Will Two Snow White Remakes To Be Released in 2012 Promote Feminist Messages?

Two remakes of Snow White are set to be released in 2012. The first, Snow White and the Huntsman, has been advertised as an action film, comparable to films such as Deep Impact and Lord of the Rings. The image above is intriguing to me. Click the link to view the other pictures of cast members as their characters. In the image, Kristen Stewart is dressed as a knight, suggesting power and strength, yet she is starring away from the viewer. Why is that, since the other images of the queen, huntsman, and prince directly face the viewer? While I have my reservations, it is refreshing to see Snow White minus the dress, perfect look, songs, and birds.

My main question is: Will this be a feminist film? A brief synopsis of the film shares that the evil queen played by Charlize Theron sends a hunstman to kill her stepdaughter. Instead of despairing, Snow White played by Kristen Stewart trains in martial arts to fight the queen. At first glance, this film seems promising, but I'm concerned it will fall into the usual Hollywood traps. While Snow White can protect herself, the films also includes the handsome prince "enchanted by Snow White's beauty."

The second film being released in 2012 is The Brothers Grimm: Snow White, starring Julia Roberts as the queen and Lily Collins as Snow White. An interview with Entertainment Weekly offers some interesting comments from the filmmaker. This version is supposed to be "humorous" as opposed to the other that is "action-oriented." In response to questions about why he chose Julia Roberts, the filmmaker shares that he wanted a "likable queen."

He also comments "She’s the stepmother, but other films are all about narcissism. Who’s more beautiful than the other? This one is more of a power struggle. She wants power, and beauty is just a part of that." I find that comment interesting because power and beauty are so interconnected, and in our culture, a woman's power stems from her beauty. While it is sad to admit, beauty can gain a woman respect and prestige. I also think labeling previous Snow White films as all about "narcissism" offers an incomplete picture. Yes, the queen only cares about herself and being the "fairest of them all", but what strikes me the most about this story is the way the queen must be "fairer" than her stepdaughter. I think it shows the complexities of the relationships between stepmothers and stepdaughters as well as the intricacies of relationships between women and the ways they must hurt each other to achieve beauty and success. I'll give my final verdict when the films are released.

(http://www.celebritiesfans.com/Pic/juliaroberts.jpg)

Can you imagine Julia Roberts as the evil, likable queen?

44% of Women Surveyed Have Romance Regrets in Northwestern Study

(http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/News_Articles/2011/romantic-regrets.aspx)

A study at Northwestern University questioned what decisions Americans regret the most. Researchers found that "About 44 percent of women reported romance regrets versus 19 percent of men. Women also had more family regrets than men. About 34 percent of men reported having work-oriented regrets versus 27 percent of women reporting similar regrets." While the study focuses on the "psychology of regrets," I think it's important to analyze the results from a gender perspective. Why is it that women have more romance regrets than men? Is it that more women have romantic regrets or are more women willing to admit their regrets? We live in a culture that punishes men for having emotions, so that may be one piece to the puzzle.


I think this study demonstrates the gender divisions that still exist in relationships and in the workplace. Women are defined by their romantic relationships while men are defined by their careers. This is a problematic association that is apparently still thriving based on the results of this study.


This weekend I went on a hiking trip with a friend (Yay!), and we spoke for a long time about the pressures we feel when speaking with family members and friends about being "single." While the little feminist voice inside my head tells me not to, I have been asked with such a frequency over the last few years that I do feel ashamed for not having a boyfriend. It as if people assume that I'm not a complete person if I don't have a significant other, and while I do think relationships enrich your life, I don't need one to be a "complete, fulfilled" person. I like myself, and I'm waiting for someone who likes me just as much as I like myself.


Another intriguing aspect of this study is that the "typical American" ranked "self" as the least source of regret. Regrets are mostly attributed to romance, family, and education decisions. I think this finding says something about the way people always look to external factors to explain their behaviors instead of looking into themselves. It's always difficult to take responsibility for our actions.

Details Magazine Reinforces Sexism in Shia LaBeouf Interview

Shia Lebouf trying his best James Dean.

