Challenging Patriarchy?: Once Upon a Time

In John Fiske’s breakdown of gendered television he looks into soap operas specifically and their characteristics of “having a serial form which resists narrative closure” and “multiple characters and plots.” To Fiske, both of these are important aspects and affect the way in which femininity is read. Soap operas can challenge the patriarchal standard that much of television revolves around for while a, “a wife’s extra-marital sex is evaluated both patriarchally as unfaithfulness” it can also be seen as, “a woman’s independence and right to her own sexuality” (Fiske 181). Fiske discusses the appeal of “Man-ipulators” and “the villainess” in soap operas as women seeking power that goes against the patriarchal norm in both society and television. It is not only men that these strong women seek to control, but “feminine passivity” as well. Thus, while television such as Charlie’s Angels has patriarchal influence (in that the three powerful women are guided by this male voice), soap operas and their lack of narrative closure and multiple plots allow for this sense of patriarchy to be constantly put under interrogation (ibid 197), for they can offer both the obedient mother image as well as the villainess, satisfying all viewers while never giving the audience a definite conclusion.

In reading Fiske’s article and relating it contemporarily, I thought of ABC’s Once Upon a Time. While this show is not a soap opera and does not abide to the characteristics Fiske notes, it does fulfill the desires of all in having both a heroine who is moral with a hint of badassness and a villainess who controls the town and takes what she wants. This show, as Fiske mentioned, can be read as both challenging to the patriarchal norm and abide by it as well. There is the protagonist who did not know her parents and is independent, free of male influence, along with the villainess who wields her sexuality in getting what she wants and runs the town which nurtures the ideal of challenging patriarchal norms. Yet while that is so, similar to Charlie’s Angels, there is Rumplestilskin behind everything who seems to control all, reinforcing a sense of patriarchy. I think this is a clear example of texts being polysemic, with producers offering multiple dynamics to the audience so that they may find something which suits their desires.

Patriarchy?

    

All About the Hipster Lens

Admittedly, I've never seen an episode of New Girl so I can't really say whether I like it or not, but I can say that I'm just so annoyed with the popularity of the hipster attitude and an "adorkable" female character. The only reason Zooey Deschanel is so famous right now is because pop culture is so into this hipster ideal. She might be an okay actress but she is by no means a ground-breaking feminist by popularizing cute quirky girls. Why does the quirky girl have to be cute anyway? It's obvious that the show would be a total flop if Zooey's character was just a dork and not actually physically attractive, so I think all these claims about it being a feminist show are pretty contradictory. While I can appreciate Fox's effort in creating a show where there is a female lead, I think it's kind of pathetic people are making such a big deal about it. It shouldn't have to be considered weird or innovative that a show can have a female lead.

In that sense, why aren't more people making a bigger deal about Tina Fey/Liz Lemon on 30 Rock? It may be a few seasons in, but it is still so successful and far more groundbreaking than New Girl ever was or will be. Perhaps we're just over the fact that the female lead can be dorky, funny, and smart, not just "adorkable".

Hate the Zooey Haters.

I don't think I knew that people hated on Zooey Deschanel so much until I completed our readings for the day. WHO HATES ZOOEY DESCHANEL?! I fell in love with this adorable little weirdo during her brief stint in Almost Famous, and perhaps that's where she started her journey into being as "indie" as she is oftentimes labeled. I just don't understand why people have such an issue with the fact that she IS indie, "adorkable," and seemingly innocent. I mean, to be totally honest, while she does fall into particular roles because she clearly fits the mold, from the few episodes of New Girl that I've seen, I think that she and Summer of 500 Days of Summer are practically polar opposites.

I remember watching the first episode of New Girl and thinking, "Wow. This should be interesting. Watching Zooey Deschanel in a role where she doesn't seem supremely confident." And that's one of the reasons that I kind of enjoy the show. In 500 Days of Summer, that seems to be Summer's problem -- she's so confident, but just doesn't necessarily buy into the idea of true love and thus ends of leaving poor Joseph Gordon Levitt heartbroken. It's interesting to see her flip the coin: Jess is quirky and childish, sure, but Deschanel pulls that off well too! I don't really buy into the idea that the show is "anti-feminist" to be totally honest and part of that might stem from the fact that I'm such a strong supporter of her as an actress in general, but what all of these articles seemed to hit on was that Jess seems to be "weak." She's not weak though, she's just girly, and it's refreshing to see a character like Jess on TV again. So what if she gets guidance from her three guy roommates? She's admittedly fallen flat on her face after having found out that her boyfriend was cheating on her (which seems pretty reasonable to me) and is simply picked up by her new friends. It seems pretty standard; no stereotypes seem to be reinforced in my opinion and Deschanel doesn't seem to play into some "damsel in distress" character. She can stand up for herself, just as Summer does, and when she needs to get down to business, she can be a bitch.

