Sex Education’s New Show in Season 3

Posted on by Former Student
Season 3 | Sex Education Wiki | Fandom
Sex Education’s Season 3 Promotional Poster

I remember waiting for the third season of Sex Education to come out – I was reposting the promotional posters on my story on Instagram and sending it to my friends. When Sex Education finally came out, I was surprised at how different this season was from its previous seasons. Sex Education started as a show navigating the life of Otis, whose mother is a sex therapist. Because of this, Otis has learned the techniques of how to talk to someone. He then tries this at school with an unexpected friend at the time called Maeve. As a result, they both start making this a regular thing after success. Moving on from this, in season 3, the sex therapist students are not quite as much in this picture but are rather dealing with Moordale’s new principal Headmistress Hope who moves Moordale in a backward way, removing self-expression and promoting heterosexuality, while shaming anything different. Cal and Headmistress Hope are two of the new characters this season, and they are complete opposites, to say the least. Hope’s backward idea of how to run a school is a great reason to show why such classes like GSS exist.

One episode in particular that struck me was a scene from this seasons Ep. 4:

(Video won’t seem to load so here’s the link: https://youtu.be/VGID85R1LTA)

Firstly, this scene I want to talk about in particular. Prior to this scene, Headmistress Hope tells Viv, her student assistant, to tell the people of Moordale to separate themselves into two lines based on their gender. However, because Cal is non-binary, they don’t separate themselves into a line and have an argument with Hope. Cal then goes on to say “So we go to the vagina or penis line? Is that what you’re saying?” This itself shows how bent Hope’s thinking is: there are only two genders and that it depends on your genitalia. For centuries, we have always decided to look at someone’s genitalia and say “They are a boy” or “they are a girl,” and it’s time we step away from this disgusting perspective. 

Sex Education Season 3, Ep. 4. Screenshot from video stated

Focusing more on this scene, the boys get a talk about homophobia and stating that homosexuals have a higher chance of getting an STD. Meanwhile, the girls are getting a talk about how sex is scary and can ruin your life. Maeve, one of the earliest main characters, however, tells the group speaker of the girls group that sex isn’t and shouldn’t be scary. Maeve gives a progressive speech suggesting that students should instead see that sex gives them insight into their body, like what they like, and that girls shouldn’t be the only one getting the talk of “sex is a mistake because it leads to unwanted pregnancy.” This ties into the idea of Foucault where the idea of sex shouldn’t be talked about and that people should be shamed for having these ideas and thoughts. And, further in this episode, the students of Moordale are scared because they’ve been involved in sexual activities prior to this meeting and that their lives could be in danger just because of what they’ve been told. Society makes sex seem as a bad thing and that only bad things will happen if you engage in the act of sex, but nothing will happen if you go about it in a safe direction.

Sex Education" Episode #3.6 (TV Episode 2021) - IMDb
Sex Education Season 3, Ep. 6

Another interesting part of season 3 lies within episode 6. Hope decides to publicly shame students who caused a bad reputation for Moordale. While she shames 3 students, Lily, a student who writes sexual stories about aliens and such things, and Cal in particular are shamed for being themselves. To explain, Cal is told that they are a messy troublemaker when all they have done to “disrespect” Moordale is ask for equity. Cal is constantly reminded by Hope to fit in a certain category by her forcefully putting labels on their gender when they are non-binary, but never lashes out against Hope. For Lily, she is told that she has brought shame to her peers with “dirty and disgusting words,” which comes from Lily’s sexual fantasy stories. Again, especially for teenagers in high school going through puberty, students should not be shamed for having sexual desires. Additionally, the idea of fantasies and fetishes shouldn’t be shamed either. Lily is a great character at showcasing these fantasies and, earlier in the season, Lily used to wear makeup and style her hair to indicate this love for her fantasies. 

Season 3 was something entirely different, but I did enjoy it. It helps show how different people are from one another, and that we shouldn’t be putting others down for having differences or looking different. We should be encouraging these differences and seeing how much more a society could be if individuality was promoted. Sex Education does a great job in this season to showcase this.

All About That… One Body Type

Posted on by Former Student
All About That Bass Official Music Video

I love Meghan Trainor’s song “All About That Bass” in which she is apparently encouraging women to embrace their curves and hating on the idea that women should be “stick figure, silicone Barbie dolls.” The message that she is conveying, though, could actually be counterproductive to a societal norm of recognizing beauty in all body types. 

Firstly, the message that Trainor is sending through her lyrics is that female bodies are inherently sexual and that women should embrace their curves because “men like a little more booty,” which apparently makes the woman in the image below (a stereotypical, skinny, pretty, white woman) very uncomfortable.

She additionally says that she has “all the right junk in all the right places,” meaning that she has curves, or fat, in places on her body that are generally considered attractive and/or sexy, probably her ass and her breasts. This is especially prevalent in the music video for the song where many of the dance moves are very butt-focused, like in both the screenshots of the video above and below. This line makes it seem as though Trainor believes that there is a right place for fat on a female body and that fat should enhance a woman’s sexual features. The idea of women being fat in only specific places on their bodies in order to be more sexually attractive is definitely not a fat positive or feminist stance on female bodies. Fat can be considered sexy in any place in the body, from the belly to the back to the cheeks to the ankles, and Trainor is unfortunately just enforcing another impossible stereotype for women. 

Also, fat should not be seen as something sexual, neither should a lack of fat. Human bodies are made for so much more than sex, and female bodies in particular are seen so often in culture as symbols of sex, and being a fat sex symbol is no better than being a skinny one. Trainor uses the idea that men like fat asses to make fatness seem acceptable. Telling women that men like a specific trait and that makes it a good trait is certainly not a feminist idea. I should be allowed to live in my own body without having to justify my beauty by saying that men think I’m sexy so it’s ok.

One lyric from this song talks about “skinny bitches,” who the woman in heels below is a symbol for, and definitely gives a negative connotation towards skinny women, implying that being fat is better than being skinny. In this way, Trainor is trying to impose a new standard of beauty that is just as unattainable for some people as being super skinny is by shaming skinny women. “Skinny shaming” should not be a substitute for fat shaming, we shouldn’t be shaming anybody about their body type!!

The cast of the music video is also problematic. Trainor and her four main backup dancers, seen below, as well as the other female presenting dancers in the video, are all pretty much the same body type, and they aren’t even fat! 

In a song that is supposed to be about empowering fat women, having a bunch of women who, while they might not be stick thin, certainly aren’t fat, play as if they are fat is incredibly damaging. Additionally, Trainor has two young girls in the video, seen below, who are very thin, sending a message to the young girls who watch the video that this is the ideal body type for their age.

The only truly fat person in the video for a song ABOUT BEING A FAT WOMAN is the MALE presenting dancer below who doesn’t even get much screen time.

In a society that shames fatness, telling women that very mid-sized people are the fat people in our world completely discounts a whole group of people AND makes mid-sized people think that they are fat, which is damaging in a world that shames fatness.

In addition to the lack of size representation in the music video, the lack of racial representation is prominent, too. Depending on what you consider “dark-skinned,” there are no more than three dark-skinned people, one of them being one of the children, one of them being a backup singer (most of whose face is covered by a wig as seen below), and one of them being part of Trainor’s main group of backup dancers, in a cast of about 14.

None of these cast members get much screen time. The range of skin colors is very slim. There are only two male presenting cast members in the video, and the white man below is meant to represent a potential Ken-Doll-like boyfriend type for Meghan Trainor.

So, the main takeaway I get from the combination of the lyrics and the video from All About That Bass is that white (and sometimes black) women should strive to have big butts, avoid being skinny, avoid being fat, and to do all of this in order to be sexually appealing to conventionally attractive white men. Definitely not the fat power anthem that we need.

Miss Independent: Ne-Yo

Posted on by asmiller

My song that I would like to add to out classes feminist mixtape is Ne-Yo’s song titled “Miss Independent”. In the song, Ne-Yo is singing about a beautiful woman who seems to also have her life together and is able to take care of herself. In the song, Ne-Yo is singing about a beautiful woman who seems to also have her life together and is able to take care of herself. This ties back to what I learned about feminism because if I am not mistaken, a key vocal point of modern feminism is the independence of women all around the world

In the song, one of Ne-Yo’s lyrics states, “Cause she walk like a boss, talk like a boss”, these lyrics from the song places a woman in a light of being what Ne-Yo refers to as a “boss” meaning that she is clearly very powerful and possesses abilities to reach heights that woman have not typically been prone to reach due to their history of being discriminated against and seen as lesser than a man. Another lyric from the song “Miss Independent” states, “Kind a woman that wants you but don’t need you”, this lyric from he song exemplifies this woman Ne-yo speaks of to be so into her independence that yes, she can want you to be with her, but she does not need you to be there for any kind of support other than to be in a relationship with you.

I believe this song can speak volumes to the feminist culture and put a light on women’s independence and gaining a role to where women are not being seen as weak or lesser than a man. So in conclusion, “Miss Independent” by Ne-Yo would be an excellent addition to our Feminist Mixtape.

No-Product Day Challenge

Posted on by asmiller

I decided to take part in the No-Product Day Challenge where I willingly chose not to use any of my daily products that are typically a part of my daily routine before I leave my dorm for class. When I first heard of this challenge I had many reactions. My first reaction was understandably, “What? These people are crazy if they think I am leaving my dorm with no hair products or deodorant”. Another reaction I had was that the challenge actually seemed pretty easy to do and that no one would even notice if I did the challenge so at that moment I decided to try it. 

