When they’re making a movie about men they make a movie about lifting a house into the sky with balloons and traveling across the world, or about a lonely garbage robot with a heart of gold (so to speak.) When they’re making a movie about girls they make a movie about the restrictions placed on girls, and how this one! special! girl! will fight the (other women) people enforcing these restrictions placed on her.
Pro-tip: when the only plot you’ll write for girls are about how they’re GIRLS! DID YOU NOTICE THEY’RE GIRLS!! LOOK IT’S A GIRL! (BUT NOT A ~~GIRLY-GIRL~~ DON’T WORRY) THE WORLD IS UNFAIR TO GIRLS BUT SOME OF THEM ARE PERFORMATIVELY MASCULINE AND THAT MAKES THEM COOL. as a priority dominating the story about them as people and it comes off as feet-draggingly second-wave and smacking of tokenism even though she’s the chief protagonist, which is almost impressive.
The thing that strikes me as most odd under the entire umbrella of what’s wrong with the phenomenon of “mansplaining” is that (straight, white) men actually believe they have something to teach us; that we do not already know what it is like to be them.
The place where this discrepancy is most obvious is in media, namely film. When you look at the film industry, who takes the majority of lead roles in films? Straight, white men. Why is this, when women are just as likely to see go to the movies? Because the assumption is that, while women can watch a male lead in a film and empathize with his emotions, challenges and choices, the same cannot be said for a man watching a female lead. The vast majority of films with a female lead either fall into the romantic-comedy trope or the indie-film genre, where they earn a fraction of the money that male-lead comedies, action movies, and other genres earn. Men are conditioned to believe they cannot possibly watch a film with a female lead and be able to relate to her struggles and triumphs throughout the film. And the box office reflects that. Men do not go see woman-lead films, while women are far more likely to see films with male leads.
This is applicable for race as well. In major blockbuster films, actors of color are relegated to secondary characters, often in stereotypical roles. Statistically, films with more racially diverse casts draw in far less white movie goers than other movies, while films with all-white casts are still viewed and enjoyed by people of color. It seems as though PoC have somehow been able to watch and enjoy films with white leads, while white movie-goers simply can’t enjoy a movie with people of color in the lead roles because they’re just so impossible to relate to. The film casting sees these patterns, and continues the cycle of using mainly white male actors for the lead roles in films, because then they can appeal to a wider audience.
Women and PoC have been forced, at various points, to live vicariously though the eyes of white men; to understand what it is like to be them. This is why mansplaining is so ridiculous of a concept to me. When a men tries to explain sexism to a woman, or race to a person of color, he is really showing how little he actually knows. These men seem to think they have the most to teach us, when it is really they who have the most to learn.
Yes, I think cancer sucks. You have no fucking clue how much I think cancer sucks. But, you know, not all cancer can be enveloped by that cute trendy pink ribbon. In fact, the only cancer that falls under that ribbon is breast cancer. Can we please stop pretending that breast cancer is the only cancer that exists and that it’s the only one that needs a “cure?” Like don’t get me wrong, I’m not undermining breast cancer as a disease, but there are other forms of cancer out there with just as bad mortality rates if not worse. So can we please, please, please stop fucking capitalizing on breast cancer and actually at least start giving a rat’s ass about the other forms of cancer?
not to mention this pinkwashing campaign is bullshit to begin with
^And has nearly JACK FUCKING SHIT to do with actually combating breast cancer or at the very fucking least, bringing about genuine awareness. All that fucked up pink ribbon is used for is selling shit to sustain capitalism/patriarchy/white supremacy/male gaze. And the male gaze sure as FUCK gets used a fuck ton in these bullshit campaigns (all those god damn “save the boobies/ta-ta s” merchandise) to at least quasi give a fuck about an epidemic that traumatizes people. But who fucking cares when white het cis abled dudes can jack off to sexualized women /non gender binary/trans* people’s breasts? Fuck off with this bullshit right fucking now. And FUCK OFF to all the white male gaze upholders that jack off to this.
