#also has to do with how blonde white women are particularly portrayed in media but im not well versed enough to talk abt that topic

[phrysic]

i think this has been said before albeit i havent seen it yet but: both meg and ruby vessels switching from blondies to dark-hair has to mean something.

[ericdeggans]

How My Love for Sean Connery and Bond Led to a Serious Case of White Guy Hero Infatuation Syndrome

Like a lot of people all over the world, I have long considered myself a stone Sean Connery fan.

I often recited the juiciest dialogue bits from his Oscar-winning turn as a beat cop-turned crusader in he Untouchables (in addition to the speech everyone quotes, I loved how he told Eliot Ness he knew he was a treasury agent without seeing his badge because “who would claim to be that who was not?”) I watched the painfully clumsy 1986 B-movie Highlander mostly for his charming turn as Egyptian (!) immortal Juan Sánchez-Villalobos Ramírez.

And, of course his work as James Bond always set the ultimate example for urbane cool. Which explains why I often felt the theme song thrumming in my head whenever I wore a stylish suit or hopped off a plane in a cool city. For men from the generation before mine, he practically defined the sophisticated, stylish machismo found in the pages of Esquire and Playboy.  

For these reasons and more, I have always loved the rogueish Scotsman as an actor. And yet, when news of his death at age 90 spread across the world, I couldn’t bear to pay tribute to him on my social media pages, until now.

That’s because his passing highlighted my problem with a particular malady. I call it White Guy Hero Infatuation Syndrome. And I have suffered from it for many years.

Put simply, my fan’s brain knows that Connery’s landmark performances were the stuff of film legend – especially as Bond. Cool, authoritative, suavely menacing and mostly unflappable, his take on a secret agent who knows the best suit designers nearly as well as the best pistol manufacturers set the template for escapist espionage fantasies over the next half century and beyond.

His first line as the character – “Bond. James Bond.” – has become pop culture legend.

But as a media critic, I also have to contend with James Bond’s status as a relentless sexist and a British agent who walked the world as if it was made to be ruled by wealthy, capable white men. Watch him slap the behind of a pretty blonde who was massaging him poolside in 1964’s Goldfinger when CIA agent Felix Leiter turns up for a chat. “Man talk,” he tells her dismissively, sending her out of the scene.

Or check out how he treats Quarrel, the bug-eyed Black man who acts as a “fixer” for him in Jamaica during the first Bond film, 1962’s Dr. No. Scrambling across a beach to avoid the bad guys’ goons, Bond turns to Quarrel and tells him “fetch my shoes” -- as if he were his butler, rather than a local ally helping him avoid thugs with automatic weapons.

And there’s loads of scenes where Bond forces himself on women who quickly succumb to his charms – like Honor Blackman’s character in 1964′s Goldfinger – perpetuating a dangerous myth that a man can earn a woman’s love by pushing her into being romantic with him. (Or that a dismissive, vaguely annoyed tone with women – treating them like impertinent children or misguided simpletons – is also, somehow, irresistible to them.)    

When Connery played Bond, he played a character who was the embodiment of white privilege. He made it look sexy, virtuous and necessary – the natural state of things in a 1960s-era world that, outside the comfortable confines of Bond’s make-believe spy games, seemed to be coming apart at the seams. But in the America of 2020, it’s a symbol of how media can teach you to accept a limiting legend.

And this was a fantasy I bought into eagerly. As a kid, my mom and I bonded over the heroic white guys she loved on film and TV, mostly from westerns. Just this past December, as she was fighting cancer and months before she would succumb to an infection, we sat and watched Clint Eastwood, Charles Bronson, Kevin Costner and Robert Duvall save the day too many times to count.

As I got older, I’d make fun of all the misogyny, racism and white centering going on in these shows – gibes which my mother, a proud Black woman who loved her people and culture, tolerated with a weary smile. “These are my guys,” she’d say playfully, swatting aside any idea that there was a deeper impact from gorging on stories which treated these virtuous white men as the noble, natural center of every story. I wish the issue were that simple; it often isn’t.

For me, it wasn’t just a problem with Connery. As a kid, I loved Eastwood’s 1970s-era Dirty Harry movies, where the taciturn cop with a Magnum pistol cut through all the nonsense to nab the bad guy. Same with Bronson’s Death Wish films, where the solution to rampant street crime wasn’t better policing, but a taciturn, middle class white guy with a gun shooting down street criminals. It’s a potent fantasy, especially if you’ve ever had to deal with the numbing bureaucracy of real-life law enforcement or the brutal violation of being a crime victim.

It wasn’t until I got older that I realized many of those bad guys Harry Callahan was hunting were young hippies and Black people – the kind of folks who, in real life when Dirty Harry was released in 1971, were trying to get America to face how it was chewing up poor, young men in an unwinnable, unnecessary war in Vietnam. It was a prime example of “copaganda” – convincing the audience that the excesses Detective Callahan committed to nail a person the audience already knew was a serial killer, was justified.

Even now, I wonder: Can I watch these movies and appreciate why they are thrilling, while rejecting the tropes that present a white male-centered world as just and appropriate? In my work on race and media, I’m often telling audiences that people who insist they are not affected by media subtexts are often the most affected by them. Couldn’t that be true for me, when it comes to heroes like Eastwood, Bronson and Connery?

(One caveat: Sitting in an arena in Tampa, watching Eastwood give his infamously strange “empty chair” speech at the Republican National Convention in 2012, broke me of my affection for his work. I have avoided watching new Clint Eastwood films since then. Click here to read my report on the empty chair speech for the Tampa Bay Times.)

In his later years, Connery denied or walked back quotes where he seemed to approve of physically hitting women in real life. His roles in films like Highlander, The Untouchables, Hunt for Red October, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen often featured him playing the older mentor to younger white guy heroes portrayed by the likes of Harrison Ford, Alec Baldwin and Kevin Costner.

And so, as the question of Connery’s legacy in show business arises, the fanboy part of me is at war with the media critic. One side of me is lost in the absolute coolness of the suave masculinity he so often symbolized, particularly as the world’s most successful secret agent.

The other is painfully aware of the inequalities and oppression such portrayals enabled, and how much they may feed our real life fantasies for a powerful white male savior to set things right, even now. 

Especially now.

And saying these characters were a product of their flawed times somehow doesn’t seem enough.

This is a tough column to write, and not just because there are so many fans who want to focus on the best moments of Sean Connery’s life now that he’s gone. It’s difficult because he was a personal hero of mine for a long while – and remains one of my favorite performers – even as I acknowledge the terribly male-centric and white-superior ethos he embodied in so many roles.

This may sound like disrespectful nitpicking to hardcore fans and family. It’s never easy to sit with the more uncomfortable aspects of a great artist’s legacy. And the time after his death has been filled with heartfelt tributes to Connery, a man of great talent and no-nonsense sensibilities who was respected and loved by a great many people who worked with him.

Sometimes the media critic’s job requires being a buzzkill; insisting the public pay attention to troubling aspects of a film or TV show that we would all just rather sit back and enjoy. Because part of unwinding the effect of past portrayals is acknowledging their power in the present day.

Which means, every time I watch Connery stride to a baccarat table in Goldfinger, Dr. No, or Diamonds Are Forever, archly demanding a precisely constructed alcoholic beverage, I also have to remind myself of the damage done by too many characters like that offering too constricted a vision of what a hero looks and acts like. And I suggest you do the same.