(I'm also just realizing that Zooey is in my two favorite movies after writing this post...hate the haters.)

"New Girl" - No problemo

From what I can tell from the preview "New Girl", I would have to say that the show seems pretty interesting because it's characters seem to delineate from usual stereotypes. Yesterday was the first time I had heard of the show, and after reading all these articles and watching the the preview, I am confident in saying that I do not think that "New Girl" is offensive or demeaning to women. I understand where the argument can be made. In the article "Is New Girl Secretly Feminist?", Zooey Deschanel is viewed in a negative light because she is seen as someone immature and dependent on male figures to teach her the way. Other critics of Zooey point out that she is merely another character learning the ropes to becoming the ideal woman by adhering to societal believes on what she should do and what she can't do.

Before "New Girl", my only experience with Zooey Deschanel is in her role in "500 Days of Summer." As other articles have pointed out, a perfect epitome of a "hipster" or "indie" pixie girl. I really don't see a problem with Zooey repeating her role as someone who is seen as different, because at least it's a deviation from the romantic comedy castes that we see so often. I just read a pretty interesting article talking about romantic comedies. It's written by a Chloe Angyal, editor of a blog called Feministing, working on a doctoral thesis on romantic comedies. The ironic thing is that when she was writing this article Chloe was going through her own breakup with her perfect boyfriend who had apparently dumped her the day before Valentines. She found herself acting like the characters on romantic comedies:

"You might think you're above the influence of these movies, that you're too savvy and cynical for your expectations and ideas to be shaped by them. I certainly thought I was, and maybe you are - but you're probably not. Romantic comedies shape the beliefs and expectations of even the most cynical and media-savvy among us, especially when they catch us at our most vulnerable."


After reading this article, I first must applaud her for putting together a rather in-depth analysis of romantic comedies, but more importantly I think Chloe has evoked the question of "How much of what we watch, is what we come to expect?" 

I think that Zooey being a quirkie indie kid is not a bad think, instead celebrates that not all women are alike. Here is her critic of Romantic Comedies which I found to pretty spot on:

"This wouldn't be a problem, of course, if romantic comedies depicted women and men, and sex and love, in a positive and realistic way. But they don't. Romantic comedies teach us that a woman's life is empty and meaningless without a man, and that any woman who believes she is happy being single is simply lying to herself. They teach us that love is only for straight white people –- skinny, beautiful straight white people, at that. They teach us that men are sex-crazed, commitment-phobic animals who have to be manipulated into romantic relationships, and that when a man really loves a woman, he'll demonstrate his feelings with grand gestures that barely skirt the line between love and stalking."

In other news, I found these articles to be just as interesting because of the questions that arise....

Should equal physical requirements be applied to women in the Military?
http://jezebel.com/5876787/should-lady-marines-get-a-break

How do these anti-feminist organizations still exist?
http://jezebel.com/5885338/a-warning-to-whorish-girls-that-theyll-never-find-a-husband

A very interesting perspective. My strange roommate my freshman year had a fleshlight, and I think subconsiously all of my friends including myself had this internal debate.
http://jezebel.com/5884727/dildos-for-dudes-in-defense-of-boy-toys

Just posted ---- "Lack of Females Roles....still going on, like today"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PH8JuizIXw8

Forget the Virgin/Whore Dichotomy...Welcome to the Sweet/Bitch Split

I actually like Zooey Deschanel, and I even sort of like hipsters (begrudgingly)...but I think "New Girl" is highly problematic in its portrayal of Jess and her relationships with her roommates.  I think that it is wonderful that Jess is not a glorified sex object on this show, unlike other clips we have watched in class like "Are you there Chelsea?" however, it has gone in the exact opposite direction and made her appallingly infantile. I've only watched the trailer for this show, but even in the trailer the way that she speaks and interacts with people is so unbelievably childish that it actually made me wonder if she had a legitimate social disorder. So, she is not a sex object, but instead she is a six year old girl in a grown woman's body.  Her "quirkiness" is in actuality a refusal to grow up and be an adult.   I do not watch this show but based on the description of the characters of Jess v. Julia, if the writers truly wanted a real woman, they would combine these two characters and have it. Through these two female protagonists it seems as though a new version of the virgin whore dichotomy is emerging: the sweet/bitch split or something like that. You can either be a sweet childlike doormat, or a corporate working class bitch, but God forbid you are ever both. This idea is then echoed in Deschanel's discussion of how her character "Summer" is perceived by modern audiences.