Dear White Women,
Yes I am talking to you.
I know I rarely do it , but this is getting ridiculous.
Do not die on this hill.
LEna Dunham, Caitlin Morgan.
Please, you are not fighting the battle you are think you are fighting.
This isn’t some ragtag group of supremely confident women being held back by misogyny and unfair women’s expectations,
This is corporate . This is tested, and market researched to death.
This is teh final capitulation.
That you will think, scrap and breathe over whatever you are told to.
No one has said tehy find it especially funny, or insightful.
The MOST i have heard is that it let’s you be just like guys , and you see yourself in it.
DO NOT DIE ON THIS HILL.
Do nt accept a cookie for breathing do ot be fooled into thinking this is enough. Because this is transitive
Do not fight this hard to be the most consumable, disposable thing as judged by teh powers that be that “give” you Lena with one hand and a whole host of problematic nastiness with the other because you like being able to look at women not like youa nd advertise that you unlike them can make it.
Because it’s the same damn hand. It’s the hand of how they will control what you respond to.
Notice Dunahm ges money but no recognition outside of pronouncements of her edge. Look at the shows that resonate, that grab actual money, recognition, and time.
Their multi cultural( badly but still) , different.
Dunham can make for herself ( and the kids of stars) , do not die on this hill.
Because as a country becomes browner and gifted with longer memories and internet records of all you said.
They will turn on you, the minute it is more profitable to cater to brown folk ( and that day is coming FAST) rather than you
The whiplash will make your head spin.
Glee is finding this out the hard way.
Feminism is finding this out the hard way.
Do not depend on the love of your proposed special to stave off the love of green .
Do not admit to being disposable to be relevant. The message you think is that you will not stand for people being mean to women. The message anyone with sense is seeing?
This is all they have to give you.
The real meat, the shows with depth , the shows doing new and strange, deep work. Don’t have to think of you, don’t have to include you.
You will be content with being the center of the most measly attention if it says you are special rather than participants in the rest of the world.
Please I beg of you , as someone who under all other circumstances would chortle MIGHTLY at your lack of big picture planning….
So not do NOT . Die on this hill.
Guys, hey, guys. Do you remember that time that Coulson called Natasha and she ended up forming the Avengers? Remember how she did that by digging up Bruce Banner and introducing Steve to him then was the voice of reason when Tony and Steve were bickering and then how she brought Clint back from being mind controlled so that they can be a team? Remember that? Remember how the Black Widow out smarted a god? Remember that time she kept her shit together when the Hulk attacked her, even though she was really scared? Remember when she knocked an alien off his flying scooter and igured out how to drive it despite it being extrateresstrial tech, then got her ass up to the top of Stark Tower, found Loki’s staff and saved the world from being invaded by turning off the machine?
Remember how she was the central character of the whole freaking movie?
Anyone else remember that? I sure do.
Damn straight. She was the key to the whole damn thing.
yeah, remember when she got her own movie as she clearly deserved?
ugh studio execs suck.
Yeah remember when Hollywood was inclusive to female and WOC super heroes? Yeah me neither. -__-
Say hello to Kulsoom Abdullah, Pakistani-American #Weightlifter currently competing in the #Olympics2012 #weightlifting (Taken with Instagram)
Whye images like this not getting more reblogs? Oh, right, because too many people are squealing about Ryan Lochte or Sam What’s-His-Face-Gymnast or Tom Daley. That’s fine. I’ve done my share, and those are some dudes. But WHY IS A SUCH A HUGE BASE OF TUMBLR FANS NOT REBLOGGING PHOTOS LIKE THIS? I went through the “olympics” tag for a good hour at a fast pace and saw nothing like this. Nothing. (Granted this isn’t from the olympics, but I couldn’t find similar images amid the mass of male gymnasts and swimmers.) THIS IS THE FIRST OLYMPICS IN WHICH EVERY NATION HAS SENT AT LEAST ONE FEMALE REPRESENTATIVE. Celebrate it, ladies. Remember it. It matters. It’s special. Gorgeous women like this one are special. Not just ones in sporty bikini bottoms playing beach volleyball. They are special too. But they’re not the only ones. Show off these female athletes of all shapes, sizes, colors, orientations, and nationalities. They deserve it. They earned it.
