Saturday, May 8, 2010

Madonna, Glee and Critical Thinking

A big reason a lot of what I talk about here on the Guide involves elements of pop culture is that, as I may have said before, pop culture is far and away the dominant formative paradigm for most Americans under the age of, say, thirty-five. For both the Gen-Yers (me and my friends) and the children of the Gen-Xers, who are now reaching adolescence, popular movies, TV, pop fiction and, most fervently, the internet, which aggregates and ties it all together, effect a level of seminal influence that—again, this is my opinion—outshines ‘traditional’ institutions like school, church and even the family dynamic.

Yes, yes, this is a generalization. Not every person I or you know is a walking-talking cultural compendium. I’m not talking about day-to-day pop culture references. You know, the ‘we’re brainwashed by corporations into feeling a specific kind of emptiness that can only be filled by certain consumer products’ angle. That’s tired, and it’s just not that true. I’m not talking about that, ever.

Early in the life of this blog, I wrote about Sarah Connor and feminist iconicity in action films with strong female leads. What I like most about that piece—and the method of argument in it—is its insistence on critical thinking. Now, before you start the eye rolling, please indulge me by stripping ‘critical thinking’ of its pretentious subtext and take it as a simple descriptive term. I’m not putting anything on a pedestal here. I want to compare the critical thinking done in the Sarah Connor piece against the feminist didacticism oozing throughout in the now famous “The Power of Madonna” episode of Glee that aired last month.*

Glee’s writers have, during the show’s first season, made a habit of tackling a variety of issues facing American teens, pregnancy, divorce, ostracism, homosexuality, etc. So it’s really not all that surprising that the show decided to discuss feminism. Like most forward-thinking viewers, I will admit that it was—at first—nice to hear these choice sound bites on one of today’s most popular hour-long network dramas:
Tina: “We just have to accept that guys don’t like our feelings.”

Quinn: “The fact is a woman earns 70 cents to every dollar a man earns for doing the same job. That attitude starts in high school.”

Will: “What this is really about is teenage girls feeling like they have no power.”

Tina: “And my growing feminism will cut you in half like a righteous blade of equality.”
Nearly thirteen million viewers watched this episode. That’s a hell of a lot of people exposed to progressive feminist language and sentiment. Misogynist, insensitive, objectification, equality—all of these dropped at one point or another, all in the name of empowering young adult women. And the episode was soundtrack’d and inspired by the music of the most popular American feminist icon of the last quarter century, Madonna (sorry, Oprah). There’s really no downside to this, right?

This is where things get tough—this where the whole act of critical thinking becomes vital.

A large portion of Glee’s audience consists of young children and teens. Even in the media, buzzword saturated world we live in, I think it’s safe to assume that “The Power of Madonna” episode was the first time many young females and males heard the word feminism. I’m not implying that this was the first time these young viewers had experienced instances of gender inequality—I know young girls feel the pangs of gender inequality as early as the pre-school playground—but rather that this was the first time these kids heard and understood feminism in a kind of institutionalized sense. Feminism means X (“because that’s what they said on Glee”).

Pop culture is instructive in this way; it always has been. Here, one of the most popular forms of American teenage entertainment introduces and teaches its viewers—and I’ll put all viewers in this pot now, not just the young ones—about the vital and important topic of feminism. If I stop right there, nothing appears wrong. In fact, Glee seems almost noble, like it assumed a great responsibility to make a positive influence on its young audience.

But it’s wrong to stop there. Why? Because there is absolutely no critical thinking involved. Feminism, like all issues that really matter, cannot simply be absorbed. This is not a soapbox statement, this is a fact that too often gets forgotten because of the effectiveness of popular forms of entertainment and reference: TV shows, cable news, Wikipedia, etc. There is a value to all of these forms of media, one of which is ease. The answer is always there for a person to absorb in an almost instantaneous fashion. Consumption and absorption, though, are not the same thing as thinking. The first two are easy, passive; the latter is hard. Feminism is hard.

So what comes next when thinking of “The Power of Madonna”’s depiction of feminism? One simple question, really: In the episode, what is the version of feminism defined by the writers of Glee used in the service of? For the sake of length, I’ll refrain from a full analysis of the episode. Suffice it to say, the one thing feminism does not serve in the episode is credible character development. Feminism is introduced conceptually to the show’s characters and is reduced to sound bites like those mentioned above. And while sound bites can be seductive, they’re empty without a meaningful context. The concept of feminism does not change the show’s characters in any meaningful way. Feminist sentiment directs them to say certain things and act certain ways at various points during the episode, but, again, it in no way changes them. Bluntly put, feminism is a mere plot device used to forward the action, nothing more.

The cynical part of me would go farther and say that feminism in Glee works purely in the service of selling iTunes singles and copies of Madonna’s Celebration record. But even if that is true, I’m not going to damn Glee for doing so. After all, it is not Glee’s—or pop culture’s—responsibility to teach its audience about vital social issues. It is the audience that endows pop culture with this responsibility. In other words, it’s the audience that allows passive consumption to overtake active thinking.

