called Wall-E.  It's kind of a moot point.

8. Ellie, Up.  Ellie is a lovely female character.  She's scrappy and hyper and outgoing and adventurous, and without her, the plot of the film does not exist.  However, she dies within the first 20 minutes.  She is not present for the rest of the film.  She does not make any choices to progress the plot.  She is onscreen only as an ideal.  It is very blatantly Carl's story.

9. Sally, Cars.  All I remember about Sally is that Bonnie Hunt voiced her and I had no complaints about the character.  But that's all I remember.  So is it her story?  Not so much.

The throughline between all these characters is that they are accessories.  They instigate the plot, or they aid the main character, or they set a goal for the protagonist to achieve.  I don't care if they are all kickass female characters.  This is not good enough.  Because even if it's a good representation of a strong female role, she is still not the subject.  She is the object to the subject, and that is still a damaging manifestation of inequality. 

No little girl should be watching a film and thinking, "One day I want to grow up and help my best friend achieve his goals!" or "I hope someone goes on an adventure on my behalf one day!"  No.  No one is a sidekick in their own life.  So what do we do when all the protagonists are boys?

It's mentioned as well that female protagonists are historically represented as princesses.  Hell, Disney lumps all their lady protagonists together and markets them as "The Princesses."  There are a few exceptions (hey, Lilo and Mulan!) but for the most part, lady heros are "princesses."  And if you didn't start as a princess (hey, Belle and Tiana!) you sure as hell ended up as one by the end of the movie. 

And it's okay to like the princesses.  If your kid likes Ariel or Pocahontas or Aurora, that's awesome.  Your kid is allowed to like those things.  But I was not one of those kids.  I was not a Disney Princess child.  I wasn't even really a "Disney kid" because of this.  I loved 101 Dalmatians, largely because there were no "princess" roles in it.  And when I got older I loved Mulan, and Lilo & Stitch, and Emperor's New Groove, because the gender roles weren't really there in their traditional forms.

So what is there for kids like me, nowadays?  Kids who don't want to watch a movie where the girl waits for her "fairy tale ending?"  Kids who don't want to put on a tiara and a poofy gown for Halloween?  Pixar is simply not delivering them, and these alternative female leads need to be there.

As much as I love Pixar's movies, they are not perfect, by any means.  I still don't think Up deserved the Oscar (unpopular opinion alert!).  I have no problems pointing out the shortcomings of the films they choose to make and how they make them.  They still tell great stories, and have undoubtedly had a positive impact on countless children's - and adult's - lives.

It's just, we need women onscreen in lead roles.  Everywhere.  It's not just Pixar.  You can't have a woman protagonist without it being a "chick flick" these days, which boils my blood to no end.  Yes, the storytelling in many romantic comedies has become trite and cliche, but where does that make it okay to denigrate all movies with a female lead?  I understand that there are some fundamental differences between men and women, but wouldn't it be nice if it were possible to write a movie with a male lead, and at the last minute switch it to a woman and not have to change anything else at all?

Remember that movie Salt, with Angelina Jolie?  That movie was originally written for a man.  Then, Angelina Jolie expressed interest, and the studio execs knew that she could draw an audience as an action hero, so they swapped the role.  But they made some changes.  The original script had the Male Salt saving his wife from the villains in some sort of dangerous, physically violent scenario.  Well, when they reversed the roles, they deemed that this action was too emasculating for the Female Salt's husband, and tweaked the script accordingly to preserve the good name of manhood.

Grumble.  I'm very quickly getting off track here, but the message remains the same.  We need women represented onscreen, fairly and objectively, without being the object of someone's desires, goals, or wishes.  She should have her own desires, goals, and wishes - that do not have to do with men, shopping, or marriage.  Women have problems that men have too.  We are all human beings.  We need to build a world for ourselves where there are not men's movies and women's movies, but human movies. 

Dancing with Politics

The main talk of television this week is Brandy's rather shocking elimination from Dancing with the Stars, thereby moving Bristol Palin into the Final 3 and that much closer to winning the coveted Mirrorball Trophy.

Everyone has an opinion on this, viewers and non-viewers alike. It's almost inarguable that Brandy was lightyears ahead of Bristol in dance ability, but because Bristol Palin is Sarah Palin's daughter, it seems America can't enjoy this season of celebrity ballroom dance without politics getting in the way.

I, for one, think it's annoying. Politics should have nothing to do with it. Doesn't anyone else see how absurd it is to drag our nation's governing system into Dancing with the Stars? These contestants, however likeable, are essentially competing for a disco ball on a stick!