It's the only way to balance a comforting myth with the reality of how that legend can, unwittingly, teach us to cling to ideas that ultimately hold us back.      

[low-budget-korra]

The first text I made was over 2,000 words so I’ll try to summarize it.

First I'm going to talk about what I think is Bury Your Gays and poor writing of minorities.

For me, Bury your gays is when certain productions kill the lgbt character for the sake of shock value, often in the most stupid ways possible. A famous example of this was what happened to Lexa in the 100. When it feels like the character only died because he is gay.

And for me, poor writing for minorities (poc, lgbt, people with disabilities ...) can be characterized as:

1. Productions that want to portray the image of progressives and put a poc or lgbt character (which are the most common cases) without personality, unimportant, without development ... Character that are just there for decoration

2. When they even create an interesting character but soon create a reason to kill him to shock the audience. Kill them because they are poc.

And for me having a poc or lgbt character (since these are the boxes where I identify with) interesting, important ... this is the word: Important! whether it is important directly in the plot as a protagonist who carries the story or a supporting role with a good role on the story and a good development, it is much more significant than a character forced only for certain productions not to be accused of racism, sexism or lgbtphobia.

Of course, each case is different. I will now comment briefly on Atomic Blonde, The Last of Us part II and The Legend of Korra.

In Atomic Blonde we have the death of Delphine, a lgbt character who has generated some discussions about being a "bury your gays". I don't particularly agree because I believe that if she were a man or straight, she would die anyway. Since the protagonist's other love interest had died in the beginning and he was a heterosexual white man, and because the character of Delphine, despite being a spy, did not belong in that work or life style . Something even commented by herself. She was an inexperienced agent in the worst possible scenario to be one . But i now understand and why some people still think It was bury your gays.

In The Last of Us part II I saw many people complaining about the death of Jesse, Yara and how Lev was just a supporting character. The Last of Us part II .... a game that is not afraid to kill loved characters without any ceremony simply because in that world, one mistake can cost your life. Regardless of gender, sexuality, age, skin color ...

Jesse and Yara played Asian American characters and died. Mel, Joel, Owen ... were Caucasian, cishet characters who died too. None of them die because they are asian american or caucasian, they die cuz that world is fucking ruthless.

And about Lev not being important just because he is an supporting character... First that he is for Abby what Dina is for Ellie, both of them are extremely important support for the protagonists and Interesting characters with their own internal struggles and development. I think it is very unfair to throw this away with the argument like: "ah, but he is not the protagonist so it is not important"

And still about The Last of Us part II we are talking about a game and for those who do not know the gamer community is toxic, full of sexism, racism, lgbtphobia ... And the game developers had the balls for not only make two protagonists women outside the steryotype of femme fatalle or defenseless love interest(still very present in games) and one of them a lesbian, but also introducing an important trans character in a mainstream high-budget game.

People, until recently the only image we had of women in games was that of a busty model running around, made purely to please male players, good and important black, asian and lgbt characters was really rare or just didnt exist at all.

And today we have characters like Ellie, Lev, Kassandra (AC Odyssey), Jill Valentine and Claire Redfield who were reimagined more humanely in the remakes of Resident Evil, Lara Croft herself in the 2013 Tomb Raider remake, Max and Chloe(Life is Strange), Lee and Clementine(TWD from telltale), Marcus (Detroit Become Humam ), Connor (AC3) ... I know, there is still a long way to go until we have achieved the equality and representativeness that we want in the world of games but we are advancing. They may be a baby step but they still are steps forward. We should continue to support this initiatives and demand better representation.

Now about The Legend of Korra ... Reading the comments in the post i get the feeling that people were much more angry with Bryke for being cishet than with questions related to the narrative.

It bothers me the fact that it seems that whoever made the posts (originally from twitter) did not watch avatar or simply watched without paying attention. It was NEVER about Korra needed suffering but about finding Meaning in suffering. And yes, they are two different things.

When in the end Korra is talking to Tenzin, about understand the why she had to go through all that , for them be abble to be more compassionate of others. That shit is real. When you have a panic attack , for exemple, you become more abble to help someone who also suffers from that. Or when some people lose someone for a disease or acident and choose to become a doctor to help others, wanting no other person had to go through that pain... In this case, the person didnt have to lose someone to be a doctor but maybe after saw all the fight that the doctors put in to save someone and the pain of losing someone may have made the person spend the rest of his life saving people. Get It?

And in Avatar, both TLA and TLOK, people have suffer.

Aang: Cast aside by his friends when people discover he was the Avatar. Runaway and lose all of his people. Had to see the devastation for himself and find the bones of his friend and possible father figure. Almost die a few times. For many years had the weight of been the last of his people. And in a part of the journey, lost Appa.

Sokka and Katara: Lost their mother. Their dad leave to fight and possible die in the war. Sokka was only a teen when he was the man responsable for his tribe. Katara had the weight of being the only waterbender of her tribe and be the only one that could calm Aang once he was in Avatar State.

Toph: as a blind kid, her parents think of her as someone unable to do anything. Had to choose between save Appa or save the others in some point of their journey

Zuko: When i start with him?

Azula: oh Boy...

Iroh: Lose is only son. Had to see his brother burn Zuko's face. And Zuko betrayed him, kind of, in the end of book2.

Asami: Her mom was murdered , maybe even in front of her. Her dad was a evil genius. She probably suffered with Korra in those 3 years.

Mako and Bolin: They grow up as orphans on the streets...

I could go on and on, dude, even the cabbage man had suffer from losing his cabbages over and over.

But all of the sudden, Korra now had to have plot armor or else Bryke is wrong and are terrible people.

Everybody loves to talk about how perfect Zuko's arc and development is. Zuko, who was one of the characters who most have suffered in the show. But for him all was necessary, had meaning, perfect storytelling and structure but with Korra.... "She cant suffer cuz she is brown"

And its not like Bryke was making something up outta nowhere just to torture the character. All she face it was a consequence direct or indirect of her actions and actions of other people.

Amon and the Equalists? Aang didnt kill Yakone nor put him in prison for life, just took his bending. Yakone was a terrible father, and one of the reason Amon hate bending (even himself been a waterbender) so much to the point of him do what he did. The same to Tarrlok. He turn his sons into monsters. And the triads only help them, because they use their bending to rob the non benders.

Vaatu? Look up The Beginning epsodes because this one is more complex.

Unalaq? Look, the worst villain of Avatar. But he took advantage of things that happen as consequences of the ending of book1

Zaheer? Direct consequence of that happen in the finale of book 2.

Kuvira? Direct consequence of things that happen in book 3

Again, i could go on and on and go deeper on all that. But this is already getting to big.

But what pissed me off most is ... Look im years in this fandom. As a Brazilian i saw and read stuff from the fandom here in my country and the fandom here in Tumblr. And in those years i read so much about how Korra journey help people overcome their struggles with ptsd, anxiety, depression...myself included. How much Korra was important to lesbians and bissexuals girls, especially girls of color.

And them we have those few people throw shit on all this and "cancel" you for not agree with them...

The Legend of Korra ended 2014, 6 years ago and still is so loved, so important to so many people, for the most diverse reasons.

For a cishet, Bryke did a amazing job creating this amazingly beautiful universe. With the most diverse inspirations, coming from places that are forgotten on western media. But i guess its easier criticize, and cancel them and the show than do what they did.

