http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/niles-schools-new-dress-code-cracks-down-on-leggings-yoga-pants/28392360

When Sam mentioned this article in class I was immediately reminded of a moment that my senior class had in high school. In high school we had assemblies almost every other day in which the whole school would gather in the gymnasium for what we called chapel. But, there was one day in particular when my class, the seniors, were asked to stay after chapel because our deans wanted to talk to us. This class meeting began with our dean reprimanding us for a prank in which some kids stole a street sign from the neighborhood near our campus, but then something interesting (and related to this article) happened. The deans asked the all of the male students to leave because there was something they wanted to talk to the girls about. A little bit confused, but more than happy to get out of the endless assembly, all of the guys left. Not long after when the girls were released, we found out that the the girls had been told that they were dressing too promiscuously and needed to wear clothing that was more appropriate because they were supposed to be role models for the underclassmen. At the time I remember laughing with my friends, male and female, about the absurdity of having being held into our lunch period to tell the girls in the class that they were dressing inappropriately. Looking back on the class meeting, it applies quite nicely to the discussions we’ve been having in class regarding rape culture.

Women are constantly exposed to contradicting messages of sexuality, and none of these messages allow women freedom of expression to be exercised without extreme scrutiny. On one hand there are people, as in the article and even at my own high school, who tell young women that their dressing promiscuously has a direct correlation to how they are treated by men. And on the other hand there is the media which has an amazing ability to perpetuate the sexualization of women. i.e. Women are told not to dress promiscuously in order to avoid enticing sexual harassment by men, but media conversely depicts an unrealistic and overtly sexual image of how women should look in order to be successful.

When dealing with a rape, or sexual assault, there is terrible habit that people fall into of blaming the victim. When a woman is raped the mentality that “she was asking for it” is all too often used as an excuse to justify the rape, and this excuse is further defended with examples of how slutty she was dressed or how intoxicated she was. However, this excuse just isn’t fair no matter how you look at it. The “she was asking for it” excuse unjustly teaches girls that it is their fault they are sexually harassed by men because of some misconceived notion that men cannot control themselves. Not only can this be detrimental to a woman’s self-image, as she may simply be dressing up for herself (I mean who doesn’t like to look good?) not because she’s asking for it, but can also be harmful to how women view themselves in relation to men.

There is an interesting social construct which I have found comes up from time to time that highlights one of the issues being brought up here. The construct is that women who are sexually active are seen as being slutty, but women who aren’t sexually active are perceived as prudish, whereas men who are sexually active are seen as players verses men who are not sexually active are considered to be not masculine. For women this social construct is a no win scenario and for men there is immense pressure to be overly sexual.

To connect the dots… Women are told from a very young age that their sexuality is something that needs to be hidden or repressed through messages that often manifest themselves in seemingly benign moments such as a high school asking the girls to dress more appropriately. These messages of sexual repression are then confirmed when a woman is sexually harassed by a man and the instigator tries to place blame on the victim through some ill-conceived rational regarding his belief that she was asking for it. And to further complicate things, the rational of the instigator is perpetuated by the very social construct that defines sexually active women as slutty and non-sexually active men as emasculated. Because male fear of emasculation exists, men are pressured into fulfilling the ‘macho man’ stereotype which includes the objectification of women as a means of sexual pursuit. However, the pressure to fulfill the ‘macho man’ stereotype is often overlooked in the wake of sexual assault, and in many cases is mistaken for, or replaced with, the “she was asking for it” excuse. Although both are undeniably poor justifications for sexual assault, one reason the macho man excuse might be mistaken for the “she was asking for it” excuse is because the macho man is going to look for and pursue a woman who is dressed provocatively, regardless of the woman’s intention behind said attire, because she is aesthetically sexually stimulating (think male gaze) and therefore she can more easily be targeted as an object of sexual desire. Now a woman who dresses up to look good is not necessarily asking for men to sexually objectify her, but it is an unintended consequence when taking into consideration the societal construct which pressures men to be more masculine. These unintended consequences are then used to justify the messages of sexual repression women are so often exposed to.

All of this bring us full circle – The media perpetuates women’s desire to assert sexuality as means of personal expression > men succumb to fear of being emasculated as a side effect of social constructs > instigators of assault justify their actions by deferring blame onto victims > women are presented with messages of sexual repression > wash, rinse, repeat.

What do all of you think about this? How do we deal with the constant bombardment of contradicting messages of femininity and masculinity in our lives and in the media? What can we do to break this vicious circle?

Since we’ve touched in class on issues surrounding gender and gender identity and the sometimes tragic ramifications of society’s lack of acceptance I’d like to recommend a film that expands on the topic and would help if anyone was doing a paper on the subject.

priscilla queen of the desert follows a band of Australian cross dressing performers as they go on a road trip through the outback. It’s directed by Stephen Elliot and stars Hugo Weaving and Guy pierce.