I'm a fan of the show; I really am. It's much more than just washed-up has-beens learning ballroom steps. It's really a chance for the participants to show the viewers their true colors, for better or worse, and to put themselves back on the public radar. In the best cases, it can be career rehabilitation. There have been countless celebrities that waltzed across DWTS' hardwood and changed my previously held opinions - Pamela Anderson, Lil' Kim, and Evan Lysacek to name a few.

More than that, the whole experience is such a challenge for these people that the show becomes something like televised therapy. It seems like the cast members all bond strongly with their dance partners and their competitors just through the sheer force of shared experience. Yes, the show is silly and fun, but it's rewarding to watch, as a viewer. It's not the most-watched show in America for nothing.

Or is it? Is the viewership this year due to Bristol Palin? Last season, DWTS performed better than American Idol for the first time ever, thanks to Kate Gosselin's polarizing participation in the show. I can't help but think Bristol's involvement is producing similar results.

But, at the end of the day, Kate Gosselin was a terrible dancer and America had the good sense to put the poor woman out of her misery about halfway through the competition. Bristol's story goes far beyond the incidental boost in ratings. No, she's getting an inexplicable surge in votes that has propelled her past far more deserving candidates, right into the Final 3.

The elephant in the room (no pun intended) seems to be some sort of conservative conspiracy. There's even reports that Bristol's (and, by proxy, Sarah's) fans are working the system somehow. Mama Palin has appeared in several of Bristol's pre-taped rehearsal packages, and even attended the live shows on several occasions. The support for Bristol is there, and her associations don't go unmentioned.

It should be noted that Bristol's dance ability is improving. The show repeatedly reminds us that she is not a performer of any kind, let alone a dancer, and so her accomplishments are truly remarkable. I'm not arguing! She has improved by leaps and bounds - but the fact of the matter is that she's still not Final 3 material. But there seems to be this semi-delusional cluster of fans who stubbornly insist on putting her there. And I can't for the life of me figure out why. Not winning a reality show ballroom dance competition is not shameful, guys! At some point you have to acknowledge the fact that there are better dancers out there and just be proud of what you've done. Everyone else on the show has had to! Or even worse, the celebrities that have been eliminated at Bristol's expense have to accept the fact that there are lesser dancers still in the competition. That's gotta suck, knowing that you don't have enough fans to overtake a worse dancer's scores.

Yes, this is America, and voting (whether it be for a presidency or a Mirrorball Trophy) is what makes this country great. But people need to stop being jerks and vote responsibly, even if it is for a silly reality TV show. And most importantly, we should be able to treat Bristol Palin's involvement on Dancing with the Stars without the context of her situation, and leave politics off the dance floor.

Glee in GQ: Final Words

I really, really did not want to write another entry on Glee's GQ cover. I didn't.

But, here I am, shelving whatever worry I may have about beating a dead horse and plunging right back into this whole mess.

There are two new developments in this "scandal" that I want to address.

Firstly, the Parents Television Council has officially denounced the GQ cover, saying "it isn't good for families."

“It is disturbing that GQ, which is explicitly written for adult men, is sexualizing the actresses who play high school-aged characters on ‘Glee’ in this way. It borders on pedophilia. Sadly, this is just the latest example of the overt sexualization of young girls in entertainment." - PTC President Tim Winter

Well, yes and no. I'd actually say close but no cigar - if you pardon a Freudian gender pun. The thing about sexualizing the actresses? It's not pedophilia. The actresses are 24-year-old young women capable of making their own decisions about their sexuality. The issue is not their age. The issue is that they are represented in a way that the man in the shoot is not. Surprisingly, the PTC brings this up in their press release, but it almost seems like an afterthought.

Interestingly, the photos of the male character showed him wearing a shirt, tie and vest.

This sentence amuses me, for all the wrong reasons. "Interestingly!" I can't help but imagine a scientist peering over his lab results, teetering on the verge of a Very Important Breakthough Discovery and then hearing the kettle and shuffling off, forgetting everything. It's not "interesting," PTC. It's really the strongest leg to stand on if you want to argue against the photoshoot and you just waffle right by it.

Most people are bringing up the argument that children should not be reading GQ anyways, and I have to agree. It's an obvious, logical counterpoint. So is the point that America's Puritanical roots are showing and it's getting eye-roll-worthy. It's just frustrating that the PTC decided to fire at the issue, but aimed slightly left of target. And now it's plastered everywhere that this cover is ruining America's families and it's too raunchy and Glee is sending terrible messages to the nation's youth.

Sigh. I think most parents would find that Glee, as a television show, sends a lot of excellent messages to young people about identity, self-acceptance, and tolerance of differences. Everyone's just hung up on the sex. Not gender issues, or issues of equality. It's just the sex. (This is an appropriate place for a *headdesk* moment.)

