Semi-Seriousness: Feminism, And Why We Need Criticism (We Want It Or Not)

I consider myself a feminist in the sense of "men and women must have equallity"; unfortunely, it seems that the term has gained a negative connotation. Nowadays "feminism" or "feminist" brings imaginery of "reverse sexism", "femi-nazis", "misandrist" and on, and on. It is, most of the time, a caricaturization of the movement, but not without a point.

Just like there is still around plenty (way too many, if you ask me) men that keep holding ideas that shouldn't be considered seriously outside a 50's sitcom, there are people in the feminist movement that seem to think it's more important to bash one gender than holding the ideals of equallity. They make feminism look bad, and helped to create the stereotype that any feminist woman is nothing but a man-hating that just wants to complaing about society for the sake of complain and accepts no criticism whatsoever, as if feminism didn't had it difficult enough...

For a while, I've been watching a videoblog series called "Feminist Frequency", made by Canadian-American Anita Sarkessian. In her videos, she explores topics about female representation in the mass media, mostly videogames, but also other like cinema, toylines, etcetera.

I consider the series very interesting, and raises important points, even if I myself don't agree always with some of her opinions (I'd discuss of that in future posts). For now, I'd like to focus my attention about one simple topic: the supposedly lack of will to accept criticism.

When you watch her videos on Youtube, it won't take you too long to notice how the comments are disabled. To be fair, I sort of understood that the very first time I noticed it. Let's be honest, Youtube not exactly famous for being a place to hold well-funded, intelligent, rational and calmed debates. It seemed like a sad thing, tough, since I wanted to comment a thing or two and it was a shame that because a bunch of mysoginist assholes I was unabled to, but, as I stated above, I do saw why she did it.

However, just like her more controversial opinions, isn't exactly something I agree with.

We like it or not, we have to face criticism in our lives. This is even more true in the media, since, thanks to modern technology, we can hear anybody's voice about a work (a video, a book, a picture) we made. As an amateur trying-to-make-the-transition-to-pro-writer myself, I can tell you you will find comments, opinions and critics of all kinds: some of them would be rational, and well-meaning, but in other cases (in most cases, others would say) a lot of them would be just mean-spirited or just plain dumb.

Does that mean you should cast yourself away from the world? Well, as tempting as it sounds, the answer should be "no". In fact, getting a thicker skin is actually one of the hardest but most useful lessons we have to learn in life: to not break down for every bad word somebody says to you. When I was starting in the literature word, I got used to receive congratulations for every single piece of work I made, and then...the first bad critic, and I'm not gonna denying, I didn't exactly take it very well...

Yeah, that's...that's more or less the truth

And I wasn't a kid by then! That makes things even worse. But you know what? In the end, when I actually took my time to interpret those "awful" comments that hurt my feelings, I..learned that, if I have any serious aspiration to be professional, I'd have to deal with people that commit the most terrible of the Internet sins:  THEY WILL HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION THAN ME!

Terrifying, isn't?

Even if they're just jerks with nothing better to do, I'll have to know how to take it because, they're not going anywhere! It's either somehow I just make dissapear every troll from this world, or I learn to take it seriously when I know it's serious and when NOT, and since the later is the only one option that seems sort of possible, that's how I'm gonna have to roll.

Where am I going with this? How is related to feminism and Anita? I'm not saying that she has to open the gates of hell (Youtube comments section) but that makes her look like if she seems to have a li'l problem taking criticism, good or bad. A ugly stereotype feminism gained unfairly. YES, there are what we could call "femi-nazis", but they're a very, tiny minority, and they just seems to be the "to-go" argument to discredit feminism in its complet shape. And she seems to be building a small fame of not wanting to deal with criticism and how the seems to just plain block any Facebook comment but the most prasing ones (even blocking one about how the videos could be improved) 

I don't know if she's the one in charge of the Facebook page or if it's from a fan, a collaborator, etc, and I'm not saying she DOES have a problem with oposition, but things seems to be pointing to that direction.