Ur so right on this…. Thank you so much!!! & If ur a non-muslim Double Thanks to U!!! :D:D
Egyptian Aisha Mustafa, 19, has dazzled the physics world with a new invention that could launch spacecraft off the Earth’s surface and soaring through space without any fuel. Space is filled with a billowing sea of quantum particles that jump in and out of existence, and Aisha Mustafa proposes using thin silicon panels, spaced closely together, to trap these particles and then move against them, creating a propelling force. This innovation would make space exploration lighter, safer and cheaper than the traditional “blast off” method. Mustafa still has some design work to do, but unfortunately her research is currently limited by lack of state funding for space science departments at the university level, though her school’s science club did help fund her application for a patent.
What a woman.
How can Aboriginal adolescent girls feel that they are beautiful if the only advertised image of beauty is white? Put Aboriginal women on Australian fashion magazine covers. Sign the petition today, put pressure on Vogue, Vanity Fair etc.
GUYS, THIS IS IMPORTANT.
Please sign it or at least reblog this post. It’ll only take a few seconds of your time!
Glee And Women: Rachel Barbra Berry:
It’s hard to discuss Rachel Berry, because there are so many different versions of her it’s hard to pinpoint just who she actually is – In Season 1 she was an ambitious young woman who often let her own wants blindly lead all her decisions, regardless of how her actions and behaviour would affect others, but over this Season she also grew, she became much more of a teamplayer, a pleasant and kind young woman, who starting thinking about others just as much as she thought about herself.
But then there’s Season 2 Rachel, a ridiculously over the top walking crazy woman you’d be forgiven for mistaking as a cartoon character – Gone was her development from Season 1 and in its place a borderline insane annoyance all of us wanted to slap, thankfully Quinn took care of that for us.
And then we have Season 3, the age of Rachel Hudson – The spineless whiner who had to have every other character constantly make decisions for her, make her mind up for her, convince her of what she should want and should be doing, and in general reducing her to nothing more than a reactionary character, seemingly unable to do, think or feel anything for herself.
It’s difficult because like a lot of the show, Rachel works on the principle of tell don’t show, we see one version of Rachel and yet we’re told to see her as something entirely different – And it just does not work. You can’t show us Rachel badmouthing Quinn behind her back and then tell us that Rachel’s a great friend who really cares about her, you can’t show us Rachel pursuing Finn when she knows he’s already in a relationship with someone else and then tell us that we’re supposed to view Rachel as the victim and the unfairly treated one in the situation – It doesn’t work, but just like the tone and content of the show, Glee thinks that with Rachel they can have their cake and eat it to, they can show her doing and saying terrible things, but so long as they tell us she’s the good guy and the victim we’ll sympathise with her unconditionally – Well I’m sorry, but it doesn’t work that way.
We saw in Season 1 that while Rachel could get very selfish, manipulative and unpleasant, she was still a good person deep down, with the ability to be good without something benefiting her being the incentive behind her kindness. We saw that she was a complicated character with multiple layers to be explored, a character who could learn and grow, who could still pursue her dreams and carry out her ambitions without having to do so at the expense of others, that while unpleasant and questionable she could still be a good person with the ability to change for the better, for good.
This is sadly something which was completely abandoned by the start of the second season, suddenly Rachel had to learn the exact same lessons, over and over and over again, without ever learning or changing, suddenly her growth and development from Season 1 was completely regressed, she was manipulative, self-centred, cruel, unpleasant and unsympathetic, and yet this time there was no change, there wasn’t even a hint that deep down she was a better person anymore, she was not a nice, kind or sympathetic, complicated character anymore, there were no layers to peel back, no depth, nothing – Just this new Rachel, the not so improved, not so enjoyable and not so rootable or sympathetic. And it’s a good example of character assassination on this show – By letting Rachel develop, learn and change in Season 1 they had also made it more difficult to write in her over the top diva moments without having to sacrifice all her development, it would have been difficult to do, but they had managed it in the second half of Season 1, so surely they could do it again? Well no, they didn’t even try, they just regressed all her character development, because apparently the comedy gold of Rachel’s atrocious behaviour just couldn’t be sacrificed in favour of good character development and writing.
