I have a dirty little secret. I watch MTV. Specifically, I watch Girl Code and Awkward. That's right: my media consumption is not limited to BBC News, CNN, the NY Times and Wall Street Journal, HBO, and the internet. Shocking, I know. MTV's Awkward endeavors to present the life of a socially-awkward American blogger in high school.
But MTV has it wrong. Not that this really surprises me, since MTV also gets Skins, the people who go "down the shore," and a lot of other things wrong. But as much as I love Awkward, it is in no way because it accurately portrays the life of a blogger.
The show treats blogging like a tell-all confessional diary on the internet. And for some bloggers, this is probably the case -- especially if those bloggers are, say, 13, which I assume is the market MTV is shooting for with this show. But for most bloggers late into high school and into college, the posts are typically less about which boy is fighting for your attention and more about how you see the world.
Do I post life updates on my blog? Absolutely. Because they help contextualize the things I have to say, and also because they make for useful excuses when I've been bad about regularly updating, not because I fool myself into thinking my readers actually care about my exam schedule.
People still keep diaries, and some people are silly enough to make their deepest, darkest secrets open to the internet viewing public. But that's not what most awkward teenage/twenty-something bloggers are doing with their blogs. They're trying to change minds, spread awareness of issues, comment on social change and new media, not complain about the fact that their ex and their current boyfriend are fighting over them.
Also, that's not even awkward. But it does make for interesting television.
The fact remains, though, that when this is how bloggers are represented in traditional media (kind of like how the movie Hackers presents hackers, which is not at all like what hacking actually is or what hacktivists do), it delegitimizes the medium. Most bloggers see themselves as the voices of new media, their work taking the place of traditional Op-Eds in a world where print media is dying out. Positing the work of bloggers through the lens of a girl who uses the internet to work out her petty relationship problems takes away from the legitimacy of bloggers, teenage girls, and the internet generation.
Don't get me wrong, though -- I would pay good money for Tamara's wardrobe and vocabulary, and Jenna Hamilton's life is ceaselessly amusing. Just don't confuse what she does with what most bloggers are trying to do.
Unapologetically yours,
Rachel Leigh
This is a blog about things, about thinking about things, about talking about things, and about being as snarky and poignant as I can manage. I hope you enjoy it.
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
On an Update and News
My darling readers, I just got back from a whirlwind trip through Virginia and North Carolina, to see some family and catch a Drum Corps show in Charlotte.
While I was packing and traveling, there was a surge in Royal Baby fever as Will and Kate welcomed Prince George into the family, and the Pope took to the pulpit to publicly change the Vatican's stance on gay clergymen. Needless to say, it's been a big week in international news, and I've been otherwise occupied.
A lot of people were surprised by the fact that I got a bit swept up in the Royal Baby (though, that shouldn't surprised anyone who knows how much of an Anglophile I am), but, as I explained, if the press can get all excited about a Kardashian baby, I can get excited about a royal baby. I mean, one is a family that has done very little to earn their fame and has had a family member very publicly naked...and the other is the Kardashians. At least the British royal family seems to have some class about the whole thing.
I apologize for the recent mini-posts, but I'll return to regular posting once I've caught up on some sleep.
Royally yours,
Rachel Leigh
While I was packing and traveling, there was a surge in Royal Baby fever as Will and Kate welcomed Prince George into the family, and the Pope took to the pulpit to publicly change the Vatican's stance on gay clergymen. Needless to say, it's been a big week in international news, and I've been otherwise occupied.
A lot of people were surprised by the fact that I got a bit swept up in the Royal Baby (though, that shouldn't surprised anyone who knows how much of an Anglophile I am), but, as I explained, if the press can get all excited about a Kardashian baby, I can get excited about a royal baby. I mean, one is a family that has done very little to earn their fame and has had a family member very publicly naked...and the other is the Kardashians. At least the British royal family seems to have some class about the whole thing.
I apologize for the recent mini-posts, but I'll return to regular posting once I've caught up on some sleep.
Royally yours,
Rachel Leigh
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
On SDCC
This past weekend was San Diego's Comic Con International 2013. For those of you who don't know, I typically celebrate this event by eating junk food on my couch and watching G4 for live coverage and news updates. I could not do that this year because I was in the process of moving out.