Secondly - the lovely Miss Dianna Agron, whose participation in the shoot has been endlessly discussed (but surely not as much as Lea Michele's), has stepped forward with a statement. And I'm going to quote it entirely below, because the whole thing is worth a read and also I love her.

I’d like to start by saying that these are solely my thoughts on the November issue of GQ and the controversy that has surrounded its release. I am not a representative of the three of us, the show, or Fox, only myself.

In the land of Madonna, Britney, Miley, Gossip Girl, other public figures and shows that have pushed the envelope and challenged the levels of comfort in their viewers and fans…we are not the first. Now, in perpetuating the type of images that evoke these kind of emotions, I am sorry. If you are hurt or these photos make you uncomfortable, it was never our intention. And if your eight-year-old has a copy of our GQ cover in hand, again I am sorry. But I would have to ask, how on earth did it get there?

I was a very sheltered child, and was not aware of anything provocative or risque in the media while I was navigating through my formative years. When I was finally allowed to watch a movie like Grease, I did not even understand what on earth Rizzo was talking about!? I understand that in today’s world of advanced technology, the internet, our kids can be subject to very adult material at the click of a button. But there are parental locks, and ways to get around this. I am twenty-four years old. I have been a pretty tame and easy-going girl my whole life. Nobody is perfect, and these photos do not represent who I am. I am also not the girl who rolls out of bed with flawless makeup and couture clothing. I am most comfortable with my hair thrown on top of my head, in sweats, laughing with my friends. Glee is a show that represents the underdogs, which is a feeling I have embraced much of my own life, and to those viewers, the photos in GQ don’t give them that same feeling. I understand completely.

For GQ, they asked us to play very heightened versions of our school characters. A ‘Hit Me Baby One More Time’ version. At the time, it wasn’t my favorite idea, but I did not walk away. I must say, I am trying to live my life with a sharpie marker approach. You can’t erase the strokes you’ve made, but each step is much bolder and more deliberate. I’m moving forward from this one, and after today, putting it to rest. I am only myself, I can only be me. These aren’t photos I am going to frame and put on my desk, but hey, nor are any of the photos I take for magazines. Those are all characters we’ve played for this crazy job, one that I love and am so fortunate to have, each and every day. If you asked me for my dream photo shoot, I’d be in a treehouse, in a wild costume, war-paint and I’d be playing with my pet dragon. Until then…..

Stay classy, Ms. Agron. Girlfriend is living proof that it doesn't matter what you wear in whatever men's magazine, you can still be a damn classy broad. I appreciate that she knew - and was even hesitant about - what she was getting into, but didn't say no. She's a lady with a job, even if that job is to put on a bra and skirt and spray silly string on her co-stars. I believe this is an appropriate time to say, "Don't hate the player, hate the game." You can't blame Dianna Agron, or Lea Michele for the nation's obsession-with-slash-condemnation-of sexual imagery, nor can you blame them for the nation's mass obsession with celebrity. Ms. Agron addressed the issues, gave her piece, apologized for offending anyone, and is moving on.

As am I. I look forward to seeing all this nonsense about the photoshoot in my rearview mirror. I just want to watch Glee in my happy little Glee bubble and not worry with "scandal." As for the general offense of the portrayal of women in today's media... well, I still have hope. There are some excellent lady role models out there - fictional or otherwise, and I'd like to think that one silly men's magazine cover isn't going to set us back one bit, in the grand scheme of things. I mean, a little optimism never hurt anyone.

And yes, I just referred to women as a collective "we." Lemon out!

Glee: The GQ Cover

Well, Glee fans, there's no new episode tonight, which means that we have to keep ourselves entertained another week without any new material. But luckily, the new issue of GQ features our favorite show, and scans hit the internet today. Behold:

Are you offended? I don't blame you. Are you turned on? I don't blame you. Are you wishing that Cory Monteith was in the same state of undress as Lea Michele and Dianna Agron? Again, I don't blame you.

And before I continue, I would really like to make it clear that I'm addressing these photos very much without any personal implications about Lea, Dianna, and Cory. I love all three actors dearly and am dealing with their participation in this much like they are props - they clearly were not responsible for the decisions made in this photospread and I don't endeavor to lay blame to any of them by my ranting in this piece. Okay? Okay. Onward!

Now, there are several things that strike me the wrong way about the photoshoot. Let's talk wardrobe: Lea Michele is not wearing pants in a single frame, and yet Cory Monteith is fully clothed - he gets to wear a letterman jacket. We see Dianna Agron's abs in every shot, yet the only amount of skin we get from Cory is face and hands.