While I was filtering through the latest celebrity news on Friday, I was overwhelmed with articles about Shia LaBeouf revealing his "hook up" with Megan Fox on the Transformers set. He revealed this information to Details magazine stating, "Look, you're on the set for six months, with someone who's rooting to be attracted to you, and you're rooting to be attracted to them. I never understood the separation of work and life in that situation. But the time I spent with Megan was our own thing, and I think you can see the chemistry onscreen." The article than speculated that Fox cheated on her husband with Shia. 


Here's my message to Shia: Shia, if it was your "own thing" why are you revealing it to the whole world? She's not even in the current Transformers movie, so why discuss her and her business? Also, why is it that Shia reveals his "hook up" with Megan Fox and bashes his directors and is then rewarded with the label of "honest, complex bad boy"?! What a double standard! 


Details magazine sets him up in clothes and scenes comparable to James Dean, and in the introduction to the article, Aaron Gell, writes, "The 25-year-old Transformers star has thrown as many punches as he has parties, he has a rap sheet as long as his filmography, and when he's not pissing off studio heads, he's messing around with another guy's girlfriend. But Shia LaBeouf may also be the most honest—and complex—actor alive. More than meets the eye? Damn right." Shia isn't complex. He's just another entitled man that can get away with speaking his mind and trashing the women he's been with under the guise that he's gifted and deeply sensitive inside.


I'm reminded of Katherine Heigl's love hate relationship with the press. When she speaks her mind, she's labeled an "angry bitch." In an interview with Vanity Fair, Heigl says that Knocked Up is "a little sexist" because "It paints women as shrews, as humorless and uptight, and it paints the men as goofy, fun-loving guys. It was hard for me to love the movie." I agree. Knocked Up is sexist, but the real problem here is that Heigl is labeled an "ungrateful, bitch" for sharing her voice. My point is not to silence Shia LaBeouf but to reveal and break down a terrible double standard that is clearly thriving in Details magazine. Details Magazine reinforces a culture where men can speak their minds while women can't.

Oxygen's "The Glee Project" Walks a Fine Line Between Celebrating and "Othering" Contestants

http://www.homorazzi.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/the-glee-project-oxygen.jpg

I have been catching up on "The Glee Project" over the last few days. It's a show on Oxygen where 12 contestants compete for a 7-week guest spot on the hit show, Glee. These contestants have been chosen because they are each unique and as Glee creators and collaborators frequently declare, each contestant is "different in their own special way." This is necessary on Glee because the show is about "people that aren't what you expect and don't fit into stereotypes" (More on that later.)


In an episode I was watching yesterday, the theme of the week is vulnerability where the contestants must choose a word associated with one of their insecurities. They will wear this word on a sign in a public space while shooting a music video to Tears for Fears, "Mad World." The real point is to have the contestants face their inner demons because what makes them vulnerable is relatable to an audience and an essential quality all Glee actors possess. One contestant, Cameron, was chosen in the bottom three because he just was not "insecure" enough. While filming the video, the choreographer shared that, "This challenge was difficult for Cameron because he had already overcome many of his problems and was very confident in who he is." I was starring at the television in shock thinking, "Why wouldn't you want someone on your show that's confident and a good role model for young people?! But welcome to the world of contradictions, a.k.a. Hollywood."


Let's also note here that in the previous week's elimination challenge, Glee creator, Ryan Murphy, told a contestant that he wished he would just "walk on stage with more confidence and own who he is." Apparently on Glee, you should like yourself and give the illusion that you are confident while hiding an inner world of terrible insecurities that can be written into a story line. Are you sensing my frustration? It is ridiculous to me that Cameron would be put down for liking himself and being confident.


It was a painful episode to watch, especially since so many contestants revealed some deep personal issues. I kept thinking, why should they be forced to talk about these things on national television? Yes, they chose to be on the show, but there were so many tears on that episode that it felt as if the producers were "hazing" the contestants. I'm sure the actual cast members didn't even have to go through this to be on the show.


A few questions I have for the minds behind "The Glee Project" are: What is the point in having contestants reveal their insecurities? Is it to celebrate individuality? From where I'm observing, the contestants are just being further labeled as "others." Are you helping them or causing further emotional scarring? Also, let's face it. The cast of Glee is young and attractive. Their flaws are flaws based on "Hollywood" standards. Since I like the show, I'll keep watching but as an active observer.