Comic Con brings a very specific image to some people's minds: awkward, poorly-socialized comic book nerds in a convention center. But over the years, SDCC has turned into something very different. Yes, there are still people there for precisely that reason (I'm looking at you, Wil Wheaton and Steve Zaragoza), but SDCC has also become the major event for news in movies, television, art, comics, fantasy, science fiction, gaming, and more. It's full of celebrities, cosplayers (people who dress up as their favorite characters from games, books, movies, shows, etc), panels (like the one that pre-showed the first episode of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.), and other activities.
For at least the second time, they've run the Walking Dead Escape, an obstacle course where people run to escape the zombie hordes. This isn't the old Comic Con...it's far too big and popular (and, might I add, expensive) to really even compare to most other cons or old school comic con.
Any time anybody wants to get me a press badge, you're more than welcome to.
Geekily yours,
Rachel Leigh
Comic Con brings a very specific image to some people's minds: awkward, poorly-socialized comic book nerds in a convention center. But over the years, SDCC has turned into something very different. Yes, there are still people there for precisely that reason (I'm looking at you, Wil Wheaton and Steve Zaragoza), but SDCC has also become the major event for news in movies, television, art, comics, fantasy, science fiction, gaming, and more. It's full of celebrities, cosplayers (people who dress up as their favorite characters from games, books, movies, shows, etc), panels (like the one that pre-showed the first episode of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.), and other activities.
For at least the second time, they've run the Walking Dead Escape, an obstacle course where people run to escape the zombie hordes. This isn't the old Comic Con...it's far too big and popular (and, might I add, expensive) to really even compare to most other cons or old school comic con.
Any time anybody wants to get me a press badge, you're more than welcome to.
Geekily yours,
Rachel Leigh
Saturday, July 20, 2013
On the Virginia GOP
Before I head out of Virginia for a little while, I figured a fitting last post in the capitol of the Confederacy would be something along the lines of "What Exactly is Wrong with Virginia Republican Candidates (and do they hear the words that are coming out of their mouths)?"
So the Virginia GOP has given their nods to Gubernatorial and Attorney General candidates. First on the chopping block is my good friend Ken Cuccinelli, who you may have heard of in his many attempts to restrict women's access to abortion, planned parenthood, and bodily autonomy. He's a good man, I assure you. Cuccinelli's most recent move has been to take Virginia's infamous sodomy law (which bans sodomy, oral sex, and, assuming they have kept the full text of the original law, sex with the lights on, and classifies them all as a felony offense) to the Supreme Court. Now, in 2003, the Supreme Court declared state sodomy laws unconstitutional, on the grounds that, oddly enough, they persecute people whose partners do not have the opposite set of parts required for traditional intercourse, and also because we typically accept that you have a right to privacy and what you do in your own home between consenting adults is your own business.
But not only is Cuccinelli taking this to the Supreme Court, hoping they'll overturn or adjust their ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, but he posted on his campaign site that 90 new sexual predators (because, you know, felony sexual violations, like this one, will get you registered as a sex offender) will come off the sex offender registry. Because gay sex and pedophilia are totally the same thing and this totally isn't a scare tactic.
Our other WTF of the day comes at the suggestion of one of my readers (you can like the WCS page on facebook and make post suggestions if you'd like). Virginia's Republican Attorney General candidate is a man named Mark Obenshain, who in 2009 proposed an interesting bill. This would require women who miscarry to report their miscarriage to the police within 24 hours or face legal penalties. Now, there is a pro-choice/pro-life angle that one could attack this from, but I'm going to let that go for now and look at it quite simply: miscarriages are often painful and emotionally traumatizing. Many of the women who experience them were incredibly excited to have a child. To attempt to force a woman who is already going through this kind of emotional turmoil to compound it by forcing her to talk to the police is inhumane. And this is the man the Virginia GOP wants in charge of enforcing Virginia laws.
All that being said, I'll be spending the next few weeks in Pennsylvania and North Carolina and will keep you all up to date with my ramblings and happenings.