I know that sometimes we just wanted a scape from our difficult reality but seriously, if you Just want a movie/tv show/book...100% happy, rainbow and sunshine with no suffering at all, stick with the fanfics because even romcons sometimes have their among of "i you make you cry and suffer" kind of shit.

Suffer is present in our life and what a lot of movies/tv shows/games/books...try to do is bring our struggles and our suffering into them. Why? Its easier have simpathy for characters who look like us, characters who had been through the same stuff as us.

Is so difficult talk those things in another language. I always feel like i didnt express myself right. And im really sorry if i offended anyone, it wasnt my intention.

[thegentlecriticfilmreview]

Fargo!

I am posting my essay on Peggy Blumquist and Hanzee Dent because I got an A+!!! I could not be happier about this grade lol. Fargo is one of my favourite shows and I was so excited when my Women in Pop Culture prof ( this is my favourite prof I have ever) said we could choose our own film/tv to analyze. I am worried that the format won’t upload properly but oh well??  Also fully aware that not everyone will agree with my analysis of Peggy but I truly believe she was a victim of her times!! if anyone reads this I HOPE YOU ENJOY IT. 

An Analysis of Noah Hawley’s Fargo

The words, “This is a true story,” spill across the opening scene of every episode of Noah Hawley’s FX TV show, Fargo. The second season uses this phrase not only to welcome the viewer into the world of Fargo, but also to “reveal that true stories are always subjective stories, which means they are constructed stories” (Redmon, 2016, pg.16). This essay will focus on season two’s Peggy Blomquist, a white, middle-class woman, and Hanzee Dent, an indigenous man. The actions and motivations of both characters are constantly questioned by other characters in the show and the viewer, as the vibe of the season deeply inhabits the dominant hegemony of America in 1979. Peggy and Hanzee’s stories of survival in a world that rejects them prove that there is great power in constructing truth that exists outside of the dominant ideology.

As mentioned above, Fargo operates within a dominantly male and patriarchal lens. From an exterior perspective, Peggy is the perfect model for the male gaze. She is a slim, white, blonde woman, and presents herself in a feminine manner. However, the male gaze is a source of extreme discomfort for Peggy. In fact, the thing she wants most in life is to, “self actualize.” This goal of “self actualizing,” does nothing to tell the viewer what type of person Peggy wants to be, it serves only to let the viewer know that she is someone who struggles daily with her sense of self. Peggy has an impossible time separating herself from her marriage, indicating that she has in some ways internalized the male gaze. John Berger’s  1972 Ways of Seeing, describes this well, “the surveyor of women in herself is male: the surveyed female” (Zeisler, 2008, pg. 7).

 A connection can be made to the conclusions drawn by 1970s American media about women. “The ways in which women were portrayed in the overall narrative, focusing on particular limited dimensions of the characters...were women portrayed as physicians or housewives? Active or passive?” (D’Acci, 2004, pg. 379). Peggy’s lack of a sense of individual self is her driving force in the series, “the relevance of the male gaze here is not in how it manifests but how agents push against and subvert its unconscious influences” (Ritland, 2018, pg 1284). In fact, what is truly at stake for Peggy Blomquist when she hits Rye Gerhardt with her car, is her fantasy identity. 

The scene that deserves the most recognition in Peggy’s story arc is from the season finale, “Palindrome.”  Finally caught and arrested for the hit and run murder of Rye Gerhardt, Peggy attempts to explain herself. “I wanted to choose, be my own me. Not be defined by someone else’s expec-and then that guy. That stupid guy, walked out into the...why’d he have to do that?” The camera angle, when focusing solely on Peggy, is similar to the angle Lou Solverson would see her from his driving mirror. This speech of Peggy’s can instantly be ridiculed, as we see it through Lou’s eyes, particularly when she describes herself as a victim. This is where it is necessary to adopt an oppositional female gaze, “the female gaze refers to work presented from a decidedly female perspective that challenges the patriarchal status quo” (Ritland, 2018, pg. 1284).

Peggy states that she was a victim before Rye Gerhardt ever was, and that Lou would not be able to understand because he is a man. “It’s a lie, okay? That you can do it all. Be a wife and a mother, and this self-made career woman, like there’s thirty-seven hours in a day! And then when you can’t, they say it’s you.” Peggy’s expressions here echo a genuine concern of the constructions presented to women. “In the 1980s, there were TV characters who seemed to be striving for feminist ideals, but for most of them—as it was for women in the real world—it was almost impossible to be feminist superwomen in a world that was still stubbornly unequal” (Zeisler, 2008, pg.13). For Peggy, second wave feminist discourse in the mainstream media had led her to believe she could, “do it all.” When this turned out to be false, Peggy realized that she had betrayed herself by internalizing the male gaze and its, to borrow Susan Douglas’s term, enlightened sexism. “Enlightened sexism is feminist in its outward appearnce (of course you can be or do anything you want) but sexist in its intent (hold on, girls, only up to a certain point)” (Douglas, 2010, pg. 285). Lou halts Peggy in her realizations of America’s hypocrisies surrounding equality. In doing so, he unknowingly proves her suspicions true. “They say it’s you. You’re faulty.. like you’re inferior somehow!”  The female gaze validates Peggy as a victim of the times. What makes this more interesting is how the three other feminist characters in the show, who firmly believe the time of inequality is over, subsequently die at the hands of men. 

One of the most compelling storylines in the show is Hanzee Dent’s. A Native American man, he was adopted by the drug-running Gerhardt family as a child. What is so appealing about Hawley’s depiction of Hanzee is that he seems to truly understand that “representations are mediations- that is, they are formed in the human mind and are human interpretations of some exterior realm” (D’Acci, 2004, pg. 375). In fact, even as we watch Hanzee betray his foster family and destroy their drug empire, the relations between indegenous and white characters in the show is the most believable part of season two. “Audiences are always aware that the version in motion on screen is but one version of some story that belongs to a group of people” (Redmon, 2016, pg.18). The hegemonic, patriarchal Gerhardt family is a screamingly obvious metaphor for the colonizer, which to Hawley’s credit, is why the depictions of indgenous characters in the show are so successful. “Hegemony is the power or dominance that one social group holds over others. This can refer to differences between and among social classes within a nation” (Lull, 2003, pg 61). The best way for him, a white writer, to portray indegenous characters, was to do so through the eyes of European settler families.

The patriarchal, hegemonic narrative of Fargo’s second season actually allows the viewer to occupy the spaces Peggy Blomquist and Hanzee Dent invented for themselves. “In the end, Hawley explicitly establishes what might have always been implied in his assertion that his story is a true story, namely, that his story is an anti-binarist construct that can tolerate alternative arrangements” (Redmon, 2016, pg. 25). Peggy’s refusal to believe that second wave feminism had achieved gender equality is the reason she is the sole feminist character to survive. Hanzee’s decision to forsake the Gerhardt family can be seen as a personal rebellion against colonization, especially considering his last scene, where we hear him speak his native language for the first time in the series. Lastly, Peggy and Hanzee’s recognition that the dominant ideology of the time was not on their side is what inspired their very empowerment.