My normal enhancing products that I typically use are deodorant of course, then things like my facial cream, lotion, and oil for my hair to keep it moisturized along with a mousse to better hold the curls in my hair. I use these products because they are what I do to take care of hair and skin but also because I want my appearance to be presentable for people to see. I did indeed go without all of my usual products and while it did feel weird to forgo using any of my usual products, it was honestly mostly freeing for me. At first I was a little bit worried about how people would look at me or if they could smell I wasn;t wearing deodorant, But honestly after getting no noticeable reactions from people, the challenge felt much easier. 

The deodorant was definitely the hardest for me to go without, it was extremely challenging to not worry about smelling bad without reassurance from the layer of deodorant I usually have on. My hair product was definitely the easiest thing to go without, some days I just get lazy or forget to put it in my hair anyways so, this was pretty easy to live without. When I was ready to leave this morning, I kept thinking to myself that I forgot to do all these things and that I wasn’t presentable for the outside world just yet. I was surprised to receive no reactions from the people around me, I thought more people noticed when I didn’t do part of my daily routine, but to see that I barely did half of it and no one seems to notice was astonishing to me. I genuinely expected everyone in the class to turn and all eyes to be on me as if everyone was either judging me for looking uglier or telling me that I smelled awful because I wasn’t wearing deodorant. I learned that you don’t need a whole bunch of products and a whole bunch of extra stuff to make you look good, but I will be going back to using deodorant. 

The Tragedy of Heterosexuality by Jane Ward

Posted on by kapatel

The “norm” for sexual relationships in the 21st century has become increasingly diverse, reflecting shifting social attitudes and greater acceptance of different relationship styles. While “traditional” monogamous, heterosexual relationships are still common, a broader spectrum of relationships has gained visibility and acceptance. Nonetheless, individuals in the LGBTQ+ community continue to face significant challenges, including discrimination, stigma, rejection, and even hate crimes. This heightened focus on LGBTQ+ struggles can sometimes overshadow the challenges faced by those in heterosexual relationships. While issues of queerness are frequently discussed and acknowledged, the struggles present within heterosexual relationships often go unspoken, partly due to the assumption that these relationships are inherently easier and free of complication. In The Tragedy of Heterosexuality, Jane Ward explores the complex realities that heterosexual relationships trap women in: endless loops of sexism, toxic masculinity, and disappointment.

Ward argues that heterosexual women endure forms of gendered and sexualized violence, highlighting that these are often even more pervasive than those faced by queer people. According to Ward, the emotional, physical, and sexual violence women experience within heterosexual relationships underscores the oppressive nature of these partnerships. She suggests that heterosexual relationships often lack feminist ideals, with an unequal division of labor and limited space for women’s autonomy and fulfillment. This gendered suffering, Ward notes, mirrors that of queer individuals, yet without the benefits queer communities might offer—such as humor, solidarity, or more fluid sexual expression. In her analysis, Ward questions whether men and women are genuinely attracted to each other or if they are compelled to conform to heteronormative expectations, which often trap women in relationships that lack emotional or sexual satisfaction. Many women, she observes, consent to sex that they neither desire nor find pleasurable, reflecting a broader issue within heterosexual frameworks that can feel alienating or even hostile. She contends that this “tragic” state of heterosexuality arises from social norms that fail to instill empathy, affection, or respect for women in men, leaving women with relationships that fall short of the emotional and relational depth that heterosexual love is presumed to offer. Through a feminist and queer lens, Ward critiques the ways traditional gender norms perpetuate these patterns, calling for solidarity between queer people and straight women as misogyny is challenged within heterosexual frameworks.

American scholar, feminist, and author, Jane Ward is known for her work focusing on gender, sexuality, and queer theory. Her research and writing critically examine the social constructs of heterosexuality, whiteness, and gender norms, often challenging traditional views on these topics. In 2003, she earned her PhD in sociology from the University of California Santa Barbara and is professor and chair of Feminist Studies there. Ward’s research spans the intersections of feminist theory, queer theory, gender politics, and straight culture with a particular focus on how these frameworks reinforce societal norms. Her interests also include examining heterosexual culture and the marriage self-help industry, where she critically assesses how these institutions shape people’s expectations of relationships and gender roles. Her three major publications The Tragedy of Heterosexuality, Not Gay: Sex Between Straight White Men, and Respectably Queer: Diversity Culture in LGBT Activist Organizations offer a critical exploration of sexuality, gender norms, and identity politics. Together, they provide nuanced insights into the complexities of straight culture, the performative aspects of masculinity, and the impact of diversity practices within LGBTQ+ activism, challenging conventional understandings of both queer and heterosexual identities through a feminist lens. Her work has gained attention in both academic and public spheres, with media features in The New York Times, BBC, and NPR, making her a notable voice in feminist and queer studies.

Ward approaches The Tragedy of Heterosexuality with a queer feminist methodology, analyzing heterosexuality through the lens of gender politics, power, and cultural expectations. Her background as a scholar in sociology and gender and sexuality studies, combined with her focus on critical heterosexuality studies, lends her a unique perspective that examines heterosexuality not as a natural default but as a socially enforced norm. Ward uses her training to draw on a wide range of sources, including interviews, historical texts, popular media, and personal narratives, to explore how societal norms influence heterosexual love. Ward’s argument includes discourse analysis of self-help literature and media targeting heterosexual women, as well as ethnographic and critical discourse analysis methods to understand the lived experiences within “straight culture.” Her expertise makes her viewpoint credible, as she deconstructs heterosexuality using queer and feminist theories to reveal its often unexamined impact on women’s well-being. Ward’s background allows her to view heterosexuality from an outsider’s perspective, offering readers a fresh perspective that challenges the assumptions and power structures underlying straight relationships. She critically examines popular advice literature on relationships, dissecting how they often reinforce limiting gender roles and perpetuate problematic behaviors in heterosexual dynamics. Ward’s approach is rigorous and layered, offering both theoretical insights and practical examples. Her methodology effectively illuminates the disparity between romantic ideals and the often less-than-ideal reality many women face. Ward’s blend of qualitative analysis and cultural critique provides a strong foundation for her argument, pushing readers to critically evaluate societal investment in traditional heterosexual norms and consider how these structures might evolve.

Ward’s book’s strengths lie in its insightful analysis, as she challenges heteronormative narratives that often go unquestioned, including widely held assumptions about love, romance, and traditional relationships. Ward’s assessment provides an accessible introduction to gender studies, making complex theories on sexuality and relationships understandable for those new to the subject. By engaging with contemporary culture, she connects her analysis to current issues, showing how modern media and social norms influence our perceptions of romance. Additionally, her focus on gender equality in relationships highlights the importance of mutual respect, illustrating how traditional norms can harm both partners in a heterosexual pairing. These strengths make the book a powerful tool for examining deeply ingrained beliefs and promoting a more balanced understanding of modern day relationships. However, the book also has some weaknesses. While Ward expertly diagnoses the problems with heterosexual culture, she offers fewer practical solutions, which might leave readers unsure about applying her commentary in real life. Additionally, some critics find her portrayal of heterosexual relationships overly negative and generalized, potentially alienating readers whose experiences differ. Lastly, her focus on Western notions of heterosexuality may feel restrictive, as it does not account for the diverse expressions of relationships and gender norms worldwide. Critics suggest that the book could benefit from a more diverse sample of heterosexual experiences, particularly across different cultures and socioeconomic backgrounds.

This book offers a thought provoking and well argued analysis of the impact of traditional heterosexual norms, pushing readers to rethink assumptions about gender roles and relationship dynamics. Ward’s insights push for a more equitable view of romance and partnership, making this book especially valuable for those interested in gender studies, sociology, and cultural critique. The Tragedy of Heterosexuality has sparked diverse reactions among scholars. Many commend her incisive analysis of heterosexual culture and its inherent misogyny. However, while Ward’s stance is widely recognized for its depth and originality, discussions continue regarding the nuances of her arguments and their broader implications. Audiences such as students, educators, and anyone curious about the social constructs of relationships would find this book beneficial. Additionally, those seeking to understand or improve their own relationship dynamics might appreciate Ward’s perspective, even if they do not agree with every point. By provoking critical thought on familiar topics, Ward offers readers a chance to examine and redefine their own expectations of love and partnership in today’s world.

Sources

Ward, Jane. The Tragedy of Heterosexuality. New York University Press, 2022.

A Disection Into A Feminist Anthem

Posted on by manunez

On April 13th, 2024, No Doubt performed one of their most iconic songs “Just A Girl” at the Coachella Music Festival, 29 years after its initial release. Following their release, “Just A Girl” received positive reviews from multiple music critics and later “Just A Girl” became a feminist anthem for many feminists. Through its satirical lyrics, Gwen Stefani portrays the struggle it is to be a woman in America. Although released in 1995, “Just A Girl” is a song beyond its years. 

In the first clip that can be found on YouTube, Gwen Stefani is seen standing in front a red  crashed car: 

Gwen Stefani, a woman, standing in front of a crashed car is a metaphor for the common misconception that women are bad drivers. These sexist notions have been surrounding society for decades and yet, they hold no truth to them. Men are twice as likely to get into a fatal car crash (Kelly). 

While Gwen Stefani is standing in front of a crashed car, the lyrics that follow are: 

[Verse 1]
Take this pink ribbon off my eyes


I’m exposed, and it’s no big surprise


Don’t you think I know exactly where I stand?


This world is forcing me to hold your hand

The “pink ribbon” being removed from Gwen Stefani’s eyes is symbolism that displays the lies of womanhood. The pink color is a mask of the truth that hides behind the reality of what it is being a woman, constantly being suppressed and undermined. Pink is chosen to criticize the stereotype that pink is a “girl color”. These gender color assignments did not begin until the 20th century. Originally, pink was a color for boys and blue was a color for girls because, “pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl” (Grannan). Which is contrary to the modern notion that pink is “girl” color.  This proves that colors should not be associated with a specific gender. 