Now let's talk props. Lea's main prop seems to be a rather sexually suggestive lollipop. Cory gets some fairly innocent-seeming drums. How about posing? Oh, that's Cory, fully clothed, with his hands on the asses of two scantily-clad women? Oh, that's Lea, legs spread open to camera? Oh, okay; cool. Just checking.

I'm not stupid; I understand why this is. GQ is a men's magazine. GQ wants men to buy their magazine. How else to accomplish this than putting a capable bro on the cover feeling up two twenty-something, half-naked ladies tailored in schoolgirl fetish? This is the male gaze at its strongest, and frankly, it's offensive.

I was going to take a lukewarm stand on this issue at first. I was going to waffle, and say, "Well, they're just trying to sell magazines, what are they supposed to do? It's an over-the-top concept, and they just decided commit 100% for artistic purposes."

But then I really thought about it, and I decided to let my feathers get ruffled. You know what? What we put on the covers of magazines, and on television, and on the internet? It MEANS something. It MEANS something to put those three young actors in that position on the cover of GQ. It's using the images of people I like and respect to perpetuate the objectification of women. It's offensive. And frankly, saying that it's selling more issues makes this offense even less excusable. Excuse me, gentlemen magazine readers? Stop thinking with your dick and flip through a magazine if you want to read an article. If you don't want to read an article and instead just want something to jerk off to, I suggest subscribing to Playboy. I guarantee that straight guys who picked up this magazine did not pick it up to read about a musical comedy television show. They picked up it to see if there were more fetishistic pictures of women, and were rewarded when they got the locker room photos of Lea Michele.

I understand that, with the fact that Glee is a high school show that tackles a lot of adult issues, we're going to get this dichotomy when it's represented in the media. Lea must roll her eyes every time she puts on thigh-high athletic socks and hikes up her skirt. The schoolgirl thing isn't new - Britney Spears tapped into it with "Baby One More Time," a decade ago and of course, Glee just covered the exact same ground a few weeks back.

But this isn't even the point. The point is that Cory Monteith got to wear pants and a jacket and Lea and Dianna were showing as much skin as possible. If we're going to over-sexualize things, where's the fair in that? Yes, I know it's a men's magazine, but will its readers really go into a gay panic if there's a sexualized picture of Cory Monteith? If Cory were wearing a similar amount of clothing as Lea and Dianna on the cover, it would at least level the score - even with his hands on their asses. As a lady, if I want to read this article and have to flip through offensive portrayals of the women that I personally respect, then I think that gentlemen readers can stomach one photo of Cory with his shirt off. Sex is a two-way street, gang.

Of course, beyond all the sexism inherent in this photospread, lies the tiniest hint of racism. There are currently eleven main cast members in the fictional Glee club. Which three were photographed for the cover? The three hottest, skinniest, and whitest. Yes, Lea and Cory portray the main characters. However, Dianna does not. She gets little screentime on the show, yet is publicized heavily because she's gorgeous and blonde and everybody, male and female alike, wants to do her. Jenna and Amber do not get nearly the same attention Lea and Dianna get, whether it be from magazines, or paparazzi, or even fans. On the one hand, I say it's a travesty! Jenna and Amber are just as beautiful, talented, and lovely as their co-stars and deserve their magazine covers. However, if the magazine covers are going to continue to look like the GQ one, then Jenna and Amber should probably just be grateful they're dodging the heavy objectification. One less thing to worry about.

My point, in all of this, is that all output of creativity involves choices. Decisions are made by creative people in charge, and the result of those decisions is what we see on our television, or on our newsstands. Someone in charge at GQ (multiple someones, I'd say) drew up the concept for this photoshoot and thought, "Great idea!" Someone selected the wardrobe, as little or as much of it as needed. Someone gave Lea Michele that lollipop. Someone placed Dianna Agron in front of that wall so that the red vector pointed straight to her ass. Someone probably said, "Be sexier!" or "Cory, hands lower!" at some point during the photoshoot. These were careful decisions made. This photoshoot didn't happen by accident.

And that, to me, is the truly unfortunate thing. Somebody planned all this, which means that the concepts it's reinforcing are still alive and well in the media, and in men's heads. And while I'm sure my beloved Cory, Lea, and Dianna didn't exactly do anything they hadn't signed up for, I still feel badly for them that they had to participate in this. Somewhere, you know that Chris Colfer, Jenna Ushkowitz and Amber Riley were like, "Phew! We dodged that bullet!"

Sometimes it truly does seem like we're spinning our wheels in getting the media to represent women in a more realistic and objective light. In the meantime, however, Lea Michele should probably expect more lollipops and knee socks.


Author's Note: there are follow-ups to this post here and here.