And that raises an interesting question – Which version of Rachel is ultimately worse? The Season 2 Rachel who had to be cut down and regressed in order to work, but who at least controlled and motivated her own actions, or Rachel Hudson from Season 3? The barely recognisable character who’s every decision, every action, every motive and every single step of her journey is made for her?
Just look at Rachel in Season 3:
Rachel decides not to give up on her dreams and future not because of her own ambition and confidence, but because Kurt talks her out of it, he gives her a confidence boost and has to remind her of what she wants from life.
Rachel decides to take a big step in her relationship with Finn by having sex with him, not because she wants to or feels ready, but first because Artie convinces her that she needs to, and then ultimately because Finn’s needs compel her to.
Rachel accepts Finn’s marriage proposal, not because she feels like it’s the right decision for the both of them or because she feels ready, but because her NYADA letter has not arrived yet, and therefore she feels she has nothing in her life or foreseeable future.
Rachel does not end up marrying Finn, not because she admitted that she didn’t feel ready or confident about the decision, not because she realised it was a mistake and too soon, but because Quinn was involved in an accident on her way to the wedding.
When Rachel decides to put Finn before her dreams, it is Finn’s decision to go to New York in order to be an actor which resolves the situation, not Rachel herself, not her dreams or wants, but Finn’s.
After Rachel choked in her NYADA audition and failed to reach Carmen in an attempt to achieve a second chance, it’s Tina who has to tell Rachel where Carmen is, to convince her to go see Carmen in person, and who ultimately makes Rachel’s case for her, Rachel sits back and lets what happened happen, she was ready to leave with her tail between her legs when Carmen rightfully questioned why Rachel believed herself to be more important than others with the exact same dreams and ambition, where it not for Tina, Rachel would have left without question and Carmen wouldn’t have been convinced to come see her at Nationals, which is why she was ultimately accepted into NYADA.
When Rachel is once again about to give up on her dreams because Kurt and Finn won’t be going to New York with her, it’s Finn who makes the decision for her, he plots with her fathers behind her back, he applies for the army so she can’t follow him, takes her to the train station, and practically forces a hysterical and crying Rachel onto the train and off to New York.
So we must ask, which is worse? The abhorrent Rachel of Season 2 because she at least motivated, decided upon and made all her own decisions and actions occur, or the Rachel of Season 3, who while mellowed out had to have everything decided for her by others, the seemingly spineless girl who the writers stripped all dignity from? Is it easier or more bearable to endure the horrid Rachel from Season 2 simply because she was still able to carve her own way in the world, or to put up with the pathetic excuse from Season 3 simply because she was a little less abrasive and unpleasant? It’s a hard question to answer, and it’s a question that shouldn’t have had to be asked, if only the writers had bothered to maintain her development and growth from Season 1.
Rachel Berry is difficult for me to talk about, because I’m overwhelmingly depressed at the squander of potential she represents, both for just her character and the show in general – Rachel had potential, the potential to be one of the most likeable, intriguing and rootable characters of the show, we were treated to watching this young woman grow from being closed off from everyone else because of her selfish actions and refusal to work as part of a group, to a teamplayer who was willing to open up and let others in, to earn the friendship and trust of others, while still remaining focused and dedicated to achieving her dreams. But now what do we have? A collection of unpleasant memories leaving us to wonder why we even liked this character in the first place.
The writers did Rachel Berry a great disservice, and it’s still one of the hardest things to forgive them for.