 In Gwen Stefani’s lyrics she is being forced to hold hands which displays the patriarchal standards of women being forced to be with men to “have” a role in society. Often times, especially in the 90’s women are more recognized and treated with respect if they have a man by their side. Stefani shuts down and criticizes these widely held beliefs that women are worthy only if they are with a man. 

[Chorus]
‘Cause I’m just a girl, oh, little old me


Well, don’t let me out of your sight


Oh, I’m just a girl, all pretty and petite


So don’t let me have any rights

The use of the words “little”, “pretty and petite”, illustrate the societal view of women being seen as dainty and fragile. This ideology makes it difficult for women to progress when they are limited by being viewed as defenseless and needing a man to make any progress. 

[Post-Chorus]
Oh, I’ve had it up to here

[Verse 2]
The moment that I step outside


So many reasons for me to run and hide


I can’t do the little things I hold so dear


‘Cause it’s all those little things that I fear

“So many reasons for me to run and hide” displays the fear that woman constantly face when they are alone. Society has created woman to be afraid of so many things because of what many men have done to women such as rape, murder, etc. The inability in pursuing a normal life highlights the difference between a man and a woman’s day to day life. A man can do anything he wants without fearing for his safety, whereas a woman cannot. 

[Chorus]
‘Cause I’m just a girl, I’d rather not be


‘Cause they won’t let me drive late at night


Oh, I’m just a girl, guess I’m some kind of freak


‘Cause they all sit and stare with their eyes


Oh, I’m just a girl, take a good look at me


Just your typical prototype.

Stefani continues her song by demonstrating strict rules she must follow because she is a female. Because she is a female, she cannot drive late at night. It is incredibly common to be stopped by your parents from going out late at night because you are a woman. Being from a Hispanic household, I would have to beg my parents to let me drive out late. I always knew that if I was not a female, there would be no issue with me driving out at night. These sexist ideologies founded in multiple households do not end with a singular restriction. There are still multiple restrictions that girls from a young age must face because of their gender. These restrictions are even more so emphasized if they are from a non-white household. 

Throughout the video, Stefani is seen in an orange and cyan room with two ladies in blue dresses in a corner. Images of a men’s bathroom in black and white also flash throughout the video. Gwen Stefani is separated from the men’s bathroom which is dirty and grimy which is a foil of the clean bathroom with the two ladies to create symbolism of how society treats women like overly emotional creatures. Stefani stays in this clean bathroom throughout the music video to stay true that Stefani is “safe” in this restroom away from the rest of the world. 

In the end of the music video, both sides (the dirty bathroom vs the clean bathroom) come together to display that woman can handle the “dark parts” of the world, just like men. 

The enduring power of “Just A Girl” by No Doubt lies in its ability to capture the persistent struggles and stereotypes women face, even decades after its initial release. Gwen Stefani’s poignant and satirical lyrics, coupled with the vivid imagery in the music video, highlight the societal constraints placed on women and challenge these outdated norms. 

The song’s performance at the 2024 Coachella Music Festival underscores its timeless relevance and continued resonance with audiences. Through “Just A Girl,” No Doubt not only crafted a feminist anthem but also a cultural critique that remains strikingly relevant in the ongoing discourse on gender equality. The song and its accompanying visuals serve as a powerful reminder of the progress made and the journey still ahead in dismantling gender stereotypes and advocating for women’s autonomy and rights.

Works cited: 

Kelly, J. (2015, May 27). The Kelly Law Team. Phoenix Personal Injury Lawyer. https://www.jkphoenixpersonalinjuryattorney.com/whats-that-about-women-drivers-better-think-again/

‌Grannan, C. (2016). Has Pink Always Been a “Girly” Color?. In Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/story/has-pink-always-been-a-girly-color

Discovering the Secrets of Aristotle

Posted on by balopez

Aristotle and Dante Discover the Secrets of the Universe is a young-adult fiction novel written by Benjamin Alire Sáenz, a Mexican American author. The book was published on February 21st, 2012, and was later adapted into a movie released on September 8th, 2023. The story follows two Mexican American teenagers living in El Paso, Texas in 1987

The main characters are Aristotle Mendoza and Dante Quintana who become friends instantaneously after meeting at their local swimming pool. Aristotle also becomes close with Dante’s family and finds comfort in their emotional availability. About a year into their friendship, Dante is beaten in a hate crime for kissing another boy. Aristotle then retaliates physically against the perpetrator. Between these events, both boys go through identity revelations that are crucial to the development of their friendship. In this analysis I will focus on the book version of Aristotle’s character and how assumptions about gender, race, and sexuality affect his portrayal.

Both main characters are considered to have unusual names especially for their time, the late 80’s. When Aristotle first meets Dante, they bond over how uncommon their names are. Dante has completely accepted his name whilst Aristotle prefers to go by a nickname, Ari. Here we are presented with the feeling Aristotle knows all too well, discomfort regarding his name. There are many things in Aristotle’s life that pain him to think about, his identity is at the root of these issues. Teenage boys are often expected to be ‘tough’ and to not outwardly express their emotions but rather suppress them for the fear of appearing ‘feminine.’ 

Unfortunately, Aristotle has grown up seeing this modeled by his father. His father is a Vietnam War veteran with PTSD which deeply impacted his levels of emotional availability for Aristotle. There is no ill-intentioned behind his actions or toxic masculinity agenda his father is attempting to push, but the effect is still detrimental to Aristotle’s psychological development. Here is an example of an argument Aristotle conjures up:

“Obsession, Dad? You know what I’ve learned from you and Mom? I’ve learned not to talk. I’ve learned how to keep everything I feel buried deep inside of me. And I hate you for it” (218).

Having internalized this behavior, Aristotle struggles to navigate the sentimental aspect of his friendship with Dante. He struggles to comprehend how Dante can be so free and in touch with his emotions while also remaining ‘fierce’ and ‘strong.’

“I didn’t understand how you could live in a mean world and not have any of that meanness rub off on you. How could a guy live without some meanness?” (23).

This ‘meanness’ that Aristotle views as a necessity to survive in the world is another belief he has cultivated based on stereotypical gender norms for teenage boys. The concept of ‘silent strength’ is what hurts young boys the most. While Aristotle views this as a defense mechanism, it does the opposite for his mental wellbeing. He finds himself unable to sympathize for Dante when he is feeling hurt, this creates a strain on his end.

“Dante was crying again. And I felt mean because I didn’t feel like crying…I was harder than Dante. I think I’d tried to hide that hardness from him because I’d wanted him to like me” (50).

Dante is frequently used as a foil for Aristotle. Their family dynamics juxtapose one another, specifically in levels of intimacy. Mr. Quintana and Mr. Mendoza are stark opposites. Dante and his father are much more openly affectionate and involved in each other’s lives unlike Aristotle and his father. Their mothers, on the other hand, are relatively similar in terms of providing wisdom. 

“Dante and I were cursed with parents who cared. Why couldn’t they just leave us alone?” (103).

Having involved and caring parents truly benefits children in the long run. As Aristotle and Dante begin to explore and come to terms with their sexualities, the support of their parents becomes invaluable. 

“I think you love him more than you can bear.”

“Dad? Dad, no. No. I can’t. I can’t. Why are you saying these things?”

“Because I can’t stand watching all that loneliness that lives inside you. Because I love you, Ari.” My mother and father watched me cry” (288).

They exist in a politically tense climate for queer individuals because of the AIDs crisis of the 1980’s. Homophobia is extremely prevalent and at an all-time high. As previously divulged, Dante is a victim of a hate crime when he is caught kissing another boy in an alleyway. Aristotle’s rage spirals out of control and he accosts Julian, the perpetrator, at work and beats him. This response was expected from all the years of harbored emotions that have mutated into rage, an effect of the ‘suppression’ gender norm. These events are a breakthrough for Aristotle’s family as they begin to reconvene and heal together from the years of silence.

Community and race are one of the final overarching topics in the novel. Not being ‘Mexican enough’ is a huge talking point for Dante that confuses Aristotle. This is yet another foil between their characters. 

“They don’t like me. They think I’m—well, they think I’m a little different. They’re really Mexican, you know. And I’m sort of, well, what did you call me?”

“A pocho.”

“That’s exactly what I am. My Spanish isn’t great.”

Aristotle feels secure and in touch with his Mexican culture while Dante feels very distant from it. Dante not speaking Spanish (well) is a very common attribute that leads to stratification within Mexican American/ Chicano communities. As a result of this Dante has developed an inferiority complex towards other Spanish-speaking Mexican American teenagers, like Aristotle. The pride of such tight knit Hispanic population in Texas can make the divide feel much greater. Ultimately, Sáenz accurately depicts many challenges faced by both queer persons and/ or Latino’s back then and now.

References

www.latinotimes.org/2024/05/anti-latino-discrimination-created-the-no-sabo-generation/: Discovering the Secrets of Aristotle
www.history.com/topics/1980s/hiv-aids-crisis-timeline: Discovering the Secrets of Aristotle

Read the book instead of watching the movie, it’s significantly better.

White Chicks: Comedy or Crude?

Posted on by namorris

As time has progressed and we as a society have developed, there are many films and depictions that used to be enjoyable that have now been found and called out to be incredibly offensive to various groups. Movies, shows and clips that were once found to be funny and lighthearted are recently being scrutinized for their disgustingly racist, sexist and overall inappropriate natures. One movie in particular, I will admit I watched, enjoyed and laughed at, is “White Chicks.” I would call this a “problematic favorite,” in the words of Dr. G, since there is so much wrong with this movie, yet it is still so laughable and funny. It was impossible to pick a single scene or moment from it to reflect on, but rather felt it necessary to address the film in its entirety, as well as the creators/actors and their continuous support of the film’s plot line and nature.