Challenging the Notion of “Gender-blind” Classrooms

Let the media storm begin. A preschool in Sweden, Egalia, has decided to eliminate the words “him” and “her” and begin referring to students as “friends.” The purpose of this change is, according to a teacher at Egalia, to inspire children to be “who they want to be.” I respect the school’s commitment to allow their students freedom and individuality, but I do not think this is the best approach. In light of the recent media frenzy about Storm, the famous gender-neutral child, I do have a problem with creating classrooms that are “gender-blind.” It reminds me of the term “color-blind” some educators cite to combat racism in their classrooms. This is a poor approach since it does not acknowledge the wealth of knowledge students’ differences can bring to a classroom. Also, these differences can cause students to have strikingly different experiences in the classroom. To assume that treating each student the “same” would solve inequalities in the classroom is foolish, and I think an injustice to each student. TIME's article describes that another reason for this preschool’s decision is to fight the unfair advantage boys get in society. So calling a child “friend” instead of “him” or “her” is going to give girls an advantage against unjust structures of power in Swedish society? Wow, that’s a lot of pressure!

Instead of liberation from gender roles, this decision may confuse children and rob them of ways to define themselves. I support breaking down stereotypes in the classroom because I think teachers and the classroom environment are strong manipulators of gendered behavior. For example, at the preschool I volunteered with last semester their was a fairy tale day where the girls dressed as princesses and the boys were required to dress as princes. In an effort to open up possibilities for the students, the educators at Egalia may, in fact, be limiting the children’s exploration of what it means to be a boy or girl. While I am often on a crusade against labeling children, sometimes we need labels to better understand ourselves.

I respect the methodology behind the educators’ use of "him" and "her", but gender is an elusive concept, and as I’ve asked in a previous post, citing a clip from Modern Family, can anything or anyone truly be gender-neutral or “gender-blind”? Even if we try to accomplish this, are we all victims of the society in which we live? Can meaning only be made based on the labels of "male" or "female" we are given at a young age or maybe from birth with the blue and pink blankets? I would like to think "No"!

(http://interstellarundersteer.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/annie-lennox.jpeg)

The label for this image of Annie Lennox on Google was "Androgyny is Cool." Is the prospect of gender neutrality now a trend that models and celebrities want to jump on the bandwagon of?

Which Boyfriend Are You in the Mood For Today?... What the Internet is Teaching Kids

I’m always intrigued to speak with young children about how they experience the “online world.” While I was working at the art studio a few days ago, a bunch of eager children hijacked my computer to check out the latest games on Girlsgogames.com. The first screen that popped up asked the girls, “Which boyfriend are you in the mood for today?” While the online world may be a place for young people to try on different roles without real world consequences, what happens when they take their fantasy roles into the real world? For example, are men disposable in the real world if girls can choose a new one each day based on their moods in an online program? Are they being exposed to mature roles they aren’t ready for or are they learning to explore their sexual identities?

When I first saw that “boyfriend game” I was taken aback and ready to criticize it, but I know from many hours of working with kids that they are smart and inquisitive. They receive conflicting messages constantly about what it means to be “sexy” and “sexual.” Peggy Orenstein brought up a great point in her book Cinderella Ate My Daughter about the way young girls are taught to look and act “sexy” but are not allowed to actually partake in “sex.” Are young girls to blame for mimicking the dance moves of their favorite musicians? The look is separated from the act. Once again, reinforcing the fact that young girls don’t have sexual desires. So could the online world be an empowering place? I’m hesitant to use the word “empowering” because of the incidences of cyber bullying.

After they “chose” which boyfriend they were in the mood for, the girls engaged me in a discussion about what I disliked the most about Justin Bieber. It was clear that these girls were over “Bieber fever.” I suggested, “Well, I don’t like his songs very much.” One girl chimed in, “Justin Bieber is a girl. He is female. That’s why I don’t like him. He looks like a girl.” I asked her more questions behind her reasoning about Bieber’s femininity. She responded that it was about the way that he dressed, looked, and he sang like a girl! This was a clear example to me of children assigning particular characteristics to men and women. A man possessing feminine traits is problematic in their worlds because they already have an idea of how men and women are supposed to act. For these girls, a man being stereotypically feminine is “wrong” and it’s a point of ridicule. The girls then dressed a Justin Bieber avatar on girlsgogames.com as an old grandfather.