[gleeandintersectionality]

         Intersectionality was first defined by scholar Kimberle Krenshaw and was described as a ‘but for’ analysis- I would have received that job ‘but for’ my race, I would have gotten that promotion ‘but for’ my gender” (Molina-Guzman and Cacho 72). Intersectionality “challenges predominant understandings of race and gender as discrete social identities shaped by and formative of distinct social experiences” (Molina-Guzman and Cacho 72). Intersectionality is ultimately the overlapping of different identities like race, gender, and sexual orientation that make an individual’s life more challenging as they identify with multiple minorities. For example, Krenshaw specifically addresses how black women can experience sex and race discrimination (Molina-Guzman and Cacho 72). Intersectionality can be found in the characters on FOX’s teen comedy-drama, Glee. This blog will focus on mainly on Mercedes, a black woman, Santana, a Latina lesbian, and Unique, a black trans woman. 

         On Glee, there is constant competition between the two arguably strongest female singers of the club: Rachel Berry and Mercedes Jones. Rachel is Jewish, but light skinned and Mercedes is black. Throughout the series, Rachel receives many solo numbers, while Mercedes is denied the same opportunity. Dubrofsky explains how Mercedes is seen only performing music by black artists and being denied solos because of her attitude: “If Mercedes is presented as having the talent and appropriate voice for a solo, she is portrayed as lacking the drive or the ability to tame her emotions to claim center stage, reproducing stereotypes of the angry black woman” (91). While Rachel has the right voice for every genre of music, Mercedes is pegged by her race. To make sure audiences don’t call Glee racist, they act as if it is Mercedes’ lack of ambition and drive that denies her solos. When auditioning for the school musical, West Side Story, Rachel and Mercedes both audition for the role of Maria. The play directors are impressed and shocked with Mercedes’ audition expressing how they have “never seen Mercedes so ‘glamorous’” (Dubrofsky 96). This could be seen as whitening Mercedes into an elegant, classy performer igniting a reaction and performance typical of Rachel. However, after Mercedes’ stunning performance, the play directors are still torn about who to cast: “Rachel appears not only the safer choice, but the obvious one—seamlessly, unquestionably having what it takes to play the role, while Mercedes is an assumed risk. Why Rachel possesses what it takes, and what the doubts are about Mercedes, are never specified” (Dubrofsky 97). While neither girl fits the role of Maria who is Puerto Rican, it is never explained why Mercedes would be the riskier choice or why Rachel is the stronger performer. Dubrofsky explains show Glee shows “whiteness as an undefined but everpresent and desirable quality” (97). This scene shows that if you want to be leading lady material you have to be white or light skinned. 

          The person who mostly gets blamed for selecting solo performances is Mr. Schuester, the white and male Glee club teacher who gives Rachel a plethora of solos. It is not until season three that Mercedes calls out Mr. Schuester on his biased attitude: “You give that skinny Garanimals-wearing ass-kisser everything. For two years I took it. Not anymore” (Futterman par. 5). For two years, Mercedes has accepted her lack of solos, but in season three, Mercedes becomes outspoken and confronts the situation head on. She knows she is a star and will no longer play second fiddle to Rachel. The episode ends with Mercedes joining a new glee club. Because of Mercedes’ race she works twice as hard as Rachel and the other white glee members to be seen as talented and multi dimensional. Mercedes wants to be more than a stereotype and show that she can sing all genres of music and display a range of emotions. This shows intersectionality as Mercedes being a black woman has to work twice as hard against the light skinned Rachel to get what she wants. 

        The next character I will be discussing is Santana Lopez. Santana applies to intersectionality because she is a woman, Latina, and a lesbian. When discovering her sexuality, Jacobs explains how compared to Kurt, a white male gay student, Santana’s coming out is even more challenging as she is isolated from other gay women and particularly gay women of color (339). Besides her sexuality, Santana's ethnicity marks her even more as an outcast as she identifies with two minorities and therefore lacks people similar to her within her small town and high school. Jacobs also discusses the rejection Santana faces from her grandmother when she comes out to her. Jacobs explains how it is not shocking that the “only overtly homophobic adult is an old, Catholic Hispanic woman, aligning phobia with a benighted, ethnic/ racial religiosity” (342). This shows how age, religion, and ethnicity affect how one responds to gay people. Since Santana’s family is Latin, they are strongly religious and therefore do not accept homosexuality. In comparison to Kurt Hummel whose father immediately accepts him, Santana faces rejection because of her family’s ethnicity and religion. 

          Villagomez also discusses the pivotal moment of Santana’s coming out to her abuela. The rejection Santana experiences after coming out “not only showed the rejection LGBT’s face (or fear facing) when coming out, but the rejection Latinos specifically encounter which, usually, can be related to strong religious and cultural beliefs” (Villagomez 1). This shows that although all LGBT teens may fear coming out, many Latinos have it harder because of their family’s strong religious beliefs that go against homosexuality. This is the case with Santana’s abuela as she says that Santana has committed a sin (Villagomez 2). Villagomez further explains how Santana’s rejection shows how emotional and complicated coming out can be. Santana was also the only gay character on Glee to face rejection and ultimately showed LGBT teens that it may be better “to leave the negative people out of their life, especially after you’ve given the relationship and seach for acceptance your all” (Villagomez 2). 

         In the series, Santana forms a relationship with Brittany who is white. Through their relationship, they experience unfair treatment compared to the straight couples at school. Gilchrist touches upon this when Principal Figgins finds Santana and Brittany leaning in for a kiss and interrupts them. Santana interjects “This is such bullcrap! Why can’t Brittany and I kiss in public? Because we’re two girls” (Gilchrist 2). Figgins explains how the high school does not allow any types of PDA between any couples, but alas, he has been receiving complaints about Brittany and Santana’s relationship. Santana asks if any complaints have been made about Finn and Rachel who are publicly making out in the hallway. As a new religion club has began at the high school, Figgins is attempting to stop Brittany and Santana from kissing to make those who are religious feel comfortable. Santana clearly upset says, “All I want to do is be able to kiss my girlfriend but I guess no one can see that because there’s such an insane double standard at this school” (Gilchrist 2). Referring to how Finn and Rachel and other straight couples get away with kissing in the hallways, Santana is frustrated because she is denied this right because she is gay. As the religion club sends singing Valentine grams for straight couples, Santana requests one for Brittany. After praying about it and having a long discussion, the club decides to sing for Brittany and Santana. This shows how Brittany and Santana are not given the same privileges as their straight couples at school and must hide their relationship to make their straight peers feel more comfortable. 

         Snarker focuses more on Brittany and Santana’s relationship by discussing how media does not highlight their relationship and oftentimes focuses more on the gay men in relationships. In an article by EW, they claimed: “Kurt is the most important character on television right now” (Snarker par. 13). Snarker explains that although the way Kurt deals with being gay in a disapproving world is inspiring, she wishes more people would focus on Brittany and Santana’s relationship, saying, “For gay women, Brittana is every bit as engaging, albeit on a smaller scale, than Kurt is for gay men. Their legitimate, if unlabeled, relationships matter to us. We’d like it if it mattered to you, too” (par. 15). Snarker also points out that when the media does address Brittany, they address her relationship with Artie, a boy, rather than with Santana as Brittany is sexually fluid within the series (par. 10). Just like being white was preferred for Mercedes, being straight is seen as the preferred norm on Glee. Brittany and Santana align with intersectionality as they get outcasted within their school and get ignored by the media. 