“White Chicks” YouTube Trailer

https://youtu.be/aeVkbNka9HM
https://www.netflix.com/title/60034587(link to stream the film on Netflix)

If you have yet to watch this movie in its entirety, I will give a brief rundown. This 2004 film revolves around two adult black men physically dressing up and impersonating two young blonde, white women in a silly effort to stop them from being kidnapped. Throughout the movie the two impersonators are very clearly not white women and, in fact, more resemble Michael Jackson in my opinion. Despite the painfully obvious fact that the two men are not the Wilson sisters, bystanders seem to be completely blindsided when they are revealed to be imposters, which I assume was supposed to add to the comedic value. I was shocked to find out that this movie received a rating of 4.7/5 stars on Google ratings, with very few statements popping up in the search regarding the offensively weird nature of this “comedy.”

Main characters before and after their “transformation” https://inewsnetwork.net/7881/arts-entertainment/white-chicks-is-it-offensive/

The weirdest thing about this film is that its crude and offensive nature is not just a single scene or joke, but the entire point and plotline that is fully defended by the creators to this day, even in this time where cancel culture is so incredibly prevalent. In an interview with Entertainment (https://ew.com/movies/marlon-wayans-defends-white-chicks-slams-cancel-culture/) the writer and director of the film, Marlon Wayans, pushes against the “cancel culture” and makes a statement claiming that the people that should be offended are the ones laughing the loudest (the “white chicks.”) However, I feel the movie is not only crudely offensive on the race level, but also in terms of gender. The men essentially pretend to be trans, and I feel like they very poorly represent having “male features” as a woman and just poke fun at the fact that they have features like big hands and feet or a larger butt since that is a sort of physical stereotype for African Americans.

The New York Times recently posted an article on the movie, which included some historical background on the practice of “whiteface” and defended why it is not on the same level as blackface. “While blackface has minstrel roots, whiteface arises from a different impulse. Often employed in comedies, the practice enables Black people to pass as white, putting them in proximity to the believed benefits and privileges the skin tone provides… the practice not only gives the infiltrator a financial and social advantage, it allows the racial passer to upset the perceived stability of racial identity.” The New York Times defended the film claiming it did have educational value, specifically in scenes showing the privilege the two men gain when in costume as the wealthy white girls. Another scene that I also agree shows something educational is when the two guys are dressed up in the car with their newfound white girl friends. When an explicit song comes on, the guys accidentally slip up and sing along using a racial slur. The girls all turn in shock to which he replies “So? Nobody’s around.” After coming to the agreement that no one is there to stop them, all the girls begin to shout the slur with no remorse, showing the fact that they only care to be inclusive and non-offensive when it is in public and helps their image.

(https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/25/movies/white-chicks-anniversary.html)

Another portion of the film that is seen by some as educational and eye opening is Spencer, a straight black man, unknowingly pursuing “Tiffany” who is actually a black man in costume. Even the New York Times article on “White Chicks” states that Spencer’s blind pursuit of the imposter Tiffany “destabilizes his own assumptions about what defines manhood and whiteness.” While this movie seems to be purely hypothetical and comical, in a literal sense this romance raises a few questions in terms of sexuality. Can he really consider himself straight after pursuing a man the entire time? Would this be comparable to pursuing a transgender woman or is this a different story since the “transition” is purely dress up and not a pursuit of self-searching?

Overall, it is very much up in the air whether this movie leans on the funny educational side or if it’s just downright offensive and weird. Either way, it has come to be considered a cult classic by many and continues to be defended by the creators and many fans alike. With all that said, regardless of personal opinions, I do not see this movie being publicly cancelled anytime soon as I believe it would have already occurred.

Violence and Homoeroticism- NBC’s Hannibal

Posted on by vicorzocastillo

Thomas Harrison’s franchise has had many life-action adaptations from novel to screen over the years, one of its most ambitious was NBC’s Hannibal. Until then, most adaptations had focused on Hannibal the character, and/or Clarice Starling due to the cult classic Silence of the Lambs. NBC didn’t have rights to Silence of the Lambs and, therefore, no access to Clarice as a character. Showrunner Brian Fulmer adapted by giving many roles that Clarice fulfilled to Will Graham. 

The main focus of NBC’s Hannibal is our two main characters’ relationship. Will Graham, an FBI agent who can empathize with killers to catch them, and Hannibal, a serial killer and cannibal with a manipulative streak. Throughout the show, other characters constantly refer to their increasing closeness and the effect Hannibal has on Will. This influence is framed as Hannibal teaching Will about a new side of himself and guiding him towards it, this new side being violent. This could be seen through a queer lens: Hannibal and violence are so intrinsically tied that as Will becomes more attracted to his darker, more violent side, he is also more attracted to Hannibal as a person and as a killer. Many events happen that further exemplify this, but I wanted to focus on the final episode, the culmination of the show and of Will’s “becoming”, “The Wrath of the Lamb.”

In this scene, near the start of the episode, Hannibal alludes to Will taking part in the murder of another character. His tone is prideful, but not towards Will, but towards himself. He sees Will’s violent and manipulative actions as a result of him- as evidence of how he has marked Will. Will refuses to comment as if he is aware of this. Hannibal then turns the conversation towards Will’s newfound family. Will married and even gained a stepson after Hannibal’s arrest and their separation mid-season. Throughout the series Will was characterized by his “otherness”, not just when it came to his relationship with Hannibal but also his general demeanor. He has described himself on a spectrum “closer to Asperger’s and autistics and narcissists and sociopaths.” The show doesn’t delve too much into this, but it serves the point that Will isn’t “normal” and he is vividly aware of it. This new life he has, away from Hannibal and away from his FBI work, is the best life a heteronormative audience would expect: a life with a wife and kid- away from the man who is implied to have feelings for him. It is almost framed as Will’s marriage fixing him and the effect Hannibal had on him.

Hannibal then says, “When life becomes maddingly polite, think of me, Will.” Here Hannibal refers to himself as another option for Will’s life. Rather than a supposedly peaceful life, he could come back to Hannibal and all the violence and acceptance that comes with him. Rather than being with his wife, he could be with him. Will responds by placing his hand on the glass that separates them, an act that shows that he reciprocates Hannibal’s intent to a certain extent, that he too yearns to be close again. Kind of. 

This scene sets up the big decision Will has to make in this episode, and the whole series, to be with Hannibal or not. Removing all the murder, this can be seen as a portrayal of compulsive heterosexuality in the way Will tries to reach normativity by marrying a woman and fitting society’s expectations of what a man should be. While the show frames Will as trying to run away from the violent impulses Hannibal brings forth it can also be said that he is trying to flee the feelings he feels for Hannibal in the way he touches the glass- wanting to get close while still keeping distance.

Start at 1:29 if embedding goes wrong

At the very end, we have Will helping Hannibal escape from prison and them fleeing to a house where they are ambushed by a killer called the Red Dragon. After killing the Red Dragon, Will and Hannibal embrace while covered in blood. This scene is the most vulnerable we have seen either of these characters and it is violent. The way they hold each other and even the way they look at each other through the fight- it is all raw emotion. It is reminiscent of the season 2 finale, only that instead of Hannibal grabbing Will, Will is grabbing Hannibal and even resting his cheek on his chest. Both still involve them holding each other while making their feelings known, but these are differing feelings. The season two finale was all about Hannibal’s betrayal over Will double-crossing him in trying to turn him over to the FBI. The show’s finale is all about Will coming to terms with himself. With the bloodlust he feels, with Hannibal’s love, and his reciprocation.

It wouldn’t be right to say that one’s pension for violence is the same as one’s sexuality in any sort of way, but when it comes to defying society, thematically there may be some give, especially when it comes to Will. To Will, Hannibal is violence itself and he is attracted to both. This may seem problematic to some but sometimes that’s what you need. Sometimes you need to see someone struggle with themselves as much as you do. It is not a new argument to say that queer audiences are attracted to horror. In an article by Medium, Gil Hatcher writes about NBC’s Hannibal, “…It’s the unconditional understanding that you are not a monster despite what the world may say that can bond so many queer people and it’s why many of us see Hannibal and Will’s relationship as a queer love story.” When in the eyes of society you are seen as a monster, you feel an attachment to other “monsters” in media. Brian Fuller, Hannibal’s showrunner, is a gay man and has been open about the queer themes within Hannibal. Obviously, he doesn’t speak for all queer people. People can see Hannibal and Will’s relationship and be offended at the tie between violence and homoeroticism within it, and they’d be right. It isn’t “good” representation, but it is many people’s reality. Many like Will feel “othered” so they need an out, for Will that’s Hannibal, for others it’s seeing that conflict between them on screen. Both are right, neither are wrong, that’s the beauty of media and representation, all sides can and are seen.

(watch Hannibal it’s a real good show it’s like an 18-hour art film)

Hani and Ishu’s Guide to Fake Dating: A Story of Discrimination

Posted on by stsaenz

People are always grateful to see representation in media. The representation people seek can depict anything about a person’s identity, whether that’s related to sexuality, ethnicity, disabilities, etc. That being said, I think it’s equally as important to represent more unpleasant things that tie into identity– discrimination.

Hani and Ishu’s Guide to Fake Dating was published in 2021 by Adiba Jaigirdar, a Bangladeshi-Irish writer. It follows two girls, Humaira (on the left) and Ishita (on the right), who conjure a plan to “date” in order to gain something in return; Humaira wants her friends to accept that she’s bisexual, and Ishita wants to gain popularity in order to win Head Girl at their school. Though their relationship began as nothing but a plot for their own personal benefit, the girls end up developing feelings for one another and are in a real relationship at the end of the novel. It’s a story about acceptance, growth, and romance, but also about homophobia, toxic relationships, and xenophobia.