Summer is established as the classic Manic Pixie Dream Girl (sweet), and then when she instead decides to be a real person with her own wants and needs, is branded a bitch by modern society. The minute she isn't the perfect, giving, sweet childlike woman she is a horrible selfish bitch instead. When in actuality she should be viewed as a real person with her own wants and needs beyond those of her boyfriend.

I want to finish this blog post with a quote from "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" because I think the film, and this line, is an incredible example of what modern media should be moving towards in its portrayal of women: a fully realized, fully flawed, real person. Who is sweet, a bitch, and everything in between. But most importantly exists for herself instead of the enjoyment of men.

Clementine: "Too many guys think I'm a concept, or I complete them, or I'm gonna make them alive. But I'm just a fucked-up girl who's lookin' for my own peace of mind; don't assign me yours."

Why Do I Enjoy New Girl?

I agree with literally everything that Sonia Saraiya says in "Is 'New Girl' Secretly Feminist?". I don't like the fact that I like New Girl because the main character Jess drives me up the wall. For example, not being able to say the word penis, or in the most recent episode, saying that she is "twirly" instead of being horny. However, I find myself enjoying the show for how she interacts with the guys in her apartment and how they interact with her. I also find myself disagreeing with the first article. As we discussed earlier there is a "knowingness" that they portray with Schmidt. Although he is sexist, he is sexist in an embarrassing way so we laugh at him and the audience knows it's not right. There are also a few moments in the show where you see a nicer side of Schmidt that you can connect with. So you are connecting with the positive and mocking the negative side of the character. I believe the show is feminist because there is a give and take relationship. Jess is too infantile and the guys are teaching her not to be. However, Jess is not always the one being pushed around. In the Christmas episode she convinces to the guys to go knock on doors at 2 in the morning to ask people to turn on Christmas lights. Jess may be obnoxious but she is also a strong character. I may not like the fact that I like the show, but people should not be angry because the show isn't feminist.

New to New Girl

Before completing the reading on Zooey Deschanel and New Girl, I had watched half of one episode, so I really had no opinions either way on the show. After reading the articles, I gathered some conflicting view points, and I wasn't sure which side I should agree with. So, I decided to watch an episode on Hulu to gain further insight. I chose the episode "Naked" mentioned in one of the articles, and I thought it was hilarious. I thought there were several great characters that each brought something different to the show. However, I could still find bits and pieces of both arguments that were made. From the first article, they made a point that the show relied on themes of "Big Boys teaching the Little Girl how to be a "woman."" In the article "Is New Girl Secretly Feminist?", they talk about how Jess is heavily infantilized. I thought these were interesting points that tie back into the impossible beauty standards placed upon women. Women are supposed to be youthful and innocent, and the fact that Jess can't say the word 'penis' really highlights that. Also, in the interview with Liz Meriwether, she mentions that Fox totally supported having the unique, odd, quirky, etc. girl as the lead to the show, but how odd is she really? As mentioned in "Is New Girl Secretly Feminist?", weird or not, she's still a "hipster goddess." In the first article, they point out that she is "clearly attractive by Hollywood standards." Perhaps this is why Fox supports Jess' character so much?

On the other hand, I felt that Jess was a very independent girl who gave just as much back to the boys as they gave her. While the guys were trying to help her with her awkward run in with Nick, she was trying to help Nick with his situation as well. Maybe it's from my limited knowledge about the show, but it seems like Jess definitely does her own thing, and she I'm not sure she should be so heavily criticized for being cute. I feel that Meriwether makes a valid point when she states, "That people equate being girlie with being nonthreatening... I mean, I can't think of a more blatant example of playing into exactly the thing we're trying to fight against." To me Jess seems confident and comfortable in her own skin, and what's wrong with that?

Tonight, I remain undecided, but hopefully tomorrow after watching some more clips and having a discussion I will be able to form a better opinion of which side I'm on.