UbuntuCat

As a longtime feminist, I’ve read quite a bit of both layperson and professional writing on the objectification of women, particularly the sexual objectification of women. I understand it’s wrong. I understand it’s damaging to society and is one of many ways the patriarchy tries to keep women down.

My question, though, is whether the wrongness of it is in the implementation of that objectification or the mere existence of it? In other words, in a perfectly egalitarian society (let’s imagine it’s possible), would objectification ever be okay in certain contexts? Or if it wasn’t the context that mattered, would it be okay if it weren’t prevalent (in other words, is it a quantity problem, as opposed to a quality problem)?

After all, isn’t there plenty of objectification that is “okay” in our current society? We objectify movie stars and rock stars (and not just sexually). It’s not as if we all appreciate them fully as human beings. A lot of times we just isolate one part of them (acting ability, good looks, confidence, stage presence, whatever) and idolize it. How many times have you heard a fan of a star say something like, “Yeah, I know she’s an asshole in real life, but I love her movies”? It happens all the time.

I’ll admit it. I objectify people all the time. You’re the annoying loud teenage kids on the bus. You’re the smelly homeless person asking me for change. You’re the guy in drag walking down the street. Do I get to know these people? Do I appreciate them for who they are as whole human beings and not just one aspect I choose to isolate and judge them by? No. I objectify them. I definitely objectify them. I’m sure people objectify me too.

We don’t have the time to get to know everyone and appreciate them all as whole human beings. It’s just not possible, and it’s not really part of human nature. That doesn’t mean that women should always be perceived as sex objects—whether they’re walking down the street, playing sports, giving a corporate presentation, or acting in a film. And I think (not 100% sure here) that that may be the problem, the sheer ubiquity of the sexual objectification of women. It’s not that women should never be objectified but that they shouldn’t always be objectified; and, in contemporary American culture (and other countries’ cultures as well), they are almost always objectified sexually.

I’m try to imagine, for example, if I were a porn actress, would I mind that people viewing my movies were objectifying me and thinking of me only sexually? Probably not. That’s kind of the whole point of the porn movie. On the other hand, if I were meeting with my accountant to discuss filing taxes or just meeting someone at a fundraiser, I probably would want them to talk to me and not my breasts. Maybe my imaginary life as a porn actress is way off, but that’s just what I’m thinking. I know some would argue that porn (as opposed to erotica) serves to make sexual objectification in everyday circumstances more prevalent. That may be true, too. Probably depends on the type of porn and who’s watching it.

Any input into this, women and men, feminists and non-feminists? Is objectification in any context or society always wrong, or is it a matter of degrees or manifestation?

I was quite looking forward to this new Iron Man film adaption. I’ve been a big Iron Man fan for decades (particularly fond of the alcoholism saga and armor wars of the 80s and 90s).

Well, last night, I saw an advanced screening of it at the Balboa Theater. I love this theater. With the special deal of advance-purchased tickets, my wife and I saw this film and had a “small” (what most movie theaters call “large”) popcorn with real butter, a jumbo hot dog, and a small (what most theaters would call “kids”) soda—all for US$23. The management gave out free posters to everyone and welcomed us at the beginning of the show, had two trivia questions with prizes, and apologized for the terrible Louis Vuitton commercial we had to sit through before the previews. It’s sad that independently-owned theaters like this are falling by the wayside in favor of megaplexes like the Metreon. The Balboa has personality and affordability. More importantly to me, it has a good mix of mainstream and artsy films. But I digress…

In terms of remaining faithful to the spirit the comic book and in terms of thrilling action and laugh-inducing jokes, the film is a success in spades. What is up with the sexism, though? I cannot imagine a film about a billionaire woman who is drunk all the time, sleeps around with and uses men like tissue, and is so incompetent that her personal assistant must do everything for her being doted on and admired by said personal assistant with the basic attitude of “Well, she may be a mess, but she’s my mess, and even though she’s kind of an asshole, I love her.” Who would watch that?

Of course, most people don’t really care if a male character is an asshole, as long as the film has laughter and well-animated violence. It just made me angry how the (terribly miscast) Gwyneth Paltrow assistant character is so pathetic. She’s basically Bond’s Moneypenny but without the wit and the sex appeal. Instead of Moneypenny, she’s a bit more like Sandra Bullock’s character from Two Weeks Notice. The only other prominent female character in the film is the sorority-looks-with-a-liberal-conscience reporter whom Stark has a one night stand with and then basically ignores.

My first reaction was to think, I thought we’d made some progress. I thought this was 2008. What is this? The 1940s? Then, I thought again and realized that roles for women in 1940s films were much better. You had the fast-talking Katherine Hepburn types and the film noir femme fatales. Most personal assistants and secretaries in films of those days had sass and could banter. Now we get the “You’re so bad and undeserving but I adore you. Tee hee!” women? I hope this backlash will abate soon, and third-wave (or are we on the fourth one?) feminism will come back in full swing.

Is it a sin to want an enjoyable action film with humor and just a little less sexism and misogyny?

A few months ago, I marveled at the ability of Beowolf’s animators to hide the title character’s penis, despite the fact he was naked and jumping and moving every which way.

Well, I just saw Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and I have to say I’m impressed. For a bawdy sex comedy featuring a male protagonist, it was a bit subversive in making the male nudity far more prominent than the female nudity. Sure, you briefly see a photo of Mila Kunis flashing her breasts (and you’re not even 100% sure it’s her breasts in that photo), but you see Jason Segel in the buff numerous times throughout the film and see his penis very clearly at least three times. I’m amazed that got past the MPAA (which typically has an inexplicable fear of the penis and no qualms about female full frontal nudity).