The film touches on issues of acceptance of lifestyles, transsexuality and gender issues in general.

The film was also adapted to a broadway play and if you like ABBA the soundtrack is mostly ABBA, its a comedy so it’s fairly light though it does touch on a lot of the issues that have come up in our discussion of Boy’s Don’t cry.

Below is a link to the trailer:

I have very similar thoughts regarding the endings of both Where Should the Birds Fly and Boys Don’t Cry. I appreciate both films and their endings as they each illuminate the circumstances and stories that many people live and have lived. As Fida Qishta said, it is important to tell these stories for the people who cannot tell it themselves. As these stories are told, more hearts are touched so that the people who are represented in these stories have a moment where their voices are heard, and a chance for change is created. It becomes up to the audience to internalize the messages that have been shared in these stories to make a difference for the future, because these problems and injustices will persist until these voices are heard.  I believe many of the injustices that people face will be adopted into the generations to come unless their is a change in the way we think about ourselves and each other (not us as a class, but us as a whole). For me specifically, one of the  messages that stuck with me and inspired me to look into the issue further from Where Should the Birds Fly is that war leaves some people feeling as though the rest of the world has forgotten about them. I’m sorry that this is such an abrupt ending.

After much thought, I’ve come to the conclusion that I’m still not over the ending of Boys Don’t Cry. I meant what I said in class–when the camera cuts to Brandon laying on the ground in the fetal position then shows John and Tom approach him, give him his shirt back while John physically lifts him up and puts his arm around Brandon, it was safe to say my jaw dropped. It wasn’t until after John says, “If you keep our little secret, we’ll stay friends.  Right little buddy?” and Brandon replies, “Yeah of course.  This is all my fault. I know,” that I literally had to pause my Netflix and thought, what just happened. 

Watching the rape scene was treacherous in itself.  I felt myself get goosebumps when John jumps up and cheers, adrenaline flowing after he finishes his turn with Brandon; a lump in the back of my throat after hearing Brandon’s cry over and over again, in hopes that this moment would end.

You hear about rape victims placing blame on themselves and it seeming pretty ridiculous, but actually watching a rape (which was treacherous in itself) and then hearing Hillary Swank say that (s)he knew it his fault was overwhelming to say the least.  Brandon wasn’t ‘asking for it,’ he wasn’t dressing provocatively, or egging John and Tom on like we saw Bridget do in The Last Seduction, he was doing quite the opposite of that actually when he starting dating Lana.  But then there is the argument (solely for the sake of one) where one could say that had Brandon been dressing provocatively in girls clothes and hitting on the boys instead, they wouldn’t have raped him, because this was considered punishment for tricking them (again this is for the sake of argument-not my stance on the matter).

Does that sounds contradicting to anyone else or just me?

And then there is the fact that John and Tom say that they and Brandon are going to be friends after the entire rape scene, or else they would kill him.  I’m sorry, what? That is the most messed up part in my opinion.  There were five people in their circle of friends, three of which were involved in this rape.  That means every day, all three of these people would see each other and be reminded of what had happened, and in Brandon’s case he would most likely relive it every time.

After the two kill Brandon and film ended, I had a very terrible feeling about the whole thing, but I think I would have felt even worse had they not killed him and instead just gone on with their daily lives, causing Brandon to relive his rape and causing even more of “punishment” for him to live with.

This afternoon I was describing the screening of “Where Should the Birds Fly?” to my roommate, and when I was doing so I thought of Professor Sikand’s comment in class about considering the violence that Fida included in the film. .

As a viewer, I really appreciated the violence of the film. I think that in order to be true to the conflict and the realities of the conflict, which to me is what Fida truly tried to do, she needed to include the graphic violence of the attacks on Gaza. Additionally, going off our discussion in class about the images we often get from the mainstream media, I don’t think we are truly shown the horrors and the graphic nature of war. Scenes and images from the film were horrible and difficult to watch, but I’m glad she didn’t take the edge off when considering which scenes to cut and keep in editing the film. I’m glad we got to see the whole reality, even if it was immensely difficult to watch.

I’m thinking particularly of the scene with the teenage  boy in the hospital who had been hit with the white phosphorous bombs; I’ve never seen images or videos which depicted the real, raw, graphic wounds sustained by civilians during a war. I’m thankful for him for allowing himself and his pain to be documented and shown – I don’t think the effect would have been the same if Fida simply had an account of the injuries he sustained or described them for us. Instead, we saw a real boy writhing and crying in pain after sustaining injuries because of a conflict in which he plays no part. Similarly, the scenes with the wounded and dead Palestinians in the street, being carried or covered with sheets, were also powerful. And the shot of the man looking at the dead children, these were all horrible and horrifying but truthfully documented what it is to live in a war zone and to be a Palestinian civilian.