Why race issues should be important to all feminists. http://ping.fm/RWuwX feminism priviledge oppression discrimination
so santana needs to come out? don’t worry, finn’s got this one
wait, rachel fucked up and stuffed the ballot boxes? lol it’s cool finn’s here to make her do the right thing, too
oh no, quinn has literally lost her mind? no worries, it took a while but her knight in shining armor puck has finally rode in on his white horse
honestly i think that all the male characters should just start carrying the girls around and spoon feeding them too because omg walking and eating is really hard am i right girls
[TW: street harassment] When my confident, curious, adventurous 12-year-old daughter asked if she could go get ice cream by herself (we live in a city) the first thing that I thought of was how to prepare her to hear:
“Where’s my smile, baby?”
“Wanna go for a ride?”
What if she is surprised? Looks down? Doesn’t give the guy speaking to her the positive response that he seems to think he’s entitled to? What hurtful, explicit things will he then say to put her in her place?
From now on, she’ll have to be on alert. How many times will she have to go out of her way, take longer routes, not go certain places, alter her clothes? Not forget to hold her keys poking through her fingers? Not take certain buses, and pay for a cab instead of taking a metro? Take her lighthearted moods and tuck them away behind earphones and fake phone conversations?
How will it make my daughter feel? Powerless? Angry? Sad? Scared? It’s stressful and depressing to have to acknowledge the underlying threat of violence, especially in a culture that is dedicated to equality for all, a concept predicated on equal and safe access to public space and free speech. Her loss of innocence will have as much to do with the betrayal of this myth of equality and equal access as with understanding her physical vulnerability.
|—||Soraya Chemaly: Street Harassment is Everywhere; What do We Tell Our Daughters? (via heavenearthandhoratio)|
If female super heroes need tits and ass to sell shit
I demand all male superhero covers look like this
forever and ever.
But Jack! Men are only interested in sex, they’re just not into story and plot and character and themes! Oh, and they’re all straight, they’re all totally into the hot chick stuff.
Not to say that women aren’t into this stuff either! We just don’t think they read comics at all! \:D/
~ A memo from comic book dudes
LADIES JUST NEED TO ACCEPT THAT SEX SELLS
CRIME FIGHTING ASS AND TITTIES
Look at this horrific reverse sexualization of this young man! HOW DARE YOU OBJECTIFY HIM?
Next you’ll say he need pants to fight crime…
Sapphire CaricatureThe Sapphire Caricature portrays Black women as rude, loud, malicious, stubborn, and overbearing.1 This is the Angry Black Woman (ABW) popularized in the cinema and on television. She is tart-tongued and emasculating, one hand on a hip the other pointing and jabbing (or arms akimbo), violently and rhythmically rocking her head, mocking African American men for offenses ranging from being unemployed to sexually pursuing White women. She is a shrill nagger with irrational states of anger and indignation — prone to being mean-spirited and abusive. Although African American men are her primary targets, she has venom for anyone who insults or disrespects her. The Sapphire’s desire to dominate and her hyper-sensitivity to injustices means that she is a perpetual complainer, but she does not criticize to improve things; rather, she criticizes because she is unendingly bitter and wishes that unhappiness on others. The Sapphire Caricature is a harsh portrayal of African American women, but it is more than that; it is a social control mechanism that is employed to punish Black women who violate the societal norms that encourage Black women to be passive, servile, non-threatening, and unseen.
From the 1800s through the mid-1900s, Black women were often portrayed in popular culture as “Sassy Mammies” who ran their own homes with iron fists, including berating Black husbands and children. These women were allowed, at least symbolically, to defy some racial norms. During the Jim Crow period, when real Blacks were often beaten, jailed, or killed for arguing with Whites, literary and other fictional Mammies were allowed to pretend-chastise Whites, including men. Their sassiness was supposed to indicate that they were accepted as members of the Whites’ families — and the allowing of their sassiness implied that slavery and segregation were not overly oppressive. A well-known example of a Sassy Mammy was Hattie McDaniel, a Black actress who played feisty, quick-tempered mammies in many movies, includingJudge Priest (1934) Music is Magic (1935), The Little Colonel (1935), Alice Adams(1935), Saratoga (1937), The Mad Miss Manton (1938), and Gone With the Wind(1939). In these roles she was sassy (borderline impertinent) but always loyal. She was not a threat to the existing social order.