        I will now be moving on to Unique Adams, an African American trans woman. When Unique first joins the glee club, she wants to perform in women's clothes. Mercedes and Kurt, both fear the reaction Unique will receive with Kurt saying, “ ‘I’ve worn some flamboyant outfits, but I’ve never dressed up as a woman.’ To which Unique replies ‘That’s because you identify yourself as a man. I thought you of all people would understand’ ” (Kane par. 4). This shows how even members of the LGBT community like Kurt still misunderstand transgender individuals and label them inaccurately. 

        One of Unique's biggest plot lines in Glee is when she catfishes Ryder Lynn, a heterosexual white male, as a girl named “Katie.” As Sandercock explains Unique takes on an identity unlike her own: “Unique portrays herself online as a thin, white, blonde, cisgender woman – a hegemonic ideal of beauty – an identity and embodiment that exists in opposition to her as a large, black, trans woman” (442). Sandercock further explains, “This highlights the intersectional nature of gender, race and beauty ideals that impact on the marginalisation of trans women of colour. Her avatar reveals beliefs about what is most beautiful and desirable, and her fears of embodying none of these ideals” (442). Unique knows that as a black trans woman she does not embody the standard of beauty which is white, thin, and cisgendered. Through becoming Katie, she is trying to disown her intersectionality and become the image that is desired most in society. Ryder is mean and lashes out at Unique in real life for not understanding her gender identity. Unique tells him that she is a “proud black woman” (Sandercock 442). He decides to mention Unique and how he feels about her to Katie. Katie replies, “This Wade/ Unique guy believes he is a girl. He doesn’t need any proof. It’s his truth. And like what you said, what’s true is true” (Sandercock 443). After this, Ryder changes his point of view about Unique, however Unique has already told Ryder that she is a woman, yet he only believes it when it comes from Katie. Sandercock explains how “this highlights the role of race but also the economy of desire whereby ‘loving’ Unique becomes crucial to winning the affection of ‘Katie’ who intersectionally embodies normative femininity, whiteness and cisness” (443). This scenario shows that trans people and people of color know they are not the image of ideal beauty, and therefore, are insecure about the way they are seen and if they will find romantic love. This scene also shows that white, cisgender and heterosexual people may only accept and believe in those who are trans, gay or black only when it is explained and accepted by someone similar to them. 

          Glee portrays a vast range of races, genders, and sexualities through their characters. Intersectional characters teach audiences the difficulties of being a part of multiple minorities and how it affects their lives. Although Glee can be controversial in its representations, it ultimately shows that those applying to intersectionality experience specific hardships that white, straight, and cisgendered individuals do not understand.

[jsbowie-blog1]

Sexuality across representation and discourses

The Mammy is one of the oldest controlling images for black women. The Mammy was typically described as a woman who took care of the white slave owners children. She is typically depicted as a desexualized overweight woman, she is made to be unattractive. She is the complete opposite of conventional beauty standards based upon Eurocentric features. In contrast, she is a dark-skinned, older, and overweight woman, typically made to be unintelligent. She is the polar opposite of a white, blonde hair, blue eyed, skinny, straight hair woman. Her image was created to perpetuate the myth that black women were unattractive and unintelligent. They created a desexualized character to protect the idea that white men, particularly slave owners, were not attracted to black women and therefore could not rape them. The Mammy was seen in several movies, commercials, and mainstream media. For a long period, the only role black women could receive in the media was the Mammy image. The most famous example being Aunt Jemima. When asked why Aunt Jemima products were so successful, a historian suggested: “Aunt Jemima’s ready-mixed products offered middle-class housewives the next best thing to a black servant: a “slave in a box”. The Mammy can even be seen today in characters such as Medea. Most stereotypes we see in this age can have some roots in the Mammy character such as the “Sister Savior”, as described in Stephens article.

(This image is from an old Aunt Jemima package, found on google images)

This image is the Jezebel. Another very old controlling image used to stereotype black women’s sexuality. The Jezebel is the antithesis of the Mammy, and is an image we see much more often than the Mammy now, and also has been shaped into several other images. African sexuality was viewed as erotic, when colonizers came to the continent and saw Africans nudity they mistook it for lewdness and promiscuity. This archetype was created to justify the rapes of African slaves. The Jezebel is characterized as a woman with an insatiable sex drive who drives men to temptation (stemming from the bible’s Jezebel). In essence, black slaves could not be raped because they desired sex so much, therefore slave masters were simply giving them what they desired. This image continues as we see black women hyper-sexualized and fetishized for their black features as well as assumed to be more sexually promiscuous and “freaky”. The Jezebel can be seen spread through common stereotypes such as the “Freak”, Gold Digger, Welfare Queen, and Video Vixens. This image has been used as a tool to control black women’s sexuality as well as hyper-sexualize and fetishize black women. Black women are sought after for their mythical sexual behaviors and eroticism because of such stereotypes.

(image found on Google images : searched Jezebel Archetype)

The Diva is a sexual script given to African American women. She is described as fair skinned, slim, and straight hair. She comes from middle class. In essence she is independent, however she chooses to men who are higher in status to therefore elevate her own. Men still shape who she is as a person despite this proclaimed independence. I used a picture of myself because in description is it an image that I fit. My sister, my mother, and myself, prided ourselves on being “Diva’s” throughout my life I have basically been considered a Diva. As an African American, your womanhood cannot be fully shaped without a man’s placement in your life. The idea that even someone who is essentially independent but still depends upon a man is damaging. It teaches adolescent black girls that they aren’t complete until a man makes them complete. Also, your status in society is contingent upon the men you sleep with, which is not true. Of the sexual scripts prescribed to black women, the Diva seems the lesser of the evils, however it is still extremely problematic. 

Another sexual script is the Earth mother.  The Earth mother as described by Stephen “...appears to have a more developed sense of self as expressed through an Afrocentric political and spiritual consciousness that is obviously part of their everyday discourse and worldview. Traditional views of beauty are openly challenged by the Earth Mother’s beauty expectations and ideals embedded within an Afrocentric framework.”

I took this picture for my snapchat. As I’ve grown and become more politically aware of my existence and my place in the world I’ve moved towards spirituality. I have also chosen to embrace my hair and rebel against Eurocentric beauty standards. I have also embraced brujeria and african styled “witchcraft”. I love stars and crystals and all things magical. This has scared people within my culture as well as men. Stephens describes that the spiritual mother has a lower pool of eligible men because of their beliefs. Spiritually aware women tend to scare not only men but many people in the black community and that is because we defy notions that stem from colonialism. We reject patriarchal and racist standards.

This is me and my best friend. The next sexual script is the “Freak”. She is sexually promiscuous in her own right, she is “overtly” sexual.

I am not at all saying either my friend or myself are freaks. However something Stephen did not point out is how darkskin women are constantly hyper-sexualized in comparison to lightskin women. Much like how black women are typically described to be more sexual and less pure than white women. This same standard applies across racial groups depending on who is fairer skinned. My actions sexually do not hold the same weight as a dark skinned woman. Not only that, behaviors from darker complected women also tend to be seen as either more aggressive or sexual, even if that is not their intention. In the media the freak is typically a dark skinned woman. If it is a light skinned women her behavior is not overtly sexual. Lightskin women typically are portrayed to be gold diggers rather than a freak. Where freaks are seen as worse than gold diggers because they love sex just for pure satisfaction rather than for rewards. This idea that women simply enjoy sex, in the same way that men do, is a foreign idea to people, especially the black community.