In the novel, we are introduced to Humaira’s group of friends– two girls named Aisling and Dee– who are what one could call “sheltered white girls.” In chapter five, they attempt to introduce Humaira to a boy, and, albeit begrudgingly, she gives the boy a chance. At the end of the date, Humaira still finds herself uninterested in the boy and claims this is because “right now, all men seem overwhelmingly attractive” (pg.36).  When she tells her friends she’s not interested in boys at the time and eventually that she’s bisexual due to the pressure she’s feeling, her friends react rather poorly.

“Have you even kissed a girl?” Aisling asks. 

“No,” I mumble. Unfortunately, I have kissed way too many boys —most of them unpleasant experiences.

“Then how can you say you’re bisexual?” Aisling asks. (p.36)

In this scene, Aisling denies Humaira’s sexuality because of her lack of experience with women, claiming that there’s no way she can be sure if she’s never been with a girl, which eventually leads to Humaira claiming she’s dating Ishita. Her subtle homophobia is surprisingly incredibly realistic. It’s represented in a way that isn’t explicitly homophobic, but rather a microaggression. A microaggression is described by a casual, minute action or phrase that communicates derogatory or aggressive attitudes towards minorities. Unfortunately, it’s a common experience to have your own identity opposed and be met with microaggressions, and Aisling is a clear example of this issue. This issue leads many people, including Humaira, to feel unaccepted and generally uncomfortable around people they were meant to be safe around. 

This one example isn’t the only example of Humaira’s friends’ controversial dialogue. Later, in chapter seventeen, Humaira and Ishita are at Dee’s birthday party. Dee decides she wants to play a drinking game at her party and claims that everyone must play because it’s her party. Humaira, however, tells the group she can’t participate because of her religious beliefs.

“I’m Muslim … I don’t drink,” I say finally. There’s silence for a moment, as if this is the first time everyone in the room has realized that I’m Muslim.

“Yeah, but you’re not that kind of a Muslim,” Dee says after a beat of silence. “You don’t even wear like the…” She makes a circular motion around her head. To indicate a hijab, I guess. (p.108)

At this point, Dee has not only expressed her biphobia, but her xenophobia as well. By saying Humaira is “not that kind of a Muslim,” she is grouping Muslim people into a certain stereotype and excluding Humaira from that group because she does not fit Dee’s image of what a Muslim person looks or acts like. This, again, can be viewed as another microaggression Humaira faces due to her friends. She is, once again, being denied of her identity because she does not follow Dee’s image of what a Muslm is. To Dee, a lack of one religious practice (in this case, wearing the hijab) means that she does not follow the religion, or at least she does not follow it to the extent that other Muslim people do. It’s a subtle act that is invalidating and overall disturbing, especially to those who can relate or understand.

Showing all sides of reality is a good thing, especially in media mostly catered towards younger audiences. Jaigirdar represents every part of being queer and identifying with something that is not considered “the norm” in an area. Though it’s something important to you, it will always be scrutinized by others, whether it’s welcomed or not. The novel shows this discrimination in a way that is realistic and displeasing, but so nice to see represented. Though they face constant hardship and prejudice, the novel is still such a sweet and short read that I personally would highly recommend, especially to queer people and/or people of color.

A Christmas Story

Posted on by ormikelakis

What would someone expect to see in a Christmas commercial? Family dinners, lavish gifts, warm smiles, hugs, and kisses with loved ones. And if the ad is about your favorite whiskey, then surely it should involve elegant men playing poker or roulette to start off the year right? J&B Rare, a renowned whisky company in Spain, took a different approach in advertising their Diageo Scotch whisky, moving away from the ‘macho’ stereotypes that whiskey commercials often embody. J&B Rare is original in presenting a Christmas story called “She”, about a trans woman who reveals her gender identity in front of her family during a Christmas family dinner with the support of her grandfather. The story succinctly addresses the reality of many LGBTQ+ individuals who choose to be absent from family dinners due to the discrimination and repudiation they face from their families. In the words of J&B’s marketing director Ursula Mejia Melgar, “it’s a story about the search for a place of comfort and acceptance, like family, for a love that overcomes any prejudice or social barrier.”

J&B Rare’s advertisement “She, a J&B Tale,” for Diageo Scotch whisky

The protagonist is an old man in a rural village in the mountains of Spain, who is preparing to welcome his family for Christmas dinner. When his wife leaves her bag and her lipstick falls out, it becomes his secret desire. As the ad progresses, we watch him lock himself in the bathroom to try on lipstick, buy make-up and cosmetics under the suspicious and disapproving gaze of the saleswoman, and read female beauty magazines, all in an effort to become better at this craft. He has become so passionate about it that even at the bus stop he rashly brushes the eyelashes of the woman on the poster before anybody sees him. The lyrics of Elvis Costello’s song “She” echo in the background during this covert transformation. They speak of the figure of an enigmatic woman – in this case a trans woman – who embodies contradictory emotions and moods. That woman, “she”, may be “a trace of please or regret”, “the beauty or the beast”, “the famine or the feast” and most importantly “she is not what she seems in her shell”. All these words are meant to describe the duality and diversity of a person whose gender identity doesn’t necessarily overlap with their sex. A woman who can be “a hundred different things within the measure of a day” and who is “not what she seems un her shell”. 

The protagonist of J&B’s advertisement

Following the flow of the story, on Christmas eve, before going to bed, the old man looks at a family photo depicting him, his wife, and his grandson Alvaro. The following day when his relatives arrive for the Christmas family dinner, the grandfather discreetly takes Alvaro in a separate room and starts putting make-up on him– well, her.  Alvaro is welcomed to his new identity, Ana, in the affectionate and loving hands of her grandfather who helps her in expressing herself freely. Ana then presents herself to the family, flanked by her supportive grandfather. At first, there is silence at the table.  Then Ana’s father starts to tear up, her mother embraces her, and conjunction is achieved. The ad closes with the family happily celebrating and enjoying their drinks with the following quote on the foreground: “The magic is not only in Christmas. It is also in us.” This quote is the bread and butter of J&B’s ad as it neatly summarizes the key message that the directors try to evoke. Christmas and other family holidays are times to be spent with our loved ones and are often interlinked with the sense of inclusion, affection and acceptance found in a festive family setting. 

Ana

The Christmas story presented by J&B Rare is a heartwarming story between a grandfather and his granddaughter, that are united by love that is powerful enough to overcome any prejudice or barrier that may separate them. The ad gives visibility to the reality of thousands of people including the LGBTQ+ collective who seek a safe space to be and show themselves openly. It should be emphasized that it is very important that the main character supporting Ana is her grandfather, which is no small endorsement in a Latin family. The generational divergence is not a hurdle in the grandpa- granddaughter relationship showing that progressiveness and acceptance are values immune to time and stereotypes. Perhaps, the grandfather himself had a different gender identity but because of the stereotypes and norms of society at his time he was unable to express it leading to internalized suppression. Therefore, his unwavering support for his granddaughter could reflect an inner promise to himself, an unrealized need to show his true identity. In any case, the ad allows the viewer to perceive the meaning of the grandfather’s actions in their own personal way. 

The ad masterfully embraces the diversity of one’s identity, indirectly breaking the stereotypical linkage between gender, sex, and appearance. The lyrical gold of the song “She” coupled with the image of the old man wearing make up in secrecy, elegantly foreshadow the progression of the ad and evoke a clear message right from the start. It should be noted that this ad by J&B is a great example of “non-aggressive” idea promotion, in the sense that it subtly introduces transness and in a “socially respectful” manner that doesn’t give a lot of room for provocation. In latter decades, trans individuals were often misrepresented according to false stereotypes and often not represented at all since these ads would be deemed provocative or socially unacceptable. The ad shows great progress in the way trans individuals are represented on TV, which vastly improves their recognition, perception, and inclusion in society. It moves away from the typical overly masculine essence that whisky ads have, paving the way for more inclusive advertising from other firms with predominantly male audiences. 

Lemonade’s Celebration of Oneself

Posted on by lulieberman

Beauty standards and expectations about how people should act are omnipresent. They largely affect women, particularly Black women. These expectations and standards are perpetuated in various forms of media. 

Watching Beyoncé’s visual album Lemonade gives a much more comprehensive experience than simply listening to the album. The visual album is divided into 11 chapters, all with videos accompanying them. The music videos for each of the 11 songs in Lemonade are also in the visual album; the visual album incorporates a medley of references and cameos, including highlighting the prose of Warsan Shire. 

Beyoncé accompanied by notable individuals, including Zendaya and Amandla Stenberg, in the chapter “Redemption” while speaking Shire’s prose

Although much of the media is made with the white male gaze in mind, Beyoncé’s visual album Lemonade strays from this trend. Beyoncé tells her story from her perspective, how she wants to tell it, and narrates in the way she sees best fits. Women of color are victims of numerous harmful stereotypes in the media, such as the “angry Black woman” stereotype, and generally being portrayed as hypersexual. Black women are oftentimes minimized to be seen just as these harmful stereotypes, stripping them of their individuality. Lemonade shows Black women in more than one way. Beyoncé illustrates the diversity of Black women, smashing various stereotypical images down. 