Frustratedly yours,
Rachel Leigh
So the Virginia GOP has given their nods to Gubernatorial and Attorney General candidates. First on the chopping block is my good friend Ken Cuccinelli, who you may have heard of in his many attempts to restrict women's access to abortion, planned parenthood, and bodily autonomy. He's a good man, I assure you. Cuccinelli's most recent move has been to take Virginia's infamous sodomy law (which bans sodomy, oral sex, and, assuming they have kept the full text of the original law, sex with the lights on, and classifies them all as a felony offense) to the Supreme Court. Now, in 2003, the Supreme Court declared state sodomy laws unconstitutional, on the grounds that, oddly enough, they persecute people whose partners do not have the opposite set of parts required for traditional intercourse, and also because we typically accept that you have a right to privacy and what you do in your own home between consenting adults is your own business.
But not only is Cuccinelli taking this to the Supreme Court, hoping they'll overturn or adjust their ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, but he posted on his campaign site that 90 new sexual predators (because, you know, felony sexual violations, like this one, will get you registered as a sex offender) will come off the sex offender registry. Because gay sex and pedophilia are totally the same thing and this totally isn't a scare tactic.
Our other WTF of the day comes at the suggestion of one of my readers (you can like the WCS page on facebook and make post suggestions if you'd like). Virginia's Republican Attorney General candidate is a man named Mark Obenshain, who in 2009 proposed an interesting bill. This would require women who miscarry to report their miscarriage to the police within 24 hours or face legal penalties. Now, there is a pro-choice/pro-life angle that one could attack this from, but I'm going to let that go for now and look at it quite simply: miscarriages are often painful and emotionally traumatizing. Many of the women who experience them were incredibly excited to have a child. To attempt to force a woman who is already going through this kind of emotional turmoil to compound it by forcing her to talk to the police is inhumane. And this is the man the Virginia GOP wants in charge of enforcing Virginia laws.
All that being said, I'll be spending the next few weeks in Pennsylvania and North Carolina and will keep you all up to date with my ramblings and happenings.
Frustratedly yours,
Rachel Leigh
Thursday, July 11, 2013
On Writers, Women, and the Sexy Lamp Test
Back when Joss Whedon was writing Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly and Dollhouse, he was repeatedly asked questions about why he wrote such strong female characters. His answer, finally, was given in a speech he presented on equality, when he simply stated "Because you're still asking me this question."*
George R.R. Martin, author of the Game of Thrones books, was asked where his inspiration for complex, well-written female characters came from, and he responded that he "always considered women to be people."**
Most feminists and female readers know about the concept of the Bechdel test, developed by Allison Bechdel to determine whether a work gives a fair or even remotely non-sexist depiction of women. The test has three parts: (1) Does this work include at least two female characters?; (2) Do these characters talk to one another?; (3) Is the conversation about something other than men? If you can successfully answer "yes" to all three of those questions, congratulations, there is a chance you have written a remotely non-sexist piece.
However, Kelly Sue Deconnick, a writer and artist for Marvel comics, stated that the Bechdel Test may be expecting too much from us, and has proposed a test wherein "if you can take out a female character and replace her with a sexy lamp, you're a hack."*** My question, then, is when a large number of female characters fail both Bechdel's test and are replacable by a sexy lamp, why are we asking those few writers who write women who actually resemble people why they write them that way?
What does it say about the status quo for female characters when the noteworthy and novel thing is that they're written in three dimensions instead of just as a plot device?
I've often advocated for the need for strong female role models, and those are often hard to find in the real world. But it's worrisome that they are nearly as scarce in the world of fantasy and fiction, and that those writers who create them are often questioned or criticized.
Isn't it time that, instead, we start asking, "I've noticed you've written a hollow shell of a human being and slapped a pair of breasts on her. Why did you do that?" instead?
Curiously Yours,
Rachel Leigh
*http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/josswhedonequalitynow.htm
**http://hbowatch.com/20-minute-interview-with-george-r-r-martin/
***http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/06/20/kelly-sue-deconnick-talks-captain-marvel-pretty-deadly-and-the-sexy-lamp-test
George R.R. Martin, author of the Game of Thrones books, was asked where his inspiration for complex, well-written female characters came from, and he responded that he "always considered women to be people."**
Most feminists and female readers know about the concept of the Bechdel test, developed by Allison Bechdel to determine whether a work gives a fair or even remotely non-sexist depiction of women. The test has three parts: (1) Does this work include at least two female characters?; (2) Do these characters talk to one another?; (3) Is the conversation about something other than men? If you can successfully answer "yes" to all three of those questions, congratulations, there is a chance you have written a remotely non-sexist piece.