It was not until the Amos ‘n Andy radio show that the characterization of African American women as domineering, aggressive, and emasculating shrews became popularly associated with the name Sapphire. The show was conceived by Freeman Gosden and Charles Correll, two White actors who portrayed the characters Amos Jones and Andy Brown by mimicking and mocking Black behavior and dialect. At its best, Amos n’ Andy was a situational comedy; at its worse, it was an auditory minstrel show.2 The show, with a mostly-White cast, aired on the radio from 1928 to 1960, with intermittent interruptions. The television version of the show, with network television’s first all-Black cast, aired on CBS from 1951-53, with syndicated reruns from 1954 to 1966. It was removed, in large part, through the protest efforts of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the fledgling civil rights movement. Both as a radio show3 and television show, Amos ‘n Andy was extremely popular, and this was unfortunate for African Americans because it popularized racial caricatures of Blacks. Americans learned that Blacks were comical, not as actors but as a race.
Amos ‘n Andy told stories about the everyday foibles of the members of the Mystic Knights of the Sea, a Black fraternal lodge. The lead characters were Amos Jones, a Harlem taxi driver and his gullible friend, Andy Brown. Starring in a nontitle lead role was the character George “Kingfish” Stevens, the leader of the lodge. Many of the stories revolved around Kingfish, a get-rich-quick schemer and a con artist who avoided work, and, when possible, took financial advantage of the ignorance and naïveté of Andy and others (see, for example, this clip from the episode Kingfish Sells a Lot). Kingfish was the prototypical “Coon,” a lazy, easily confused, chronically unemployed, financially inept, buffoon given to malapropisms. Kingfish was married to Sapphire Stevens who regularly berated him as a failure.
Kingfish represented the worst in racial stereotyping; there was little redemptive about the character. His ignorance was highlighted by his nonsensical misuse of words, for example, “”I deny the allegation, Your Honor, and I resents the alligator,” or “I’se regusted.” Kingfish was not a good thinker or speaker. Even worse, he was a crook without scruples. He was too lazy to work and not above exploiting his wife and friends.
In other words, he was a television embodiment of some of the unforgiving ideas that many Americans had about Black men. Even Lightnin,’ a Stepin Fetchit-like character on the show, had a job and was honest. Kingfish’s worthlessness justified Sapphire’s harsh critique of his life. It must be noted, that Sapphire Stevens directed her disgust at her husband; hers was not the generalized anger that is today associated with angry Black women.
Later Sapphires in Situational Comedies
Sue Jewell, a sociologist, opined that the Sapphire image necessitates the presence of an African American man; “It is the African American male that represents the point of contention, in an ongoing verbal dual between Sapphire and the African American male … (His) lack of integrity and use of cunning and trickery provides her with an opportunity to emasculate him through her use of verbal put downs.”4In the all-Black or mostly-Black situational comedies that appeared on television from the 1970s to the present, the Sapphire is a stock character. Like Sapphire Stevens, she demeans and belittles lazy, ignorant, or otherwise flawed Black male characters.
Blacks on television have been overrepresented in situational comedies and underrepresented in dramatic series; one problem with this imbalance is that Blacks in situational comedies are portrayed in racially stereotypical ways in order to get laughs. Canned laughter prompts the television audience to laugh as the angry Black woman, the Sapphire, insults and mock Black males.
Aunt Esther (also called Aunt Anderson) was a Sapphire character on the television situational comedy Sanford and Son, which premiered on NBC in 1972, with a final episode in 1977, and syndicated shows still running. She was the Bible-swinging, angry, nemesis and sister-in-law of the main character, Fred. Theirs was a love-mostly hate relationship. Fred would call Aunt Esther ugly and she would call him a “fish-eyed fool,” “an old sucka,” or a “beady-eyed heathen.” Then, they would threaten to hit each other. Aunt Esther dominated her husband Woodrow, a mild-mannered alcoholic. In this latter relationship, you have the idea of the aggressive Black woman dominating a weak, morally defective Black man.