Beyoncé allows herself and other Black women to express their emotions unapologetically within Lemonade. Women are generally expected to be composed, submissive, and suppress emotions. If a woman does express her emotions, she is often quickly labeled emotional or irrational. Black women expressing emotions are especially stigmatized. Beyoncé does not hide her emotions but instead showcases them. Each chapter’s title relates to emotion. The stages of emotion, as shown through the chapters, subverts the unidimensional view of Black women and successfully allows Beyoncé to illustrate Black women’s complexity. By showing the versatility of Black women, she defies the generally monolithic representation in the media. She humanizes Black women in the media by creating Lemonade and displaying emotions in a raw, exposed manner.

Beyoncé teary-eyed while singing “Sandcastles”

Throughout the visual album, Beyoncé does not shy away from expressing her anger to avoid the label of an “angry Black woman.” During “Hold Up,” Beyoncé is seen strutting down a street holding a baseball bat with a sly grin on her face. She releases her anger throughout the song, causing destruction, including smashing windows and battering cars. Her sheer fury continues to be seen in “Don’t Hurt Yourself,” where she continues to embrace emotions like anger that Black women are taught to subdue, labeling herself “the dragon breathing fire.” She has a right to be angry without worrying about how others perceive it. She exercises that right, illustrating that anger is a normal emotion that an individual should be able to express without being put within the “angry Black woman” trope. Later in the song, viewers can hear the anguish in her voice as she screams, “Tonight I’m fucking up all your shit, boy” while staring into the camera. She powerfully shares what she feels. It is much more normalized for men than women to express rage and anger, often even being labeled as a masculine trait. When women do express rage, they are quickly described as a bitch or crazy. She normalizes outwardly expressing anger without resistance from others.

Beyoncé smashing a car window in “Hold Up”

Beyoncé calls attention to how beauty standards have a greater impairment on women of color, including herself. Individuals portrayed in the media have been altered to fit beauty standards, so when viewers can not find themselves in the media- since anyone who once represented the viewer likely has been altered- it sends a message to the viewer that they are not good enough. In the chapter, “Denial,” Beyoncé shares how she resorted to trying to change: she fasted, wore white, tried to be prettier, grew her hair out, bathed in bleach, etc. Some of the ways she wanted to change herself to cope with feelings of inadequacy affect women regardless of race. However, many aspects of beauty standards constrict women of color disproportionately in comparison to white women. A lot of those have to do with the Eurocentric beauty standard and labels that women are supposed to conform to.

Beyoncé’s perception of herself and her identity evolve throughout Lemonade. By the end of the album, she has learned to embrace aspects of her identity that don’t fit the Eurocentric beauty standard. In the last song, “Formation,” she sings about how she likes her nose and her baby’s afro. She embraces aspects of her identity she once may have thought to be unsatisfactory since they did not align with the European beauty standard. The pressure to assimilate to fit beauty standards is not often talked about. Beyoncé’s honesty and vulnerability shed light on the problem. She admits to wanting to conform and then takes ownership of herself and her power.

Beyoncé and others powerfully dance during lyrics about embracing features in “Formation”

Beyoncé’s visual album Lemonade, is a work of art full of intention. From the outfits to scenery to poignant celebrity appearances, Beyoncé chose each aspect of the album to serve a purpose and can essentially all be analyzed. While Beyoncé does shed light on issues related to gender in Lemonade, that is only the tip of the iceberg of what she explores and sends messages about within. 

A critique of queer gender identity and expression in The Magnus Archives

Posted on by jemeehan

Definition of terms (Commonly used terms for mainstream queer identities are not defined and assumed understood by the reader):

  • Queer – Umbrella term for all non-normative expressions of gender and sexuality.
  • Mspec – Shorthand for multisexuality, an umbrella term for any attraction to more than one gender.
  • WLW – term for any romantic or sexual relationship between two women, regardless of sexuality. Vice versa for MLM.
  • Cissexism – The assumption of cisgender sex and gender as the societal norm.
  • Butch – Masculine presenting lesbian

A critique of queer gender identity and expression in The Magnus Archives:

The Magnus Archives is a horror anthology podcast, where each episode presents a statement of a supernatural encounter given to an organization called The Magnus Institute. The people giving the statement are referred to generally as statement givers. The central themes of the podcast revolve around power and complicity in institutionalized violence. This theme manifests in the majority of the cast, including the protagonist, becoming inhuman to some degree as they unintentionally or not work towards the goals of the eldritch gods of primal human fears. This context is relevant to my critique of the show, as the inhumanity of queer characters is not necessarily poor representation where it would be in other media, and likewise this aspect does not absolve the show of critique for its portrayal of queer characters. 

The Magnus Archives is overall a show with a highly diverse cast, and has significantly more queer representation than its contemporaries. The main character, Jonathan Sims, is clearly stated in-text to be asexual and biromantic. Over the course of the show, a relationship develops between Jon and his coworker Martin, who is gay in-text. I put emphasis on the textual mention of these identities, because many modern media tend to leave queer relationships and gender expression sub-textual, which allows the fandom to dispute the canonicity of these identities. This can be seen in basically any trans woman in any media ever, and many modern depictions of lesbian pairings. This occurs even when the subtext is not subtle, and/or has been confirmed by the creators outside of the text. See for example, Celeste (Trans woman protagonist), or Gundam: Witch from mercury (Lesbian protagonist married to another woman).
In addition to the protagonist’s homoromantic relationship, the main cast consists of Tim, a bi man, Georgie, who is m-spec, Melanie, a lesbian woman in a relationship with Georgie, as well as Daisy and Bassira, who have no textual stated sexuality but are substantially in a relationship. There are no straight members of the main cast, and a wide variety of sexual expression. While this level of queer diversity is not uncommon in the audiodrama scene, it is exceptional when compared to modern non-audiodrama media, and likely still has above average representation among the very queer medium of audiodrama. 

One may have noticed that every character mentioned as a member of the main cast is cisgender. While I give credit where credit is due, The Magnus Archives is not a perfect example of queer representation, and the majority of its issues center around the depiction of gender expression. I want to preface that the problems with The Magnus Archive’s representation of non-normative gender expression are a result of a cissexist society, and do not stem from any intentional bigotry on the part of the show’s creators. This does not make the issues any less relevant, but I don’t want it to seem like I am “canceling” Alex Newl and Jonathan Sims (Yes the protagonist and the show’s writer have the same name. Johnny is notoriously very bad at names).  

As previously mentioned, the majority of the cast is or becomes inhuman, however, the representation of WLW or MLM relationships and queer sexuality is both prevalent among the protagonists and prevalent in characters that retain their humanity, like Georgie and Melanie, as well as many statement givers. Contrast this with representation of trans and gender non-conforming expression. All of the main cast is cis, and the only gender non-conforming character on the main cast is Daisy, who I will get into later. Of the trans and gender non-conforming representation, all that is present with The Magnus Archives are four major villains, two who are sub-textually trans, and two statement givers.
I will start by addressing the transgender characters, textual and sub-textual. Nikola Orsinov is the main villain of season 3. She is an inhuman clown-mannequin entity who attempts to bring upon an apocalyptic event called “The Unknowing”. Nikola went by the name Grimaldi, with he/him pronouns, before she “killed” him and assumed the identity of Nikola.

ORSINOV 

Well, my father called me Nikola, and then I killed him, so I thought I rather deserved to have his second name too. Which makes me Nikola Orsinov. Pleased to meet you at last. (From: MAG097)

This is, likely unintentional, transgender subtext, and a reading of the text with trans coding for Nikola Orsinov is a very common interpretation within the fandom.

Next is Helen Richardson, or “The Distortion”. The Distortion is introduced in the show’s twenty sixth episode as an entity named Michael. It is a recurring antagonist that torments its victims by trapping them in non-euclidean architecture, and making them question their sanity. Michael is explicitly gender non-conforming, and asks to be referred to without gender identity.

MICHAEL
I am not a “who,” Archivist, I am a “what.” A “who” requires a degree of identity I can’t ever retain. 

In episode 101, Michael permanently transforms into the woman Helen Richardson, and exclusively uses she/her pronouns (in contrast to Michael’s use of both he/him and it/its). Helen is later killed by Jonathan Sims. Again this is a character who can very easily be read as a transgender woman, especially given The Distortion’s insistence on specific names and pronouns relative to their gender expression.

Among gender non-conformance, Not!Them is an agender entity and another significant villain, and Jude Perry and Alice “Daisy” Tonner are both masculine presenting cis women. Jude Perry is also textually lesbian and Daisy is sub-textually WLW. Jude is a minor antagonist and Daisy is a main cast member who assists but is explicitly antagonistic towards the protagonists (As well as a cop). 

There are two trans women statement givers out of the four hundred total statements, and both have their fates and suffering as a result of the transphobia, internal or external, that they experience. 

“This is Maeve’s nightmare. There is no other word for it. To be trapped unmoving within the body that has betrayed her so often. Feeling every sensation as it grows, and warps, and sprouts. Never knowing what new mutation it will visit on her next. She is unable to even hide. There is no promise of the peaceful sleep of the innocent dead, nor the dream of digital escape from the hell her body has come. She is here, and she is trapped within the same soft prison of skin she has always despised.” (From: MAG 170)

“I’d held some ambitions about directing myself one day, but it soon became obvious that that wasn’t going to happen. Maybe if I’d got a feature under my belt before I was outed as trans, it might have been different, but as it was, that revelation burned too many bridges. And when the dust had settled, it was made abundantly clear to me that I was never going to get a movie of my own, and it was either cinematography, or nothing.” (From: MAG 110)

While it is not unusual for the statement givers to suffer, it is a horror podcast,  Statement givers with queer sexualities are present in many statements without it being related to their misfortune.