However, Kelly Sue Deconnick, a writer and artist for Marvel comics, stated that the Bechdel Test may be expecting too much from us, and has proposed a test wherein "if you can take out a female character and replace her with a sexy lamp, you're a hack."*** My question, then, is when a large number of female characters fail both Bechdel's test and are replacable by a sexy lamp, why are we asking those few writers who write women who actually resemble people why they write them that way?
What does it say about the status quo for female characters when the noteworthy and novel thing is that they're written in three dimensions instead of just as a plot device?
I've often advocated for the need for strong female role models, and those are often hard to find in the real world. But it's worrisome that they are nearly as scarce in the world of fantasy and fiction, and that those writers who create them are often questioned or criticized.
Isn't it time that, instead, we start asking, "I've noticed you've written a hollow shell of a human being and slapped a pair of breasts on her. Why did you do that?" instead?
Curiously Yours,
Rachel Leigh
*http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/josswhedonequalitynow.htm
**http://hbowatch.com/20-minute-interview-with-george-r-r-martin/
***http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/06/20/kelly-sue-deconnick-talks-captain-marvel-pretty-deadly-and-the-sexy-lamp-test
Sunday, July 7, 2013
On Skins and Adolescence
Last Monday was the premiere of the first episode of the last series of Skins.
For those of you who don't know, Skins has been one of my favorite shows since it first washed up stateside my junior year of high school. I loved it for a lot of reasons, including, in large part, the fact that Nicholas Hoult played Tony Stonem in the first two series.
But really, what drew me in when it comes to Skins was the way they portrayed people my age. Yes, the show was racy and definitely a lot more wild than my life (or anyone that I knew, really) was at the time. But after years of seeing the 16-19 year-old years treated like nothing more than bad grades, shopping trips, and shenanigans learning to drive, it was amazing, to me, to see a show that portrayed its teenage characters as complex, autonomous characters.
The characters in Skins had the complicated backstories that are often associated with much more adult stories -- neglect, abuse, loss, joy, family. They also had real, complex problems -- depression, suicide attempts, eating disorders, bipolar disorder, anxiety. Skins was the first show I ever watched that treated my generation more like adults than children. And it made me feel less alone.
The characters in Skins made real, complex decisions and those decisions had consequences. Even now, with the final series and the reboot of some of the original characters in the specials Fire, Rise, and Pure, the characters, who have aged since the last time we saw them (Effy Stonem, for example, is now working for a high-powered investment bank instead of wreaking havoc on her high school/college), are facing adult issues with real consequences. And I'm excited to see where it all heads. In the meantime, I'm glad there is at least one show that presents adolescence as something more complicated than just that awkward time between when you're a little kid and when you become a full-fledged grownup.
I am speaking, of course, to the UK version of Skins. The American adaptation that MTV tried to pull off was a laughable shadow of its British counterpart.
Culturally yours,
Rachel Leigh
Photo credits:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTYBodWpgle0hIMbsYTKZBIef1lk_al7HdSIl0M9y3YbcrKztrbOcs6rS6h_ljjHLyNVLRd4iLTTgeWdtjDvERAPRbmnP9ZaJmXw828mlGSCHE33zQT4n42ELHwRHwuXRjuQ_h43CcT9hr/s400/skins-cast-nagy.jpg
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOULGUtYct73gRdOX-Vqi0l4R-2m0WmNU-oxEkc1fmGUQ_PoZMromuPK7GvPTRjtj-ntC0VXmpVc7JF6hN-zfRfCS35S1EyeAIdVrEmTwJIwr2n5Q1Ni39Krh0I1AFyKy4qk60OpDARib6/s1600/article-0-0CA776D4000005DC-732_634x429.jpg
But really, what drew me in when it comes to Skins was the way they portrayed people my age. Yes, the show was racy and definitely a lot more wild than my life (or anyone that I knew, really) was at the time. But after years of seeing the 16-19 year-old years treated like nothing more than bad grades, shopping trips, and shenanigans learning to drive, it was amazing, to me, to see a show that portrayed its teenage characters as complex, autonomous characters.