Finally, I appreciate the inclusion of Mona and her story through time within the film, like some people mentioned today in class. In representations of conflicts and war zones, I think that we see more often just quick snapshots of the destruction and damage. Fida included the scene with the father shouting for his son Mohammed (and in the Q&A remarked that this raw display of emotion in the moment was against the cultural prescriptions for men and thus important to share) – and this is more along the lines of what I have seen in news coverage/viral stories about the effects of war and violence on civilians, in Palestine and around the world.

While that particular scene was gut wrenching and highly emotional, I’m glad we also got to see Mona. How many times do we see coverage of a bombing or an attack or a raid, and then never consider it again? With Mona’s story, we got to see the long-term effects of being a Palestinian enmeshed in this violence. We were presented with this little girl whose life will never be the same, and returning to her multiple times really brought home that point for me. Our experience with the conflicts and violence in the Gaza strip could end when the movie stops – it will never end for Mona and for everyone else Fida included in her footage, and I definitely took that away from watching the film.

Hey, NHS, I fixed your poster. pic.twitter.com/xbCCfySYRg

— Tyrannosaurus jess (@neverjessie) August 1, 2014

Here is the tweet I was talking about in class if anyone wants to look.

Where Should the Birds Fly was a powerful documentary, not only in the sense that it captured some of the emotional repercussions of the Israeli-Palestine conflict, but also in the way that it demonstrated and acknowledged the power of film-making.

There was one line that really caught my attention. In the narration, director Fida Qishta says, “My camera is my only weapon…I feel safe behind my camera…it will capture the bullet that will kill me.” This statement portrays the power of capturing moving images, and the way that documentary film can be a powerful tool to show real experiences. A statement, like above, really captured the position of the filmmaker in this particular instance. In the midst of a political/social conflict, an average citizen (and woman) given menial tools was able to effectively tell a story. But while she told that story, she realized her responsibility, being that she had the means to document the conflict and its effects. Both these aspects of the film come together to make an influential and emotional film, which holds a lot of power to make a difference.

As another blogger already posted, I too investigated the recommended The Brandon Teena Story (1998) of Netflix. Director Susan Muska chronicles the real footage and story of Teena Brandon. Watching the documentary absolutely reaffirmed the actors accurate portrayals of the real people involved. Little things all the way down to how the actors/actresses dressed and reacted.

But what really left me conflicted was the actions of Brandon. In the Brenda Cooper article, she is arguing that Boys Don’t Cry (1999) the film rewrites/challenges the heteronormative narrative through 4 channels (dismantling the myth of “America’s heartland”, problematizing heteromasculinity, centering female masculinity [instead of heteromasculinity], and blurring the boundaries of female masculinity). I can see how one could take that stance and argue it but, how do the masses respond to a movie like this. My real interest sparked when I thought about the specific decision and responsiblity the director had to make Boys Don’t Cry. The image of Brandon Teena was not a golden one: he forged checks, drank, flirted with any girl, smoked, etc. Being that this was a breakout film, what image did that lend to the national uncovering of transexuals? or even the midwestern part of the states? The conflict is…was this the story that should have brought attention to this social crisis.

( I will be adding to this post, stay tuned lol)

Eyes on the Prize – 05- Mississippi, Is This America, 1962-1964 is a documentary about the efforts of citizens organizing and protesting for civil rights in Jackson, Mississippi, with a lot of the episode dedicated to fighting for African American voting rights. After watching this, I completely agree with Melissa Harris Perry’s opinion about The Help, which takes place in 1963 Jackson, Mississippi (the same time and location of the episode). The Help negates the very real, public, community efforts of organizing for social change that the people of Jackson took part in, which resulted in actual changes.  In mainstream media and pop culture, the amount of pieces that focus on African American female domestic workers living in the south during the 60’s is minimal.  I can’t even think of another example besides The Help. Since this topic is underrepresented, I think there is an obligation to ensure that the content being shown to the public is an actual representation of the lives of these women during these times. Racial inequality is still alive and well in this country, but at the end of The Help there is a feeling that things are going to be just fine for everyone, when in reality in the context of our society, things are still rough. For example, according to Michelle Alexander, mass incarnation rates of African Americans are the new Jim Crow laws.
An argument saying it’s fine for The Help to not be historically accurate is that there isn’t enough time in a movie to tell the whole story.  Eyes on the Prize – 05- Mississippi, Is This America, 1962-1964 told an historically accurate story in under an hour. Another argument is that it’s just a movie, and it’s meant to entertain. But when there are so few examples of this topic in mainstream media, The Help becomes associated with the reality of African American female domestic workers living in the south during the 60’s. This is dangerous territory.  The Help only barely touches on the terror of living in the south as an African American during this time and never shows any public, community organizing and protesting efforts.  The Help doesn’t convey the reality of living in the south during this time period, but it can be mistaken as the reality which I think is disrespectful to the people who protested for civil rights and fought for change.