Even though Segel’s body isn’t fun to look at, in my mind, this is cinematic progress.

You may have missed it, but if you search for it, you will find it in abundance. It wasn’t played up a lot in mainstream media, but there was a little controversy about the hit movie 21.

Apparently, a lot of Asian-Americans were in an uproar about how the race of the characters had been changed from Asian-American to White. Some were even calling for boycotts. The argument went something like, “It’s hard enough for Asian-Americans actors to get good roles in Hollywood, but now that they would actually get the opportunity to play a lead role, the role suddenly has become ‘white-washed.’” Sadly, I don’t think it makes an economic difference whether or not Asian-Americans boycott a movie; we aren’t a significant enough demographic for Hollywood execs to consider. The film was a commercial success.

One person commenting on a blog or article (I forget which) thought people were overreacting and pointed out that the original novel I Am Legend featured a white character who was then ‘black-washed’ for the movie in the form of Will Smith. I think that’s just rubbing salt in the wounds even more, frankly. There is still a lot of racism against African-Americans in Hollywood, but there has also been a lot of progress, and the fact that Will Smith can carry off an “everyman” role like Robert Neville is evidence of that progress.

This is what it ultimately boils down to—Hollywood execs will cast whomever they feel will bring the biggest box office draw. If Asian-American actors brought in the dough (Harold & Kumar was profitable, which is why it gets a sequel, but it is not a Titanic-like blockbuster), they would be cast in lead roles more often.

Hollywood, through its amoral greed, is just providing a lens into the racism that America as a whole demonstrates through its ticket purchases. White Americans are just beginning to accept the notion of identifying with an African-American as “the everyman” (think Jimmy Stewart or Tom Hanks) in the form of Will Smith. Asian-Americans are still finding themselves identifying with White (and sometimes Black) protagonists, but White Americans never find themselves in the position of having to identify with only Asian-American protagonists.

Even though all of my examples so far have had to do with male actors, I think the trend applies equally as well to female actors. Lucy Liu and Sandra Oh have become household names, but how many movies or TV shows feature them as the leading lady. Lucy Liu has been able to be a main character side by side with Ally McBeal and the other two of Charlie’s Angels, but has she been the lead in anything by herself? Has Sandra Oh (without Ellen Pompeo or Diane Lane)? And, no, Double Happiness was not a box office hit.

It’s easy to put all the blame on Hollywood for being “racist,” but like corporate America in general, Hollywood studios are amoral, not immoral. If casting Asian-Americans in lead roles will make them profitable, they’ll do it. Hollywood is more a barometer of America’s racism. Most Americans still find it difficult to identify with an Asian-American protagonist—that’s the bottom line. I’m not sure how to change that, but clearly boycotting “white-washed” movies isn’t the way to do it.

Rarely do the people I run into at work, church, or social settings express admiration for Malcolm X or even acknowledge his existence. The few times he’s mentioned are usually as a “rival” to Martin Luther King, Jr., with the understanding that MLK represents all that is good, and Malcolm X represents a violent, hating, extremist (sometimes people even wrongly call him a racist).

The truth is that Malcolm X wasn’t for violence. He just believed in self-defense, the same way George W. Bush believes in fighting Afghanistan and Iraq in “self-defense” (re: the 9/11 attacks) and the same way most Americans believe the colonial “Founding Fathers” were right in violently fighting the British during the Revolutionary War (instead of marching on London and singing “We Shall Overcome”). This is what Malcolm X had to say about non-violence: Concerning nonviolence, it is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. He didn’t say, “I’m going to take a gun right now and start shooting people who don’t agree with me.”

Is it admirable to resist non-violently? Sure. I admire Gandhi. I admire MLK. If someone can resist non-violently, then that takes a certain strength that goes beyond the natural human instinct to retaliate and defend. But that doesn’t mean people who defend themselves espouse violence; it means they are human, and the ones who can resist non-violently are super-human.

Furthermore, Malcolm X and MLK didn’t always agree with one another, but they are not the enemies mainstream media portrays them to be. They both understood the same problems to exist, and they both admired one another (even while criticizing each other and debating one another). This is a letter Martin Luther King, Jr. sent to Malcolm X’s wife Betty Shabazz after Malcolm’s death:

I was certainly saddened by the shocking and tragic assassination of your husband. While we did not always see eye to eye on methods to solve the race problem, I always had a deep affection for Malcolm and felt that he had the great ability to put his finger on the existence and root of the problem. He was an eloquent spokesman for his point of view and no one can honestly doubt that Malcolm had a great concern for the problems that we face as a race. While I know that this is a difficult hour for you, I am sure that God will give you the strength to endure. I will certainly be remembering you in my prayers and please know that you have my deepest sympathy. Always consider me a friend and if I can do anything to ease the heavy load that you are forced to carry at this time, please feel free to call on me.

You don’t have to agree 100% with Malcolm X’s viewpoints to admire him; and you should, if you have studied his life and speeches, recognize that he is often misrepresented and continually done an injustice to by bourgeios conversation, American history textbooks, and mainstream media. Malcolm X was one of the most honest and well-meaning human beings who ever lived. He was able to admit when he was wrong, and he ultimately desired and saw the possibility of true kinship of human beings of all races.

Here’s to you, Malcolm!