Now that all the evidence is presented, my primary critique is the lack of non-antagonistic trans or gender non-conforming characters. I think the gender nonconformity of the show’s antagonists, or the queer-suffering of the trans statement givers, is fine in isolation. It’s only when compared with the multitude of human and not-evil cisgender characters with normative gender expression that these aspects become problematic. All the agender or non-binary characters being inhuman entities plays into existing tropes of alien or otherwise non-human non-binary representation in media. The two sub-textually transgender characters both evil and related to the two fear entities (“The Stranger” and “The Spiral”) centered around hiding one’s identity, deception, and tricking one’s perceptions, certainly play into the trope of the deceptive or predatory trans woman. The two trans women statement givers have their transness defined by their suffering, a common trope in media where queer representation tends to be centered around homophobia or transphobia, and there is no other textual reference to transgender people. Daisy and jude are both masculine women, a textual butch lesbian and sub-textual lesbian respectively, and they both are antagonistic. Jude is a leader in a cult centered around causing pain to others, and Daisy is associated with the fear god of “The Hunt”, the predator to one’s primal fear of being prey. This plays into tropes against masculine and butch women being depicted as aggressive in media, which is certainly the case here, and the characters also play into tropes of the predatory lesbian. While a harmful or toxic WLW relationship is fine to depict, again The Magnus Archive’s issue is having the masculine lesbians make up the aggressive and toxic partner in every toxic WLW pairing represented in the show.

These problems are significant but easy to solve. It’s likely that if the creators of The Magnus Archives had been more cognizant of their cissexist normative worldview, and of harmful tropes in trans and gender non-conforming character representation, these issues could have been avoided. Jonathan Sims has addressed the criticism towards Daisy’s character in the Q&A bonus episodes, and has stated that he would have written her differently if he had the chance to redo the show.  Everybody is influenced by the culture that they exist within. Cissexist and transphobic ideology permeates societal institutions and cultural thought. Trans people often need to deal with internalization of these norms, and it takes active effort to avoid writing your story through the lens of dominant cultural ideals.

It is clear that the creators of The Magnus Archives have taken an effort to address the issues with representation of queer gender identity and expression in the sequel series, The Magnus Protocol, which features a textually transgender character as the deuteragonist, and has already featured several trans and gender non-conforming statement givers in it’s currently thirty published episodes. Overall The Magnus Archives, despite its flaws, has some of the best queer representation in today’s media. It’s important to celebrate the strides that western anglophone cultures have made in the representation of queer characters, while acknowledging the work that still needs to be done to fully represent the diversity of human expression of gender and sexuality.

The disturbing truth about Ashley Madison & It’s advertising

Posted on by alengstrom

While researching for this project, I came across a particularly disturbing piece of media that I would like to share in hopes that you find it just as ridiculous as I did. The advertisement above is from a highly controversial “Ashley Madison” online website. This website promotes marital affairs by providing users with a means to interact with others online in a way the site claims to be private. The platform has put up many advertisements across multiple media sources such as YouTube, ads on public TV, and full-blown business ads since the site’s creation. These advertisements often are very objectifying towards women and likely invoke shame in both men and women and heterosexual couples, as well as individuals in non-straight couples. In this blog post, I will analyze how this website and these advertisements are harmful to the full spectrum of genders, sexual orientations, and races.

Ashley Madison was launched in 2002. And was marketed towards individuals who were married. The media above is one of the most widely used advertisements that Ashley Madison uses. The slogan above reads, “Life is short. Have an affair.” Additionally, the image of the woman to the right is wearing a wedding band while holding her finger to her lips, which suggests that the site is secretive and users won’t be caught by their spouses. The woman to the right is also thin, with unnaturally red lips, which promotes unnatural and unattainable beauty standards.

Unsurprisingly, the site has seen its fair share of controversy. The most notable of these controversies happened in 2015 when hackers breached the website’s security and published the users’ names, messages, and credit card information. The data breach also revealed that the site exaggerated the number of users by using fake bots to replace real women. 

Now that I have briefly discussed the history and some issues with this platform, I want to return to the piece of media I showed at the top of this blog. In this advertisement, two women are pictured. The woman on the top is skinny with a green checked box to the left of her, while the woman on the bottom is much larger with a red X in the box next to her. The two women are wearing almost the same outfit, and aside from their difference in weight, they have similar features. 

I’m honestly shocked at how effectively this advertisement oppresses almost every single group of people. Starting with the most obvious, the advertisement is clearly trying to express that obese women are less attractive than unrealistically thin women. This message is extremely harmful to people considered to be obese, and since the advertisement was made public, it is a certainty that obese individuals saw this ad. Additionally, both of the women in the advertisement are white. In addition to this, the name “Ashey Madison” is a caucasian name, which, again, promotes unrealistic beauty standards by suggesting that caucasian women are the epitome of beauty. Another way in which this media is harmful is towards non-heterosexual people. While the advertisement doesn’t explicitly state that the women included in it are straight, the website seems to primarily advertise itself towards straight couples in search of affairs, with little to no mention or inclusion of non-straight couples. 

Perhaps the most egregious part of this advertisement is how it portrays women. The ad suggests to men that if their wives are fat, they should have an affair with a different woman. This narrative objectifies women while portraying men as agents who are free and able to have intercourse with any woman they please. The objectifying nature of Ashley Madison’s advertisements does not stop here either. In this video advertisement, a woman is being recorded running. There is a scene in the advertisement in which the camera zooms into the woman’s breasts as she is running. It is unbelievable and saddening how frequently this site portrays women for nothing more than their physical appearance.

Since the creation of Ashley Madison, the site has received much attention and backlash. The company took a big hit after the 2015 data breach, leading to the company’s CEO stepping down and a significant rebranding of the website, with a big emphasis on changing the slogan for the company. However, this rebranding was short-lived, and in 2017, the site unretired the slogan “Life is short. Have an affair.” Unfortunately, the website continues to produce harmful advertisements, and the user base is only getting larger, hitting 60 million worldwide users as of 2019. Ashley Madison is a harsh example of how hurtful media can be in the present day, and it is important for all of us to realize and push back against harmful media for a better future. 

 Steele, Anne (July 12, 2016). “Ashley Madison Parent Rebrands Itself as Ruby Corp.” The Wall Street Journal.

Benitez, Juan. “Hackers Expose First Ashley Madison Users.” CBS News, August 19, 2015, www.cbsnews.com/news/hackers-expose-first-ashley-madison-users/. Accessed September 27, 2024.

Ashley Madison. www.ashleymadison.com/en-us/. Accessed September 27, 2024.

Sims, Bryan. “Ashley Madison Review.” East Bay Express, September 22, 2015, www.eastbayexpress.com/ashley-madison-review/. Accessed September 27, 2024.

“Ashley Madison – What We Know So Far.” YouTube, uploaded by hMYDDn44p7g, www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMYDDn44p7g. Accessed September 27, 2024.

Casciato, Paul. “The Five Worst Examples of Body Shaming Ads.” Dazed Digital, April 24, 2016, www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/31606/1/the-five-worst-examples-of-body-shaming-ads. Accessed September 27, 2024.

One Episode, Many Assumptions.

Posted on by solemus

The Office has been one of my favorite shows since seventh grade with its quirky and comical characters, interesting office side quests, and most importantly the Jam (Jim and Pam) romance. Though, it is no secret that this show contains a myriad of jokes and behaviors that are considered very inappropriate in today’s day and age. From watching it as a seventh grader compared to watching it within the recent years, I have gained a greater understanding of just what these jokes mean in relation to our society’s attitudes towards the LGBTQ community, sexuality, and gender.

Airing in 2006, The Office centers around Dunder Mifflin Paper Company, based in Scranton, Pennsylvania, and follows the lives, romances, and drama of the office’s members. Running the office is manager Michael Scott who is typically seen as the antagonist in instigating office drama with the support of his second in command, Dwight Schrute. The show is a comedy-based mockery of what an everyday office setting might resemble.

This picture represents the members of the office in The Office.

An episode in the series that exemplifies these inappropriate behaviors is Season Three, Episode One: “Gay Witch Hunt”. At the end of the episode prior to this, Michael Scott calls his accountant Oscar Nunez “faggy” in response to Oscar claiming he liked Shakespeare in Love more than Die Hard. When Toby Flenderson, the office’s human resources representative, questions Michael as to why he chose to use that word instead of calling Oscar lame, Michael replies by saying, “That’s what ‘faggy’ means!” There is a parallel between this statement and the information that is presented in Meg-John Barker’s Queer: A Graphic History, where she explains that in the 16th century English-speaking countries used “queer” to refer to “something strange or illegitimate” (Barker, 2016). The difference between using the F-slur or “queer” as an insult today versus hundreds of years ago is simply that humans know better. Society has been called out by the gay community for using these terms and it is time that we respect this simple request and stop promoting them in TV shows as a means of humor.

Even though Michael likely meant no harm in calling Oscar by this term, what he didn’t realize was that Oscar was in fact a gay man. Despite Michaels ignorance, there is no instance in which it would be ok to call anyone this word in a TV show, and especially not in reality. In an attempt to make Oscar feel less targeted, Michael goes on to defend himself by claiming that he had been calling people “faggy” since the second grade and then offers to take Oscar out for a beer to discuss how one “does that” to another guy. To Michael this may be a seemingly nice gesture but to one receiving this kind of offer it would seem violating and strange. No one, if not very few people, want to discuss their sexual lives and practices with someone. Definitely not with someone who just insulted your sexual orientation.

It isn’t just the previous instance in which an assumption about the gay community is made in this episode. When Michael inquires Dwight Schrute, his assistant manager, about whether Oscar appears to look gay, Dwight responds with, “Absolutely not…Well, he’s not dressed in women’s clothes, so…” The assumption behind this comment is extremely wrong and old-fashioned. Gay men do not need to dress like women to express their sexuality, and the same concept applies to gay women. It isn’t one’s choice of clothes, hairstyles, makeup, etc. that define their sexuality or sexual orientation. Though, it is something that is still widely assumed in today’s society when in reality people should be able to dress however they like without the worry of being misgendered or sexualized.