The situational comedy Good Times aired between 1974 and 1979 on the CBS television network. The show followed the life of the Evans family in a Chicago housing project — implicitly the infamous Cabrini-Green projects. This was one of the first times that a poor family had been highlighted in a weekly television series. Episodes of Good Times dealt with the Evans’ attempts to survive despite living in suffocating poverty. There were several racial caricatures on the show, most notably the son, James Evans Jr. (also called J.J.), who devolved into a “Coon-like minstrel.” After the first season the episodes increasingly focused on J.J.’s stereotypically buffoonish behavior. Esther Rolle, the actress who played the role of Florida Evans, the mother, expressed her dislike for J.J.’s character in a 1975 interview with Ebony magazine:“He’s eighteen and he doesn’t work. He can’t read or write. He doesn’t think. The show didn’t start out to be that…Little by little-with the help of the artist, I suppose, because they couldn’t do that to me — they have made J.J. more stupid and enlarged the role. Negative images have been slipped in on us through the character of the oldest child.”5In Black-themed situational comedies when there is a Coon character there is often a Sapphire character to mock him. In Good Times a character that bantered with and mocked J.J. was his sister, Thelma. A clearer example of a Sapphire, however, was the neighbor, Willona Woods, though she rarely targeted J.J. Instead, Willona belittled Nathan Bookman, the overweight superintendent, and she put down a series of worthless boyfriends, an ex-husband, politicians, and other men with questionable morals and work ethics.
In situational comedies with a primary Black cast, the Black male does not have to be lazy, thick-witted, or financially unsuccessful for him to be taunted by a Sapphire character. The Jeffersons, which aired from 1975 to 1985, focused on an upper-middle class family that had climbed up from the working class — in the show’s theme song there is the line, “We finally got a piece of the pie.” The Jeffersons were making so much money from their cleaners businesses that they hired a housekeeper, Florence Johnston. Her relationship with George was often antagonistic and the back-talking, wisecracking, housekeeper approximated a Sapphire. She often teased George about his short stature, balding head, and decisions.
Another example of a Sapphire was the character Pamela (Pam) James, who appeared on Martin, a situational comedy that aired from 1992 to 1997 on Fox. Pam was a badmouthed, wisecracking friend/foe of the lead character, Martin. Tichina Arnold, the actress who played Pam, plays Rochelle, a dominating, aggressive matriarch in the situational comedy, Everybody Hates Chris, which began in 2005, and is still aired on cable television. Arnold has mastered the role of the angry, Black woman.
Angry Black Women with Guns
The film genre called blaxploitation emerged in the early 1970s. These movies, which targeted urban Black audiences, exchanged one set of racial caricatures — Mammy, Tom, Uncle, Picanninny — for a new set of equally offensive racial caricatures — Bucks (sex-crazed deviants) Brutes, (pimps, hit-men, and dope peddlers), and Nats (Whites-haters). One old caricature, the Jezebel, was revamped. The portrayal of African American women as hyper-sexual temptresses was as old as American slavery, but during the blaxploitation period the Jezebel caricature and the Sapphire caricature merged into a hybrid: angry “whores” fighting injustice. Black actresses such as Pam Grier built careers starring in blaxploitation movies. Her characters resembled those of the Black male superheroes: they were physically attractive and aggressive rebels, willing and able to use their bodies, brains, and guns to gain revenge against corrupt officials, drug dealers, and violent criminals. Their anger was not focused solely, or primarily, at Black men; rather, it was focused at injustice and the perpetuators of injustice.
In the film Coffy (1973), Pam Grier (Coffy) plays a nurse by day and vigilante by night who conducts a brutal one-woman war on organized crime. In the movie, she pretends to be a “strung out whore” to get revenge on the drug dealers who got her little sister hooked on heroin. Coffy lures the culprits back to their room where she graphically shoots one in the head and gives the other a fatal dose of heroin. The remainder of the movie finds Coffy using guns and her body to punish King George, a flamboyant pimp, the sadistic Mobster, Arturo Vitroni, and every Mafioso and crooked cop that crosses her path.