I completely understand if she's tired of idiots commenting sexist crap (hey, I'm a Jew in a mostly Catholic country. I heard "Jesus Killer" every once in a while) and why she doesn't want to give them a space, but not accepting comments, suggestions or critics just because some jerks would be like wanting to end with crime putting the whole population in jail. And it would be interesting (just like her videos; they're good, and raise good questions) to read and hear how she replies them.

And remember; you're free to comment. YES, I even take the insults.

Shalom comrades.

Obsessing About It: The Rise Of New Animation

Last time we talked about animated show, I made the point that the one that's supposed to be adult-oriented seems to be in decay; I explained some reasons about the phenomenon...but now, it's time to deal with the other half of the issue.

Are children cartoons in the dawn of a new golden age?

Hold your horses Mabel...

I'm what you could call a "90's kid"; I remember watching Animaniacs, Batman The Animated Series, Tiny Toons and Pepper Ann; from time to time, I still have the chance to watch some of those shows again on a re-run or on the Internet to put at test how much of my love for such animated shows is nostalgia and how much is because they're truly quality entrainment. To my surprise, cartoons like the ones I mentioned before truly have passed the test of time.

 Even if sometimes, their references are so 90's it hurts...NOT! (If you were a 90's kid, you probably
understand where that came from)

Not all series are that fortunate: for each series with a good quality control system, there were others that it's better not to remember and let them rest in the peace of Internet anonymity

Who am I kidding? There's no such thing...besides, that series sucked.

However, many of my generation peers are not afraid to claim that there was nothing like the old Cartoon Network, the old Nickelodeon, the old Disney Channel, and how much better the 90's shows are than the ones we have today. While it is true that there's a lot of crap nowadays...

Seriously, who watches that shit?

...there are plenty of shows that, to be fair, I wouldn't be afraid to call not only good, but actually superior that what we had back in the day. Not always tough, but...G'd dammit, sometimes I am very surprised by how sophisticated modern kids cartoons can get, I mean never thought the story of a cursed human and a half-demon, half-vampire girl could touch my heart...

I'm not crying! YOU ARE CRYING! T.T

If we see the premises and plots of modern cartoons...well, yeah, they're crazy. Of course, being this the world of animation, isn't strange to see shows with crackpot insane stories and concepts, but even taking that in count, modern animation can turn really weird, really fast, even by standards of the medium.

Yeah, yeah: a bluejay, a raccoon, the son/daugther of Frankstein and a ghost just hanging around...

But unlike adult shows, those samples of weirdness seems to lead to something: there is an attempt to build a plot, character development, a tone; in all their craziness, they make sense by the rules of their internal worlds. It seems to work with no problem.

Why?

Because some simple truth; so simple, it's hard to not ignore it from time to time, distracted by other factors. Which is that simple truth?

The writers and the authors take their shows seriously, with a very personal vision of what they want to produce.

Now, I'm not saying that authors from previous years didn't take their job as seriously as they should; animation is famous for having very passionate people, struggling to make their works famous and well-known, sometimes betting against all odds and all predictions of failure.

Yep, this has been the story of the medium for a long time

But I'm talking about something slighty different: the rise of what I like to call, the "auteur animated series". Of course, by its own nature, having a single person writing a TV show, animated or not, it's pretty much impossible, but that doesn't mean it can have the personal creative vision of the creator. Nowadays, that seems to be, if now the "standard", at least studios are more open to give freedom.

Because let's be honest, when I heard about "Gravity Falls", I just couldn't believe that show was on freakin' Disney Channel. Is not that there's no child-friendly content in the show, it is just...it's hard to think what executive greenlighted something like this.

By the channel who brought you "A Dog With a Blog"...

While names like Alex Hirsch, Pendleton Ward, Lauren Faust, Brian Konietzko, Michael Dante DiMartino and Dan Mandel aren't exactly mainstream (let's be honest here: outside of Disney, and probably someone like Chuck Jones or Tex Avery, no names from animation make its way to the memory of the general audiences), they are surely more famous and well-respected among animation fans than, let's say, Seth McFarlane. Add to this recipe executives that, while still tied to commercial principles (that's just not going to change ever), seem to be at least more savvy with the fans, and understand that taking one risk or two doesn't harm their products. In any case, just improves its image.