(This picture is from cosmopolitan magazine)

This is a picture of Blac Chyna. The next sexual script to describe black women is the Gold Digger. This woman uses sex in order to gain material or monetary value. She relies completely on men for her livelihood. Gold digger is something that can be used for all women, but the demonization of the black gold digger is specifically unique. Celebrities like Amber Rose and Blac Chyna have become infamous for “using men” to acquire wealth. White women such as the Kardashians and many other women don’t receive as much hate for the same nature. The hate many people carry for Blac Chyna can be seen as direct hatred towards black women. When young white women marry men in their 80s they don’t receive the same energy, in fact its fairly common. No one blinks an eye when we see an affluent older white man with a younger trophy wife. But when a black women does the same its an issue. In most cases, it is not clear that a woman is a gold digger. Blac Chyna for instance became famous because of her relationship to famous rapper Tyga who is also the father to her child. She stayed with him until he left her for another woman. When she moved on she received rampant backlash for moving on to Robert Kardashian. While I may not know the ins and outs of their entire lives the initial treatment of Blac Chyna who was faithful to a man before he was even famous and was dumped after is rise to fame makes it clear how people view black women and their sexuality as a whole. When families like the Kardashians can use their sex appeals and scandals to rise to fame as well as increase their wealth, black women cannot.

The next sexual script is the Baby Mama. This photo is of me, my son (Zaiden), and Zaiden’s dad. The baby mama is described as a women who traps men and is the mother to a man’s child and NOTHING more. This happens when an illegitimate child is born. The baby mama is believed to purposefully get pregnant in order to force a man to stay in her life, as well as provide financially. I grew up in an urban area. Most women with children are considered baby mamas, however people often tell me I don’t fall into this scope. But I am the mother to a child, one I had before marriage. People tend to exclude me from such categorization because “I’m doing something with my life” or my child’s father is white so it doesn’t really count. The way I see people treat and talk about young black mothers but try to exclude me from the group is infuriating. This image has been long depicted upon my community with images such as the “welfare queen”. I know many men who were raised by single mothers and absent fathers and they still carry this stereotype in their minds. They forget their mother was probably called a baby mama. Black mothers, specifically young ones are constantly demonized, while white young mothers are glamorized with tv shows such as teen mom, or even the treatment of Kylie Jenner vs the way black moms are treated.

(This image was taken from twitter)

This is Cora Simmons, a character consistently depicted in Tyler Perry films and plays. She is the “sister savior”. She represents traditional views and the religious foundation of African Americans. She is moral, obedient, and saved. Being African American and growing up in the church this script is something that is common to see. In movies there is always a saved grandma or middle aged woman who is the moral compass and gives the gospel. This depiction can stem from the mammy because it is a desexualized caricature which is the care taker.

[prixmiumarchive]

I saw a post about The Hunger Games movies earlier that I pretty much agreed with in terms of their hyper-representation of white people, their lack of attention to the culturally resonant implications of systemic and racist violence, and so on. Basically, it was praising the books and juxtaposing them with the movies as being vastly inferior products because they shaved off all the rough edges to create a much less complex narrative that focused more on the romantic relationship than the societal implications. And all that is well and good. I am waiting for my good Hunger Games Netflix or Hulu series well into  old age. However, I just wanted to say something from my personal experience of The Hunger Games fandom to sort of counter this particular post politely without tacking onto someone else’s viewpoint in a rude way, which is why I’m making my own post.

I got into The Hunger Games back in very late 2011 because I had learned that Jennifer Lawrence was going to be in it. This was on the coattails of my being hyper-obsessed with X-Men: First Class, and this had been my first exposure to Jennifer Lawrence. My first exposure to the name of The Hunger Games series, on the other hand, were meme text posts that were going around when I first joined tumblr in 2011 that were joking about not knowing what “The Hunger Games” were or not having read them. Anyway, basically what happened was that I learned that Jennifer Lawrence was going to be in The Hunger Games movie, and I had enjoyed her in XMFC, and at the time I had a relationship with fandom where I might actually choose to follow and actor or actress’s body of work much more easily than I would now (in fact this is because of THG fandom).

Anyway, I picked up the book and read the back of it and became very excited about the fact that The Hunger Games was set in Appalachia. This was really exciting to me, and because of my own background in Appalachia I always read Katniss as Melungeon. There was a time, early in my experience in that fandom, when I would have died on that hill. Then I realized how sorely underrepresented indigenous peoples are, so while my brain still defaults to Melungeon, I am 100% in support of indigenous Katniss, too. I’m just sharing this for full disclosure, especially if anyone goes back in my THG tags which haven’t been active in a long while even though I still like the story itself in concept. Back to original point, I was excited about a heroine coming from my part of the world in a post-apcoalyptic setting because I tend to think of the south, particularly my part of it, as being kind of erased in fiction and so on.

By the time it became 2012, I had read the first book and was disappointingly convinced that Jennifer Lawrence was a poor casting choice for Katniss. I didn’t really have anyone better in mind off the top of my head, but cornfed, big-boned Jennifer Lawrence was more Glimmer than Katniss. However, I was still willing to watch the movie because i was so excited to have a movie of this thing I had come to love so much, and at the time the only things I knew about Jennifer Lawrence were things about how skilled she was for someone who was within a few months of my age. I was also excited about Josh Hutcherson as Peeta, which is still one of the only casting choices I’m happy with in retrospect.

The point of this post, however, is actually a little word of caution against giving the books too much credit because of their author Suzanne Collins. Now, this is not to say that she did not craft a story that is very meaningful to some people and that perhaps she did not execute her intent with more finesse in certain areas than she was consciously aware of. That happens sometimes, even incidentally. She might have even been aware of her intent and finesse while she was writing the books. That does not account for what happened during the casting and production of the first Hunger Games film, though.

I gobbled up anything I could get my hands on that was about the movie production, the casting, the cast itself, the process behind bringing these books to life. I still have several of the Scholastic tie-in books that I compulsively bought. I bought all the Capitol-based merch being fully aware of how creepy it was. I had a Hunger Games lanyard for years. I was so, so excited about everything. And as I mentioned, the downfall of The Hunger Games behind the scenes stuff and cast and so on in terms of my adoring-respect is one of the main reasons that I don’t actually follow the celebrity behind media I like for the most part now.

While I was doing this, I distinctly remember reading a magazine while walking through Walmart with my mother on a break from college. I cannot remember specifically what the title was except I think it was sort of a special publication, Hunger Games-specific magazine. I can’t quote it directly for you anymore. However, I want you all to be aware that Suzanne Collins actually got a lot more say in casting The Hunger Games movies than most book authors ever get.

In most cases, book authors sell the film rights to their books, and then they are as helpless and waiting with bated breath as the readers/fans of their books are. However, Gary Ross was kind of known as an odd, hands-on director. There are aspects of the unpolished aesthetic of the first film, particularly in District 12, that are far more fitting from the Asheville sets than from the Atlanta ones of the later films, and this is probably greatly owing to Ross’s ~directorial vision~. One of the main reasons they switched directors pretty much immediately after the first film’s success was because Ross wanted to work on a much longer time frame to get the other three movies “right” than the studio wanted to grant him on the coattails of commercial success and 20-something, aging actors playing teenagers.