The characters in Skins had the complicated backstories that are often associated with much more adult stories -- neglect, abuse, loss, joy, family. They also had real, complex problems -- depression, suicide attempts, eating disorders, bipolar disorder, anxiety. Skins was the first show I ever watched that treated my generation more like adults than children. And it made me feel less alone.
The characters in Skins made real, complex decisions and those decisions had consequences. Even now, with the final series and the reboot of some of the original characters in the specials Fire, Rise, and Pure, the characters, who have aged since the last time we saw them (Effy Stonem, for example, is now working for a high-powered investment bank instead of wreaking havoc on her high school/college), are facing adult issues with real consequences. And I'm excited to see where it all heads. In the meantime, I'm glad there is at least one show that presents adolescence as something more complicated than just that awkward time between when you're a little kid and when you become a full-fledged grownup.
I am speaking, of course, to the UK version of Skins. The American adaptation that MTV tried to pull off was a laughable shadow of its British counterpart.
Culturally yours,
Rachel Leigh
Photo credits:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTYBodWpgle0hIMbsYTKZBIef1lk_al7HdSIl0M9y3YbcrKztrbOcs6rS6h_ljjHLyNVLRd4iLTTgeWdtjDvERAPRbmnP9ZaJmXw828mlGSCHE33zQT4n42ELHwRHwuXRjuQ_h43CcT9hr/s400/skins-cast-nagy.jpg
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOULGUtYct73gRdOX-Vqi0l4R-2m0WmNU-oxEkc1fmGUQ_PoZMromuPK7GvPTRjtj-ntC0VXmpVc7JF6hN-zfRfCS35S1EyeAIdVrEmTwJIwr2n5Q1Ni39Krh0I1AFyKy4qk60OpDARib6/s1600/article-0-0CA776D4000005DC-732_634x429.jpg
Friday, July 5, 2013
On R-E-S-P-E-C-T
I've been thinking a lot about respect recently. It started with a video about the influence of teachers and made me think about why I respect those who have taught me and why others fail to respect them. I've thought about respect for feelings and respect for boundaries. I've thought very deeply about respect for king and country (or, well, I mean, I don't live in a country with a king, but I think you know where I'm going with that).
I've thought about what it takes to earn my respect. If you do not treat me like a child, I will respect you as an equal who deserves the adult they have deigned to acknowledge. If you accept that I have clear boundaries -- physically, emotionally, psychologically -- then I will respect that their are lines that you may also not want me to cross.
But those are the things it takes to earn my respect. And I've also started to wonder if that, too, is a flawed concept. Because in expecting you to respect those needs, the only reason I can cite is that I am a full, complex human being, deserving of respect. But then so is everyone else: full, complex human beings who, while I may not understand their positions, have reasons and origins as complex as mine and just as deserving of being respectfully heard out.
And, I suppose, what I've come to is something of a middle. On the one hand, I feel like there are positions and opinions undeserving of respect. On the other, however, people are not simply their views and opinions.
What I guess I'm trying to say is that, while I have always seen respect as something earned, I'm beginning to question if that's the right way of seeing things. Does respect for a person have to entail respect for their beliefs or choices? If not, are there people undeserving of respect?
I'd be lying if I said I knew.
Thoughtfully yours,
Rachel Leigh
I've thought about what it takes to earn my respect. If you do not treat me like a child, I will respect you as an equal who deserves the adult they have deigned to acknowledge. If you accept that I have clear boundaries -- physically, emotionally, psychologically -- then I will respect that their are lines that you may also not want me to cross.
But those are the things it takes to earn my respect. And I've also started to wonder if that, too, is a flawed concept. Because in expecting you to respect those needs, the only reason I can cite is that I am a full, complex human being, deserving of respect. But then so is everyone else: full, complex human beings who, while I may not understand their positions, have reasons and origins as complex as mine and just as deserving of being respectfully heard out.
And, I suppose, what I've come to is something of a middle. On the one hand, I feel like there are positions and opinions undeserving of respect. On the other, however, people are not simply their views and opinions.
What I guess I'm trying to say is that, while I have always seen respect as something earned, I'm beginning to question if that's the right way of seeing things. Does respect for a person have to entail respect for their beliefs or choices? If not, are there people undeserving of respect?
I'd be lying if I said I knew.
Thoughtfully yours,
Rachel Leigh
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)