I’m not a grinch, I promise…

(Warning: this post may be buzzkill or damper holiday spirits, though it’s not intended that way. You can still walk away humming “Jingle Bells” now, should you care to.)

I hate Christmas.

I really, really do. Trust me, I don’t have anything innately against religious holidays, or the idea of opening one’s heart to other people. In fact, I encourage the latter at all times of year rather than a select few weeks in December. And no, just to be clear, this is not some buried childhood scarring from when I realized my parents were Santa Claus (which happened through recognizing my dad’s handwriting in a note “Santa” left).

I think Christmas has potential. I think the media has screwed it up.

What is Christmas, in the media’s eyes? Merry holiday cheer and snowflakes and family bonding? Maybe. But why try to portray it like that? It’s a facade. If we look closely, we can tell it’s really about buying things. You buy something and give it to me, I buy something and give it to you, and maybe if we’re all really in the holiday spirit we’ll buy something and give it to some poor little kid somewhere whose parents can’t buy anything for them.

The holidays are the media selling us discontent, adorned with snowflakes and elves wielding candy canes.

Now, that discontent makes us want to go fill the gaps. And the corporations have posed a near-perfect solution: just come buy our thing! But that for me raises two important questions: what is that thing we’re buying, really, and how is it supposed to make us feel better?

So let’s tackle the first question – what. The products we buy out of holiday marketing-induced discontent vary wildly, from clothing to shoes to toys to appliances to cars, and many many more. We’re being sold, “You’re not generous enough!” so we spend money on these objects to bestow upon other people. These things are produced on a mass scale, to be consumed at a mass scale, and then often to be disposed of fairly soon after. (We won’t go into the symbolism and subconscious messages behind each of these products, because that would make this essay too long.) The processes of creating, using, and ridding ourselves of these things generates unbelievable amounts of waste – a lot of it toxic, and nearly all of it dumped out of sight (often back on the people who produced it on the other side of the world). I won’t go too far into the specifics – if you’re curious, the book to read is Stuff: The Secret Lives of Everyday Things – but I will make sure this is clear: the media’s holiday discontent is hurting our planet and a whole bunch of other people who reside on it who are responsible for producing and cleaning up our things.

Now we can attack the second question – how is this supposed to make us feel better? The honest answer is that the media has trained us to believe that stuff – massive consumerism – will smooth over any emotional conflicts. We get ideas planted in our heads through television, movies, music, etc. about who and what we’re supposed to be. When we inevitably fail to accomplish all of those markers of “success,” we’re told, “Don’t worry! We can fix this for you with x y or z new product!” The urge to avoid our feelings of dissatisfaction is so strong, and the habit so ingrained. It starts when we’re kids, and by the time we have the capacity to think critically about it, we’re way beyond habituated.  The media has accomplished its goal: to make us believe that we can buy satisfaction, and that if we only had enough, or could buy enough, we’d be truly happy.

And what about the people who don’t buy into this system? Well, we’re grinches, you see; our hearts have been hardened somewhere along the line so we don’t see the beauty alighting children’s faces when they’re pacified with ever-more objects which will soon be thrown away. But I can tell you honestly that my heart has not been hardened but opened, because I now keep in mind all of the people making all of these things, and the planet – our planet – being destroyed in the process. And that’s a better gift than I ever could have gotten in a box from a mass-market store.

 

So, happy holidays. This essay is one of very few gifts I’m giving this year (just this and the physical ones for my host family, because sometimes tradition trumps). It was written with you in mind. I hope you like it.

Women in the Loop

When broaching the topic of social justice issues gender and feminism is a good place to start. After all most people have a woman in their life in one way or another. By opening the conversation to women’s rights, society’s views on race, sexuality, and class becomes easier. One way these inequalities arise in a culture is through their media. So when women in film are portrayed as only able to fill a limited number of roles the transfer of that ideal to real life is understandable. To show the power of that women’s roles in film can have I turned to the films I enjoyed for analysis.