In my Sarah Connor piece, I took a film character that I always admired and asked myself, simply, why is Sarah so goddamn awesome? Why do I think of her when I envision a power feminist icon? And I thought, rigorously and critically, and formed an answer.

This isn’t about patting myself on the back. This is about a method. Am I’m happy that more young people know about the word feminism now than did before “The Power of Madonna” aired? Yes and no—mostly no. I’ll be happy when these same young people begin asking questions about the gender inequities around them and think themselves to an answer.

*Let me go on record by saying that Glee has kind of lost me. I still watch each new episode, but my enthusiasm for the show is gone and, honestly, Glee is just really bad now. This of course is a discussion for another day, but given that I wrote pretty glowingly about the show on this blog last fall, I feel it best to make my current feelings clear.

6 comments:

JD said...

Hmm, well, I like the "what it feels like for a girl" sentiment, but I wish it was reciprocated. But even accepting feminist lingo while looking at the Glee characters I don't actually see a lot of privilege that separates guys from girls. If anything, my perception of Glee was one of equal struggling until it was established by referencing feminism that one part of the group has it harder than the other.

I mean, take quotes like this - it's true that there is a pay gap, but most of that is not direct discrimination but the consequence of different professsional choices, hours worked and a lack of employer enthusiasm when faced with the prospect of pregnancy. Now, sure, all that are gender-based variables and there's a lot problematic, but they are *not* simple discrimination, and no one who knows anything about this, even feminists, would use a crude factually *wrong* statement like "women get 70% of the pay for the same work". Because it's simply wrong. And using such simplistic arguments in pop-culture is likely to create more antagonism than anything else.

"Quinn: “The fact is a woman earns 70 cents to every dollar a man earns for doing the same job. That attitude starts in high school.”"

Apart from that - take Madonna's what it feels like for a girl lyrics and you get similarly problematic statements about alleged inferiority -

"Girls can wear jeans
And cut their hair short
Wear shirts and boots
'Cause it's OK to be a boy
But for a boy to look like a girl is degrading
'Cause you think that being a girl is degrading
But secretly you'd love to know what it's like
Wouldn't you
What it feels like for a girl"

'Cause you think that being a girl is degrading? Bollocks. The main reason is that men are much more vulnerable to female opinion about masculinity and sexual attractiveness than women are. Women may lose some feminity-points when they cut their hair, but have to ever heard someone tell a woman "she's not woman enough"? Probably not. Because femininity is, far more than masculinity, defined by a woman's potential reproductive function. For men, it's easy to take away "masculinity" because the inherent part is so small noone even knows what it is. That's why men are so keen to appear masculine: Being perceived as feminine may feel degrading to *THEM*, because it's not what they want to be, but it's certainly not degrading for a woman.

"Good little girls they never show it When you open up your mouth to speak Could you be a little weak"

Totally contradicts the first verse, doesn't it?

Again I liked the Glee episode, but I'm thinking they bought too much into standard stereotypes about feminism, and, alas, I don't think this is mainly owed to the format. I think this is mainly a consequence of a simplistic notion of feminism and gender relations (by feminism) that is reconstructed through episodes like this.

Benny said...

That particular Glee episode definitely gave us a very reduced soundbite account of feminism, but I think that the show in general (as TV shows come, anyway) is still at least somewhat progressive in the way it deals with gender. It allows the "unmanly" men to be laughed at but it forces us to see them as complete people as well.

I think that the show has worn itself thin and a lot of the new developments fall flat, but I still respect it. I don't think it has more than one season of life left in it.

On the subject of Sarah Connor, I just read an article (
http://thehathorlegacy.com/why-discriminate-if-it-doesnt-profit/) that sheds a lot of light on why it might be that we don't see more action stars like her. Hint: it's *not* because people don't want to watch them.

Ahh, back to Glee... I'd like to think that it's encouraged kids to ask questions rather than making them feel like they have answers, but who knows? So it goes.

Tyler said...

You bounce around quite a bit in your comment, JD. I can kinda-sorta understand your frustrations, but I really disagree w/ your conclusions.

Your argument about the pay-gap is flawed insofar as it assumes a level playing field. In other words, it assumes all employers value employees of all genders equally and so when they decide to pay women less than men, they're doing so purely from the perspective of business; that history and culture plays no role. That's a naive assumption, but I can see why you feel the need to make your argument. Quinn throwing out that stat in Glee, proffering the idea that the guys-by-and-large-treat-women-poorly attitude starts in high school, is cheap. That's a loaded statement and shouldn't be tossed out in such a flippant manner. Yes, it's unfair to guys. But it's also just as unfair to women. It's a feminist issue after all.

So I'd be careful when you make counter-arguments and suggestions like:

The main reason is that men are much more vulnerable to female opinion about masculinity and sexual attractiveness than women are. Women may lose some feminity-points when they cut their hair, but have to ever heard someone tell a woman "she's not woman enough"? Probably not. Because femininity is, far more than masculinity, defined by a woman's potential reproductive function. For men, it's easy to take away "masculinity" because the inherent part is so small noone even knows what it is."