In another attempt to make amends to Oscar for outing him to the entire office, Michael calls a mandatory meeting. Michael seats Oscar in the center of the table with everyone surrounding him and says to Oscar, “Take this opportunity to officially come out to everybody here. However you want to do it. Go ahead. Stand up. I’m doing this for you.” Rewatching this I found it extremely annoying how Michael not only makes Oscar stand up to be re-outed in front of his co-workers, but the fact that he also claims how he was doing it “for him”. Coming out is something that should not be forced upon a person, especially not in an environment where they do not feel comfortable doing so or they are subject to judgement from peers. Though I personally do not have the ability to speak on what it means to come out, from what I can interpret it is something that is extremely special and freeing for a person who has been hiding their true identity.

To top it all off, as the finale to Michael’s attempt in making Oscar feel welcomed as a gay office member, he forcibly kisses him as a way of expressing how he accepts Oscar’s “gayness”. If one didn’t think all of Michael’s previous actions were bad, they most certainly would now. Michael didn’t just violate Oscar’s personal space, he also kissed Oscar without receiving consent. It shouldn’t take having to forcibly kiss a person to show them you accept their sexuality or gender, rather, one could simply treat the person as they would to any.

Image of Michael forcibly kissing Oscar. (Video link: https://youtu.be/UOGenYI3cs4)

After dissecting this singular episode, it has become exceedingly obvious that several of the characters in The Office are tremendously ignorant and have incorrect assumptions or attitudes towards the LGBTQ community, gender, and sexuality. This TV show is just one example of how producers in the early 21st century created humor by writing scripted jokes that aimed to mock the gay community or minorities. In 2024 there are certainly less instances in which TV shows exhibit this kind of behavior, but “a few” is not good enough when it can and should stop all together.

“Same Love” by Macklemore: Making Big Moves in the Music Industry

Posted on by chhansen

In the famous song “Same Love,” Macklemore and Ryan Lewis use powerful language and symbolism to encourage support towards same-sex marriage. This song was especially adopted in response to the February 2012 bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Washington. Along with a catchy melody, this song empowers people to stand up for what they believe in and not be afraid to voice their opinions. The fact that this media is a song adds to the impact of the lyrics, because music is a type of media that almost all groups of people can relate to. When singing these lyrics, the singer becomes an activist for the fight for social change that is expressed in the lyrics. 

According to the New York Times, “Same Love” was “the first song to explicitly embrace and promote gay marriage that has made it into the Top 40.″ A song like this with such a powerful message behind it changed the world’s views of the advocacy for same-sex marriages, and it created a space for people to stand up for what they believe in regarding this topic. One powerful lyric sequence from the song says, “No law’s gonna change us, we have to change us; Whatever God you believe in, we come from the same one; Strip away the fear, underneath it’s all the same love; About time we get raised up!” This section of the song encourages society to openly advocate for the right to embrace their own sexuality. The line “Whatever God you believe in,” is a powerful writing technique that draws in the religious listeners and says that no matter what religious upbringing you believe in, we were all made the same. 

This song also highlights the stereotypes that society has put in place about people being gay, and what being gay “should look like.” One lyric that exemplifies this is when Macklemore says, “A bunch of stereotypes all in my head, I remember doing the math like, ‘Yeah, I’m good at little league,’ a preconceived idea of what it all meant.” This passage from the song is a perfect example of social constructs of sexuality, and the biased stereotypes of gay people. The line, “Yeah, I’m good at little league,” represents the preconceived notion that men who are good at sports are straight, and men who are not into sports are gay. This idea is completely false, and it completely disregards the idea that sexuality is a spectrum to which every person’s experiences with it are different. This song fights for the idea that you are free to be your authentic self, and there are no rules for what that might look like. 

Additionally, one of the reasons why this song sent such a strong message to society at the time is because it strongly opposes the offensive and hurtful comments that are casually made by society about gay people every day. For example, one line explains, “If I was gay, I would think hip-hop hates me. Have you read the YouTube comments lately? ‘Man, that’s gay’ gets dropped on the daily.” This passage from the song does a great job holding people accountable for uninformed comments that are made by people both in the media and in everyday life. Using the phrase “Man, that’s gay” as a negative thing is extremely homophobic and hurtful to gay and queer people all over the world. Another factor that makes this message so powerful is that Macklemore has a wife and is not gay. This represents the idea that straight people can stand up for gay-rights, and it should not be something that is stigmatized by society. 

Although this song mainly focuses on the advocacy of same-sex relationships, it also touches on a few other issues presented in society. Macklemore argues that, “It’s the same hate that’s caused wars from religion, gender to skin color, the complexion of your pigment.” This presents the argument that if you are against racism and hate towards different religions, your views on sexuality should be no different. Everyone has the right to be who they are, and Macklemore explains that sexuality is just another part of what makes us who we are. 

Lastly, the chorus of the song, “I can’t change, even if I tried,” sends the message that being gay is not a choice that someone decides to make during their life. Like gender, sexuality is a wide spectrum, and there are no rules for what that looks like for each person. You are born with attraction towards certain traits, and that is something that is deeply rooted in us. That is simply the way that people are made, and hating on others for what they love should never be justified. As a whole, this song does a beautiful job expressing some of the thoughts and feelings that we as a society should be open to voicing in support of same-sex marriages. 

Mulan: Warrior or Wife?

Posted on by mibeato

Similar to most girls, I was captivated by Disney princesses’ perfectly styled hair, the way their dress moved while they danced the night away, and of course, their happy ending with the prince of every girl’s dreams. What I failed to realize was that societal norms, such as expectations of gender and sexuality, were being covertly imposed upon me. One example of this is the Disney film Mulan, which tells the story of a girl who disguises herself as a man to take her father’s place in the Imperial Army, ultimately saving his life and the entire nation of China. Mulan’s heroism and nonconformity inspired many girls, including myself, teaching us to defy expectations and be true to ourselves. However, while conducting a deeper analysis of this film, I recognized its shortcomings and accomplishments in the execution of these messages. 

A central topic in this film is gender and the way society portrays it. The gender roles of the depicted time period and culture are made evident early on; women are expected to become wives, while men are expected to be warriors. Mulan challenges these standards by posing as a man so she could fight in the Imperial Army. In the scene titled, “Becoming a Warrior”, Mulan alters her appearance by cutting her hair, wearing armor that broadens her figure, and binding her breasts, which is revealed later in the film. This shows the emphasis that is placed on appearance when distinguishing between genders. Moreover, it demonstrates that gender is both culturally implemented and fluid. Through these minimal changes, Mulan was able to pass as a man and conceal her femininity, despite being raised within rigid gender roles. This film succeeds in showing the importance of discovering and embracing one’s identity, even if that entails defying societal gender norms. 

A snapshot of Mulan cutting her hair from the scene “Becoming a Warrior” (link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Magj6z-Ex8 ).

Another idea that the film Mulan explores is gender roles in terms of sexuality. The strict and traditional gender norms of this society are also present within their romantic relationships. Heterosexual, cis-gendered relationships are the only ones present, and the notion of a dominant male with a submissive woman is emphasized. For example, in the song “A Girl Worth Fighting For”, the male soldiers discuss their ideal wife and claim that their motivation for fighting derives from the desire to obtain a partner who fits these submissive standards. Even though each man has different requirements, they all agree that they want a partner who will praise them and think they “have no flaws”. All while failing to consider other attributes, such as the intellectual capacities and ambitions of their future wives. Through this, the film reinforces the power dynamic and ideals of a heterosexual relationship. It appoints the man as the authority figure capable of molding his partner and the woman as the subordinate with no noteworthy characteristics beyond her ability to please her husband.

“A Girl Worth Fighting For” with Lyrics

Possibly the most complex reference to gender and sexuality in this film is the portrayal of the relationship between Mulan and her love interest, Li Shang. Their connection slowly develops throughout the movie; however, it begins while Mulan is disguised as a male soldier. Some argue that their bond is purely platonic until her true identity is revealed. While others argue that there is underlying sexual chemistry from the start, thus indicating a dynamic outside of heterosexual norms. Many overlook the intricacy of this trope because the audience is aware that it is a relationship between a man and a woman, despite Mulan’s misleading appearance. The creators of Mulan include Li Shang’s homosexual attraction towards Mulan’s male persona, recognizing that it would avoid controversy and be perceived as heteronormative. 

Another way to analyze the romantic storyline of this movie is how it affects Mulan’s nonconforming narrative. Mulan is raised within a society where her only role is to become a wife; instead, she challenges these norms by excelling in battle, a traditionally male-dominated realm. She goes through extensive efforts to carve her own path and reject the expectations of her culture, yet her conquest ends with a typical “fairytale ending”. In film’s closing scene, Mulan’s grandmother, Grandmother Fa, states, “Great. She brings home a sword. If you ask me, she should’ve brought home a man.” Shortly after Grandmother Fa’s line, Li Shang appears at Mulan’s home, implying the continuation of the relationship between Mulan and him. This scene not only undermines Mulan’s accomplishments as an individual, but it also fortifies the traditional gender roles that the movie claimed to oppose.  

A snapshot of Grandmother Fa’s line from the closing scene. 

The film Mulan can be considered as socially progressive and inspirational to its young female audience, due to its message that girls can accomplish the same feats as boys. However, it falls short of successfully defying societal norms. The consequence of this failure is that it validates the temporary nonconformity of an individual with the expectation that they will revert back to societal standards, such as participating in a heteronormative relationship.