When we covered the Bechdel Test I thought about my two favorite movies, and whether or not they would pass. The first movie was a 1991 drama about an African girl’s experience in an Australian boarding school in 1965. This movie, while a great example of intersectionality and close to my experiences, didn’t truly capture modern identity or a wide variety of female characters. This was important to me because although history can be a great teacher it can also be used as an excuse for stagnation after small change. Because of this reality I looked at another movie: In the Loop, a 2009 satire. This movie portrays professional women in relatable modern circumstances, as they navigate the “boys club” of foreign policy. It also has some snappy lines.

In the Loop is a political satire where the invasion in Iraq is impending. When a paper written by Liza Weld against an invasion is cited it gets circulated in the UK and subsequently in the U.S.. A group from the UK’s International Development office is asked to go to the U.S. and there hilarity ensues. They uncover a “war committee” and the debate to go to war begins. The movie shows both governments clumsily picking up the pieces as Linton Barwick, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Policy, pushes for invasion. From the outset with Judy Molloy the Director of Communication for the Department of International Development in the UK, and throughout with Karen Clark and Liza Weld in the U.S. we are given examples of female characters who serve as integral parts of the film.

I looked at each of the three main female characters in this movie and deconstructed their character’s impact in the real world. Firstly Liza Weld, the assistant to Karen Clark, is has to continuously defend herself against a male junior staffer Chad, because he feels as though he can be rude to her. At the same time he follows the male U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Policy in order to appeal to him, while he spends little to no time with his real boss who is also Karen Clark. Being the assistant of another woman deviates from the archetype of “assistant. Weld stands up for herself in the mists of the “boys club.” Unlike Chad she does not step on eggshells around any of the men she interacts with. Within her age group she is by far the most mature in the film. She does sleep with one of the British men during the film but, unlike him, her arc is not affected by the relationship, and she stays professional as her partner is late to a meeting they are both a part of the next day.

In the UK Judy Malloy really challenges the recognizable trope of the “mother figure.” She is tasked with aiding the UK delegates, but often highlights the shortcomings of her colleagues. When the Secretary of State for International Development goes to the U.S. Malloy ends up providing much of the information as he fumbles in America. Even though she fills a troupe she, unlike the usual “mother figure,” has more than one dimension. She is a very strong woman who is able to stand up to the king of insults. A very loud and boisterous welsh man: the director of communications Malcolm Tucker, routinely belittles his employees. Malloy is one of the few people who are able to stand up to his antics, even when the men around her can’t.

“You’ve really got it in for me haven’t you.” Judy Molloy

She is a good example of a realistic professional woman. In many movies the personal life of a successful woman is focused on more than her work life. Molloy doesn’t let her personal life bleed into her work.

Karen Clark holds a very high position, but still needs to defend her efficacy as the males she interacts with even if they are working with her. Clark works very hard, but is continually belittled. She needs to defend herself to be heard which is a reality for many professional women. When she is unfairly challenged she keeps a level head as the people around her aren’t taking war very seriously. Her main goal in the movie is to expose the reality of the proposed invasion and uncover shadowy practices. The prospect of war is juggled in a cavalier fashion by Linton Barwick and Malcolm Tucker. Karen tries to bring the “Boy’s Club”’s decisions to light as she tries to work against war. All in all Karen Clark is a good metaphor for the experience many women have today. Whether it is dismissive comments or exclusion the themes are not just common in the movie but in the real world.

So how do these fictional women impact the real world? Well if people reflect what they see in media consciously or subconsciously the way women are represented and treated can heavily influence people especially men. Because of the impact sexism in media has on men it is important to change the media if we want to see a change in the core of our culture. The opinions we see in media can and do proliferate into our understanding of gender and gender roles. Surrounding yourself can help to undo negative constructs and help to build positive and fair views. Movies like these not only benefit women, but change the world around them.

Armed with this knowledge the next time you are watching a movie pay attention to the women, or lack thereof, because as Lieutenant General George Miller said: “Unofficially this apears to be bull shit.”