In a few sketches on his talk show, Jimmy Fallon has ridiculed Bieber's image. Take a look!

Yes, this conversation was amusing, but then it took a turn for the worse when the girls began dressing other famous pop stars like Lady Gaga and Adele. They obsessed over their looks changing their hair and makeup. So that’s what all girls think about, right? They just care about the makeover and maintaining the perfect hairstyle? That is one reason why we need to be asking these questions about what online sites are teaching kids. Are they expanding gender roles or limiting girls to a world of shopping and perfect and “pure” bodies?

Denmark's Beautifulpeople.com Drops 30,000 "Ugly" People

An exclusive Denmark-based dating site, Beautifulpeople.com, helps attractive people find love, and it has stirred controversy recently for it's dismissal of 30,000 people for their "lack of beauty." In response to criticism, a site manager, Greg Hodge, told The Guardian that, "We have to stick to our founding principles of only accepting beautiful people -- that's what our members have paid for. We can't just sweep 30,000 ugly people under the carpet." The site lost $100,000 in refunds, and rejected members are reportedly using a counseling helpline. One of the goals is to keep the "trolls" out, and let beautiful people fall in love and make beautiful children. This article reveals that 600 people have married as a result of this miraculous dating website.


Are you sensing my anger and repulsion, yet? First, what are the criteria for beautiful people? Beautiful people are chosen based on the photos they upload to their profiles. Isn't it possible that these people don't even look this way? In the online world, we can cultivate the identities and male attention we cannot possess in real life. My most obvious concern is that this site divides the "ugly" versus "beautiful" people based on I'm sure narrow European beauty ideals. Good job beautifulpeople.com, you sent 30,000 people to counseling (Yes, I'm know I'm over-exaggerating). This incident magnifies how much our outer looks define our inner selves. The message that's hidden in each article about this website is that "looks" are what matter. Inner beauty's a nice add-on, but you don't need it when you're beautiful on the outside!


Consider the website's opening image below:

I enjoy that the managers have made some attempt to make it look "multicultural." The website offers the seductive message that joining will lead members to an alternate world where only beautiful people exist. This image perplexes me. Is the point to create a human race without "ugly" people? Why are there animals in this? Each person in this image is thin and perfect-looking. I find it funny that this photo displays such a strong image of physical beauty while members only show their faces on their profiles. Another interesting point is how similar beauty ideals in Denmark are compared to the United States. I would argue that they may be more strict in Denmark. After spending a semester there, I could feel the tension for some of my peers who revealed that they "felt uncomfortable" around such "beautiful" Danish people and couldn't wait to return to the U.S. with more "normal-looking people." It was an intriguing comment for me because I hadn't looked at it from that perspective before.

While it would be easy to sit here on my high horse judging a website that is based in Denmark, I question: Is this site worse than People's The 50 Most Beautiful List they compile each year in the U.S.? Jennifer Lopez is People's Most Beautiful Person in the World for 2011.  I guess last year she didn't make the cut. Beauty politics change with age and levels of stardom. People.com is another site that divides the "beautiful" versus the "ugly" people. Yes, I don't want to be a hypocrite here. Of course, I enjoy flipping through the pages of attractive men gracing People's pages. They're irresistible and marketed well. People entices us with men that can cook, are sensitive, and look great without a t-shirt on. The inside and outside do matter because these men have both!? 

Yet, People's beauty contest is problematic. It tells young people that beauty is a competition and the greatest accomplishment in life. While I'm sure young girls aren't telling their parents, "This magazine contest is contributing to my low self-worth" they are telling their peers that "They do not make the cut in friend groups because they're not cool or pretty enough." These messages are not created in a vacuum, and I cannot place all of the blame on television programs or advertisements, but they contribute. Young people internalize messages to be "beautiful and thin," and therefore, judge others and themselves based on those standards.

Who will make the cut in 2012?

(http://www.people.com/people/package/gallery/0,,20360857_20481337,00.html)

I often question: How can we navigate such a contradictory world that tells young girls to "not judge a book by its cover" while bombarding them with thin, perfect beauty ideals on their favorite television programs? I think it can begin by educating ourselves about the ways media influences young people. If we can't make smarter advertisements, we can become smarter viewers, readers, and writers.