Ross and Collins were both directly involved in helping with the casting direction. I remember very clearly reading that Collins said that she would have hired Josh Hutcherson to play Peeta had he been a purple dragon with six-foot wings or some description of this nature. Basically, she was saying that his “inner spirit” and understanding of the character was right to the point that it did not matter if he looked like Peeta, let alone even human, to play the role. Now, this might be a nice enough thing to say about Josh Hutcherson when there is absolutely no reason to believe that Peeta can’t be a white, blond boy. However, I think that it is really telling about Collins’s overall approach and attitude toward her allowed input on the casting of the films.

I am a white person. I have never been a published author, a director, or a casting director. Saying that, I think that the casting of The Hunger Games shows a very, very white attitude toward “color blindness” and mixed race people of color in particular. I just kind of want to bullet point a couple of things that I infer kind of must have gone on in Collins’ mind / that go on in some white authors’/creators’ minds unless they examine their own privilege and attitudes about race:

The Hunger Games books literally never once use a word that indicates a current, modern race or ethnic identification.

However, there does seem to be a fair amount of racial segregation between the districts with one or two ethnic or racial groups being typical of each one rather than a lot of diversity.

It was fanon in the pre-movie book fandom that Wiress and Beetee were probably of Southeast Asian appearance because Katniss observes that they have “ashen skin and black hair.” This itself might have been symptomatic of a racism or stereotyping either on the part of the fandom or the text because Beetee and Wiress are from the “technology district” (District 3). I wonder what stereotype that could be, hm. In the films, they are portrayed by a white woman and a black man respectively.

Cinna does not have any particular descriptions about his skin color that I recall. They cast Lenny Kravtiz and I liked this casting choice. However, if you go back and watch The Hunger Games films, you might notice that there is a conspicuous lack of any diversity beyond having white actors and black actors. It was good that they did cast black actors in a few notable roles, I have no doubt, but in my gut I always got this sense that it was a kind of “look at us, we’re being diverse!” rather than an actual attempt to reflect the diversity that was clearly suggested in the text.

Again, Collins said she would have hired Hutcherson had he been a purple dragon.

Collins also said that she had absolutely 0 doubts about Lawrence’s casting as Katniss. I believe that I did once read someone asking her about Katniss’s appearance being described as significantly different from Lawrence, and as I recall, Collins suggested that perhaps there simply were no actresses who looked the way she imagined Katniss to look while the casting call literally only called for white women.

Collins also said in an interview once that she based The Hunger Games concept on her emotional dissonance flipping between channels and finding things like American Idol on while there was coverage of the Iraq War on another station. I’m not saying it’s unfair to give her some credit for having compassion for the child survivors in war-torn areas. However, I might also suggest that anything she has said since about 2011-2012 about it might be kind of her building on a previous thought that she did not necessarily have before other people prompted her thinking. At the time, though, she was saying that it was very much a kind of not-very-thoroughly-researched reaction to popular culture and current events. Now, if she’s grown about it, that’s great, but I’m just saying in terms of this discussion of the movie vs. film quality and diversity thing.

From my understanding, Collins had little to do with the production of the films after the first, but Ross did call on her opinion and input frequently during all stages of the production of the first film.

All of this is getting around to me saying that I think there is a thing that some white people do to imagine a post-racial utopia (or even dystopia, in this case) where racial descriptions and ethnic divides have fallen by the wayside. It’s sort of horrifying, but The Hunger Games to me almost presents a scenario in which the spirit of it might be read to suggest that ethnic identity no longer really exists having been supplanted by District identity. In District 12, there are those who live in the Seam and those who are a part of the “small merchant class.” There are physical descriptions but never identifying words that we recognize. (Collins, as a note, played with this a lot; there was actually a glaring inconsistency where Katniss didn’t know what a monkey was called in one of the later books when she did in the first one, or something.)

Collins, in her public statements around the time she was having an influence on the direction and shape of the films-of-her-books, seemed to suggest that the people who lived in the Seam were the result of racial mixing of some form or another. She also seemed to suggest that they would not be identifiable by any term that we currently have. The Seam residents were imagined as the ultimate, isolated conclusion to a “melting pot” in which varied ethnic identification washed away which is one of the very specific reasons that I originally identified Katniss as a Melungeon in my personal reading. However, to Collins, it seems as if she imagines these post-ethnic people as something mythical and futuristic, like a future evolution of human beings or a fantasy creature like an elf (or a purple dragon!). Collins’s personal responses always read, to me, as being completely oblivious to the very idea that she had extrapolated that maybe someone like Katniss actually did exist in the very area which District 12 was supposedly based on to this very day and that this was not a once-and-future kind of reality that no longer existed in present-day America.

Tl;dr I really like The Hunger Games, and I hope I’m not stepping way out of my lane to talk about this as a white reader. However, I wanted to talk again after all this time about how yes, the movies erase a lot of the things that make the books meaningful (political and social implications, representation of diversity and disability and so on), but suggesting that the books innately present something a lot better and richer has a little to do with Collins. On the other hand, I suggest that there is a little bit of death of the author involved in your wonderful readings of this text because Collins herself seems to have directly refuted some of the nice things you might have to say about authorial intent in terms of diversity and representation.

[vdbstore-blog]

New Post has been published on Vintage Designer Handbags Online | Vintage Preowned Chanel Luxury Designer Brands Bags & Accessories

New Post has been published on http://vintagedesignerhandbagsonline.com/female-facial-hair-if-so-many-women-have-it-why-are-we-so-deeply-ashamed-fashion/

Female facial hair: if so many women have it, why are we so deeply ashamed? | Fashion

Women like me have been keeping a secret. It’s a secret so shameful that it’s hidden from friends and lovers, so dark that vast amounts of time and money are spent hiding it. It’s not a crime we have committed, it’s a curse: facial hair.

What can be dismissed as trivial is a source of deep anxiety for many women, but that’s what female facial hair is; a series of contradictions. It’s something that’s common yet considered abnormal, natural for one gender and freakish for another. The reality isn’t quite so clear cut. Merran Toerien, who wrote her PhD on the removal of female body hair, explained “biologically the boundary lines on body hair between masculinity and femininity are much more blurred than we make them seem”.

The removal of facial hair is just as paradoxical – the pressure to do it is recognized by many women as a stupid social norm and yet they strictly follow it. Because these little whiskers represent the most basic rules of the patriarchy – to ignore them is to jeopardize your reputation, even your dignity.

About one in 14 women have hirsutism, a condition where “excessive” hair appears in a male pattern on women’s bodies. But plenty more women who don’t come close to that benchmark of “excessive” still feel deeply uncomfortable about their body hair. If you’re unsure whether your hair growth qualifies as “excessive” for a woman, there’s a measurement tool that some men have developed for you.

The Ferriman-Gallwey scale for the measure of hirsutism Photograph: Mona Chalabi

In 1961, an endocrinologist named Dr David Ferriman and a graduate student published a study on the “clinical assessment of body hair growth in women”. More specifically, they were interested in terminal hairs (ones that are coarser, darker and at least 0.5cm/0.2 inches in length) rather than the fine vellus hairs. The men looked at 11 body areas on women, rating the hair from zero (no hairs) to four (extensive hairs). The Ferriman-Gallwey scale was born.

It has since been simplified, scoring just nine body areas (upper lip, chin, chest, upper stomach, lower stomach, upper arms, upper legs, upper back and lower back). The total score is then added up – less than eight is considered normal, a score of eight to 15 indicates mild hirsutism and a score greater than 15 moderate or severe hirsutism.