Taken in context, conclusions like these appear simple and reactionary. Men's vulnerabilities to opinions about masculinity and sexual attractiveness are greater than women's vulnerabilities to opinions about femininity and sexual attractiveness? If you really believe that, fine. But that's not an arguable point. It's speculative opinion in the purest sense. The idea that femininity is defined by a woman's reproduction function is not just an opinion--it's actually a misogynist precept (I'm not calling you a misogynist, just to be clear). I'm sure there are a lot of extremely fertile women who've been told they're not women enough. Just as I'm sure there are countless guys who will offer you a very specific definition of what it means to be masculine.

In a more general sense, I see a lot of this attitude--

Again I liked the Glee episode, but I'm thinking they bought too much into standard stereotypes about feminism, and, alas, I don't think this is mainly owed to the format. I think this is mainly a consequence of a simplistic notion of feminism and gender relations (by feminism) that is reconstructed through episodes like this.

--in a lot of guys confronting simplistic displays of feminism like the one displayed in Glee or in the lyrics to a pop song. For as good and empowered as these forms of media make women feel, they alienate a lot of guys. I get it. That's why I'm glad you're not afraid to call out these forms of media.

But, please, temper your reactions. By the end of your comment, you had called out feminism for creating a simplistic notion of itself. Circular logic like that is kinda sardonic. And--and I'm going to step on the toes of an elongated post I'm working on that'll hopefully be ready to go up soon--it plays into typical guy-centric overreactions to introductions of feminist ideas they're not too happy w/. I'm referring to many guys' need (or obligation, or duty) to disprove or explain away certain things like gender pay-gap stats. Yeah, for guys, it's easy to see this as performing a service in a sort of 'keeping feminism honest' way. But is that really the only motivation? Remember, behind the fanciful stats is a legitimate, non-debatable gender inequity that only goes one way...

JD said...

Tyler,

"In other words, it assumes all employers value employees of all genders equally and so when they decide to pay women less than men, they're doing so purely from the perspective of business;"

well, I think that a lot of people make up their arguments along the way. Usually capitalism is criticized for being exploitative and indifferent to cultural aspects and like a culturally and politically uncontrollable force sweeping the planet in the name of profit. Yet when economic arguments contradict the prejudice of the inquirer, they're often suddenly not sufficient to explain the phenomenon at hand. When it's about cheaper labour in Bangladeshi textile corporations, it's all about money. When it's about the glass ceiling suddenly history makes businesses employ labour that is allegedly 30% more expensive than equally qualified labour. I'm sorry, but it can't be both...

"The idea that femininity is defined by a woman's reproduction function is not just an opinion--it's actually a misogynist precept (I'm not calling you a misogynist, just to be clear)."

Irrespective of what you're calling me, why is saying that motherhood is more important for the definition of feminity than fatherhood is for the definition of masculinity (given that the biological impact of each on the organism is vastly differnet) misogynist? Almost unrelated - if you know *countless* guys who will offer a very specific definition of what it means to be masculine, please, could you ask one or two of them to write it down and post it? Seriously.

"But, please, temper your reactions. By the end of your comment, you had called out feminism for creating a simplistic notion of itself."

But that's excatly what has happened. Feminism has developed into a movement that has the ability to demand a priori agreement with its notions before being willing to discuss the phenomena people would like to discuss. And while that doesn't matter to a lot of women who only like the sound of the word and how it makes them feel, there is a lot to be done about "keeping feminism honest" in that way. I mean, what you say in your last sentence is essentially: I don't care if the stats are saying something else, I FEEL what is right and non-debatable, irrespective of evidence. Maybe there actually is a different approach to feminism - it's about feeling empowered for women, and it's about being blamed by a problematic theoretical framework that's actually totally simple to deconstruct using its own methodology for not a few men (and Judith Butler, who did just that). Seriously, Tyler, I think this discourse is extremely important, but throwing in stuff like non-debatable and "only goes one way" is only an attempt to pre-frame a discussion to take place on a specific home-turf and not have the assumptions that home-turf is built on be challenged by the debate. This is how politics work - it's not how an honest debate should work.

Marie said...

2 comments for JD:

1) Yes, women get told all the time they're not 'woman enough.' I have. You can ask any trans-woman about the countless ways she's told she's not woman enough. You can ask any butch dyke all the ways she's told she's not woman enough. The list goes on.

2) The assumption that what makes someone qualified as a man or a woman is anatomy is a cis-gendered bias. It's shortsighted to think that there is one single official criteria for 'counting' as a man or a woman. Gender is more complicated than that and biology is just one component of it.

JD said...

Hey Marie,

thanks for your comment. Two things - one, I am completely sure that transsexual experiences are very important sources for knowledge about gender construction. Two - these experiences, while central to the concepts, are quantitatively marginal. I don't doubt that some women are told they're not woman enough, just as there are some men who have a definition of masculinity that makes them secure against similar attacks. But as much as individual experiences are important, they are still individual experiences, and - in the cases that you mention - likely very difficult from the majority of cases.

As for the second part - I said that a relatively more pronounced reproductive function shields women better against cultural attacks on their femininity tham is the case for men. At no point have I said that anatomy is the only criterion deciding what is a man or a woman.