There are things they're still not ready for, though

It's hard to tell if this is the dawn of a real new Golden Age for the medium, or, if that's the case, how long it's gonna last (sine unfortunely, whether we like it or not, all things, as good as they are, must come to an end), but at least I can tell you that while I do recognize the 90's cartoons and I understand the spirit of the nostalgia, the idea that the shows from that era were superior to what you can see today is completely bullshit, made by people who just doesn't seems to watch a lot of modern animated shows.

In any case, animation fans of all decades should be united against bigger enemies, like this one (because if you think the live action series CN and Disney Channel are crap, you should take a look south of the border).

If you have laughed at this show, you may be a retarded!

Shalom comrades.

The Bechdel Test (Or "So You Want To Write Female Characters?")

This is an interesting concept: it's sort of a litmus test for the representation of female characters in media. You see, this test (born on the webcomic "Dykes To Watch Out For", proving once again that no
webcomic will be seen soon in your newspaper, if newspaper are able tu survive nowadays, anyway) works like this:

* Your movie must have at least two female characters (Some argue that they should be NAMED characters; not just some background girl that held a little chat with one of the protagonists)

* Who have at least ONE conversation

* About something other than men, love and/or romance.

It seems easy, isn't? Well...it should be that way, at least, but that's kind of the point: once you apply the test
for some of the highest profile films of all time, it's surprising (and a li'l bit scary) see how many of these movies fail. It's not hard to understand why some classic films from other eras are unable to pass it (since, you know, all the sexism-thing) but it becomes really impressive and sad the more you advance in time, since
modern media are still struggling to make a fair representation of women.

Now, I want to make this clear: the fact that a movie fails the test doesn't mean isn't feminist, or that it's a bad movie, for that matter. Great films with awesome heroines like "Alien" don't pass it, yet, traditionalist, ol' fashioned in gender stereotypes ones like "The Sleeping Beauty" or "Cinderella" DO.

I actually admire Disney but..she won't be the face of feminism any time soon, isn't she?

And the point isn't to force female characters where shouldn't be logical or accurate (like a war film scenario where and when only men were allowed to be). Heck, maybe you could say that this isn't really against movies...at an individual level. Several of my favorite movies fail this little test, yet, while I do acknolewedge the need of change, that doesn't mean I can still apreciate the stories I know and love.

You're safe, Toto and Alfredo...you had me at...well, the whole FREAKIN' PLOT *-*

However, it does say something about us and we way we produce and perceive media. The fact that the great majority of movies can't success on such a (aparently) simple criteria isn't a criticism against one or two of them, but as the media as a whole. Why it is so hard for writers, directors and producers? It's hard do point out a single cause, since usually the fiction a society produces is a reflection of that society.

For the better or the worse...

It is true that there have been really great advances in gender equality , and that we're surely improving day by day, month by month, year by year, yet there's still plenty of work to do, as much in real life as in fiction. It seems that the old school "machismo" is mostly gone, but instead of having true balance, we're dealing now with some sort of "soft sexism": one concept that doesn't deny the fact that female characters exist and are competent, but still makes them "peripherical" to men and his interests and pursuits instead of follow the ones they really want.

But I don't want to sound too extreme or too political. I, for one, an amateur writer (trying to make my way to professionalism), applied the test for my own work. One of my books, "El Club de Hopewell" (The Hopewell Club; a teen comedy) passed the test...the other one, "Conozcan a Josh" (Meet Josh; about the life of a former child star), did not. I think the best way to deal with female characters is...not to make a big deal: you know, threat them and write them with her own dreams, fears, strenghts and flaws...like (wait for it), ANY OTHER CHARACTER.

We'll see more of female archetypes in the near future. For now, go, think on your favorite films, and put them to the test...let's see how many of them succeed.

Shalom comrades.