The Ferriman-Gallwey scale for the measure of hirsutism Photograph: Mona Chalabi

Most women who live with facial hair don’t refer to the Ferriman-Gallwey scale before deciding they have a problem. Since starting to research hirsutism, I’ve received over a hundred emails from women describing their experiences discovering, and living with, facial hair. Their stories loudly echo one another.

Because terminal hairs start to appear on girls around the age of eight, the experiences start young. Alicia, 38, in Indiana wrote, “kids in my class would be like, ‘Haha look at this gorilla!’”, Lara was nicknamed “monkey” by her classmates while Mina in San Diego was called “sasquatch”. For some girls, this bullying (more often by boys) was their first realization that they had facial hair and that the facial hair was somehow “wrong”. Next, came efforts to “fix” themselves.

Génesis, a 24-year-old woman described her first memories of hair removal. “In fourth grade, a boy called me a werewolf when he saw my arm hairs and upper lip hairs… I cried to my mom about it… she bleached my lower legs, my arms, my back, my upper lip and part of my cheeks to diminish my growing sideburns. I remember it itched and burned.”

After those first attempts come many, many more – each with their own investment in time, money and physical pain. The removal doesn’t just make unwanted hair go away, it raises a whole new set of problems, particularly for women of color. Non-white skin is more likely to scar as a result of trying to remove hair.

Instead of reading or finishing homework on the car drives to school growing up, I would spend the entire length of the drive obsessively plucking and threading my mustache. Every day. – Rona K Akbari, 21, Brooklyn

On average, women with facial hair spend 104 minutes per week managing it, according to a 2006 British study. Two thirds of the women in the study said they continually check their facial hair in mirrors and three quarters said they continually check by touching it.

The study found facial hair takes an emotional toll. Forty percent said they felt uncomfortable in social situations, 75% reported clinical levels of anxiety. Overall, they said that they had a good quality of life, but tended to give low scores when it came to their social lives and relationships. All of this pain despite the fact that, for the most part, women’s facial hair is entirely normal.

If I know I have visible facial hair, I’m much more reserved in social situations. I try to cover it up by placing my hand on my chin or over my mouth. And I’m thinking about it constantly. – Ashley D’Arcy, 26

Meanwhile, my 95-year-old demented, deaf and blind Italian aunt sits in a nursing home, and whenever I visit, she points to and rubs her chin, which is her way of communicating to take care of the hair situation. That’s how I know she’s still in there and she cares. I hope someone returns the favor in 40 years. – Julia, 54

There are, however, some medical conditions which can cause moderate or severe hirsutism, the most likely of which is polycystic ovary syndrome, or PCOS, which accounts for 72-82% of all cases. PCOS is a hormonal disorder affecting between eight and 20% of women worldwide. There are other causes too, such as idiopathic hyperandrogenemia, a condition where women have excessive levels of male hormones like testosterone, which explains another 6-15% of cases. .

But many women who don’t have hirsutism, who don’t have any medical condition whatsoever, consider their hairs “excessive” all the same. And that’s much more likely if you’re a woman of color.

The original Ferriman-Gallwey study, like so much Western medical research at the time, produced findings that might not apply to women of color (the averages were based on an evaluations of 60 white women). More recent research has suggested that was a big flaw, because race does make a big difference to the chances that a woman will have facial hair.

In 2014, researchers looked at high-resolution photos of 2,895 women’s faces. They found that, on average, the white women had less hair than any other race and Asian women had the most. But ethnicity mattered too – for example, the white Italian women in the study had more hair than the white British women.

The percentage of females with at least some upper lip hair by race. Source: Javorsky et al, 2014 Photograph: Mona Chalabi

But more than a gender thing, for me my hair was about race/ethnicity. My hairiness really solidified how different I was from my peers. I grew up in the suburbs of Dallas. And although my school was pretty diverse, the dominant beauty norm was to be blonde and white. – Mitra Kaboli, 30, Brooklyn

These numbers might be helpful to women like Melissa who said her facial hair meant “I felt inferior, I was a ‘dirty ethnic’ girl”.

But giving reassurance to ethnic minorities probably isn’t why this research was undertaken. The study was funded by Procter & Gamble, the consumer goods company worth $230bn which sells, among other things, razors for women. They know that female hair removal is big business.

Over the years, as women showed more of our bodies – as stockings became sheer and sleeves became short, there was pressure for these new exposed parts to be hairless. Beginning in 1915, advertisements in magazines like Harper’s Bazaar began referring to hair removal for women. Last year, the hair removal industry in the US alone was valued at $990m. The business model only works if we hate our hair and want to remove it or render it invisible with bleach (a norm just as unrealistic as hairlessness – brown women rarely have blonde hair).

When did we sign up to an ideal of female hairlessness? The short answer is: women have hated our facial hair for as long as men have been studying it. In 1575, the Spanish physician Juan Huarte wrote: “Of course, the woman who has much body and facial hair (being of a more hot and dry nature) is also intelligent but disagreeable and argumentative, muscular, ugly, has a deep voice and frequent infertility problems.”

These signposts are strictest when it comes to our faces, and they extend beyond gender to sexuality too. According to Huarte, masculine women, feminine men and homosexuals were originally supposed to be born of the opposite sex. Facial hair is one important way to understand these distinctions between “normal” and “abnormal”, and then police those boundaries.

Scientists have turned their sexist and homophobic expectations of body hair to racist ones, too. After Darwin’s 1871 book Descent of Man was published, male scientists began to obsess over racial hair types as an indication of primitiveness. One study, published in 1893, looked for insanity in 271 white women and found that women who were insane were more likely to have facial hair, resembling those of the “inferior races”.

These aren’t separate ideas because race and gender overlap – black is portrayed in mass media as a masculine race, Asian as feminine. Ashley Reese, 27, wrote “part of my self-consciousness about my facial hair might also tie into some ridiculous internalized racism about black women being less inherently feminine”. While Katherine Parker, 44, wrote, “It makes me feel very confused about my gender”.

Some women are pushing back. Queer women – those who are questioning heterosexual and cisgender norms – are already thinking outside of the framework which shames female facial hair. Melanie, a 28-year-old woman in Chicago explained that as a queer woman “there is less of a prescription for what I should embody as a woman, what attraction between my partner and I looks like, which has helped immensely in coming to terms with my facial hair”.

Social media accounts like hirsute and cute, happy and hairy and activists like Harnaam Kaur are resisting these norms too, by shamelessly sharing images of hairy female bodies. And even women who aren’t rejecting these standards outright, feel deeply ambivalent about them. “I understand, on a rational level, how inherently misogynistic it is to expect women to be constantly ripping hair out of themselves, hair that grows naturally, wrote one woman who, like many I heard from, asked to remain anonymous. “But I can’t bring myself to accept it and let it grow.”

Another wrote “It’s one thing to be a little heavy, or short, or vote. But facial hair? That’s pushing it.”

I’m not about to judge any woman for removing her facial hair. Despite knowing that I don’t need “help”, I still go to see a beauty “therapist” each month. I pay huge sums so she can zap me with a laser that damages my hair follicles. I’ve signed up for a solution, even though I know that the problem doesn’t really exist. I lie there wincing with each shock as she asks me about my weekend and says “Honey, are you sure you don’t want me to do your arms too? They’re very hairy.”

Source link