True Blood's Faux Feminism: A Review in Progress

(I started writing this post over the summer and wanted to share it before I forget. It's a work in progress.)

*Spoiler alert: I'll be revealing some details from the most recent season of True Blood.

The season opener was a shocker with the reveal that Tara is now a lesbian or bisexual. After romantic and tumultuous entanglements with Sam, Jason, Eggs, and Franklin, Tara escapes from Bon Tomp and begins a relationship with Naomi, a fellow cage fighter.

What frustrates me about this relationship is that Tara's transformation into a gay character occurs as a way out or alternative to her failed relationships with men. It is also a relationship I'm sure the writers thought up to excite the viewers. The "lesbian makeout" scene has been glamorized in numerous movies. Recently, the Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis kiss in Black Swan might have made more headlines than the film's accolades.

Another issue I have is that being gay always means that the character is moving over to the dark side, becoming more "sexy" and "dangerous." Natalie Portman becomes the "black swan" after the fantasy sex scene with Mila Kunis. She drinks, does drugs, and experiments with her body, which becomes the equivalent of being "bad" in our culture. Why is that? Why can't being gay be a part of who a person is instead of a “performance” for others?

This is new territory for me on my blog, and I do not know a lot about sexuality studies, but what I do observe is the lack of lesbian couples on television and the same scene played over and over again. The good girl becomes “bad” after she kisses a woman. Even in the film, Laurel Canyon, starring Kate Beckinsale and Christian Bale this story line exists. Kate’s character is a good doctoral student who is lured into the dark side by Christian’s music producer mother. They then engage in a makeout scene. The list goes on with celebrities that have made kissing women a “trend” (Thanks, Katy Perry!)

I just finished reading Susan Douglass’s Enlightened Sexism where she wrote about the problematic portrayals in television and movies where lesbians are sexualized or ignored. She proposes that this gap adds to the divide between women. Women in films must compete with each other for men or make out to please the male audience. Female love is only shown from a male perspective because why would we want women in successful friendships since they would only want to gang up on men!

Could Megan Fox Be "Nice" and "Naughty"?

After listening to Jean Kilbourne's enlightening lecture yesterday on the harmful media messages that contribute to the thin, perfect beauty ideal, I almost passed out after seeing this cover of Cosmo with Megan Fox. First, how many more surveys can Cosmo possibly come up with to tell women how to satisfy men? What ever happened to talking to your partner about what he enjoys sexually? Second, what about what women want to see during sex? Because sex is a one-sided act?!


Anyhow, the real point of this post is about how the magazine portrays Megan Fox. The tagline for her article states, "Megan Fox. Naughty or Nice? You Decide" and yet, hasn't the magazine already decided for us by putting this seductive image of Megan on the cover?

This article goes on to discuss Megan's tough girl image. This image is based around the fact that she curses and has tattoos. Well during a rough day, I've been known to use some swear words, so I guess I'm a tough girl too?! There is a problem with the limiting language we use to discuss women. Why is it so important that a woman is either naughty or nice? This article doesn't ask her about anything of substance, so we are led to believe that she is either naughty or nice. She can only fit within these two descriptions because according to this article, she doesn't have a brain. Why must we reduce women to these one-note images?

Why does sex always sell?

As I've been hunting down the best post-holiday sales, I've encountered the same old slogan: sex sells. For example, there's a line of makeup called NARS Orgasm. There's a set of blushes that will apparently give a woman the "effect of an ultimate super, uh hum, afterglow." There is something about naming a blush "G spot" and "super orgasm" that makes me uncomfortable. Why is that the only way to sell any product is to oversexualize it? I see a clear link between wearing this makeup and looking sexy for a man. It also bothers me that the point of this makeup is to make a woman look like she has just had an orgasm as if a woman's appearance is constantly on display for others. 


Yet, I can see the empowering message in this makeup. When I get dressed up or wear makeup, I like to look nice for myself. I just wonder why makeup must be associated with transforming one's physical body and therefore, inner feelings about herself. Is there a way for makeup to have a fun and useful function without the instant gratification that it makes a woman more "beautiful" than another, and therefore, more attractive to a romantic interest?

Funny or Offensive? You Decide.

(http://cdn.buzznet.com/media-cdn/jj1/headlines/2011/06/

justin-timberlake-mila-kunis-mtv-movie-awards-2011.jpg)

Take a moment to consider what's going on in this picture... I was confused at first until I found this link. At the MTV Movie Awards, presenters, Mila Kunis and Justin Timberlake shared with the audience that they have "never dated, are just friends, and are like brother and sister." This sibling relationship was demonstrated by touching each other on stage. 


Okay, I would NEVER do that to my brother. I don't think it's funny to do that in front of a live audience, and really Justin was it necessary to comment about the size of your penis afterward? Now that I'm processing this image, I am uncomfortable with it and the thought that young children were probably watching this show. I LOVE Mila Kunis, and I respect her for publicly speaking about her struggles to be a successful woman in the television and movie industries. Yet, there are aspects of her image that frustrate me. Is she a woman comfortable with her sexuality or is she putting on a show for her male fans? I think it's interesting that we read about celebrities' personal lives and view them in films and feel as if we know them. It is kind of creepy now that I think about it. You decide.

Well SAID...

I LOVE this blog post I read on Feministe... It's a well-articulated reflection on the criticisms single women endure. Chally makes a strong statement writing:


"There’s nothing deficient about finding yourself single, or pursuing the kind of life you want. I know that much of my personal unhappiness comes from not fitting various norms, and feeling like I ought to be more normal in order to have a happy life. That’s not an unwarranted fear as there’s real social marginalisation attached to being non-normative. If we expand our ideas of the kinds of lives that are acceptable, older divorced women; young ladies like me who are starting to build their lives; queer, asexual, and poly people; hey, even happily married straight people – all kinds of people! – will be better served."


The next time someone tells me that "I would be 'happier' if I had a boyfriend" that is the response I'm giving.