Sapphire in the 21st Century
Today, the Sapphire is one of the dominant portrayals of Black woman. This is evident by the words of Cal Thomas, a commentator for FOX Television:“Look at the image of angry black women on television. Politically you have Maxine Waters of California, liberal Democrat. She’s always angry every time she gets on television. Cynthia McKinney, another angry black woman. And who are the black women you see on the local news at night in cities all over the country. They’re usually angry about something. They’ve had a son who has been shot in a drive-by shooting. They are angry at Bush. So you don’t really have a profile of non-angry black women, of whom there are quite a few.”6Thomas, admittedly an untrained sociologist, expressed what many Americans see and internalize, namely, images of Sapphires: angry at Black men, White men, White women, the federal government, racism, maybe life itself. Thomas, shortly after making his statements about Black women, agreed with a co-panelist that Oprah Winfrey is not angry.
The portrayal of Black women as angry Sapphires permeates this culture. A Google search of Angry Black Women or ABW will demonstrate how pervasive this caricature has become. She lives in most movies with an all-Black or predominantly Black cast. For example, there is Terri, cussing and insulting the “manhood” of Black men in Barbershop (2002) and its sequel, Barbershop 2 (2004). There is the augmentative Angela in Why Did I Get Married (2007). There is clip art of an angry Black woman in at www.clipartof.com/details/clipart/16467.html. The clip art description reads, “Royalty-free people clipart picture image of an angry african american woman in a purple dress and heels, standing with her arms crossed and tapping her foot with a stern expression on her face. She could be mad at her child, a colleague or husband.” There are stock pictures of angry Black women,www.inmagine.com/bld108/bld108498-photo. There are books devoted to angry Black women, for example, The Angry Black Woman’s Guide to Life (2004), and Web sites, http://angryblackbitch.blogspot.com/ where you can buyAngry Black Bitch cups, shirts, pillows, tile coasters, aprons, mouse pads, and Teddy Bears.7 There is even a pseudo-malady called, “Angry Black Woman Syndrome.”
The tabloid talk shows that became popular in the 1990s — think: The Jerry Springer Show, The Jenny Jones Show, The Maury Povich Show, and The Ricki Lake Show — characterized by frequent obscenities and in-studio fighting, helped reinforce the racial stereotypes of African Americans, including the stereotype of Black women as angry, castrating shrews. By the early 2000s, the “Trash Talk” shows had receded in popularity, in part because of the emergence of so-called “Reality Shows.” Again, these shows served as vehicles for African American women to be portrayed as Sapphires. Vanessa E. Jones, from the Boston Globe, wrote of the Sapphire:“You see elements of her in Alicia Calaway of “Survivor: All-Stars,” who indulged in a temperamental bout of finger wagging during an argument in 2001’s “Survivor: The Australian Outback.” Coral Smith, who rules with an iron tongue on MTV’s “Real World/Road Rules Challenge: The Inferno,” browbeat one female cast mate so badly a week ago that she challenged Smith to a fight. Then there’s Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth of “The Apprentice,” who rode the angry-black-woman stereotype to the covers of People and TV Guide magazines even as she made fellow African-American businesswomen wince.”8Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth gained a great deal of national disdain and celebrity as a contestant on The Apprentice, Donald Trump’s reality show. Manigault-Stallworth, who is almost always referred to by the single name Omarosa, was portrayed (and intentionally acted) as a cross between a Jezebel — a hypersexual flirt and seductress — and a bitter, aggressive Sapphire. Lorien Olive, a political blogger, theorized on how White people saw Omarosa:“At least among white people, she was interpreted in various ways as conniving, lazy, selfish, a sham, overly-ambitious, uppity, ungrateful, and paranoid. I guess I was always less interested in whether Omarosawas actually any of those things or whether it was simply an effect of the distortion of the editing of reality television. I was more interested in the fact that Omarosa seemed to stand for something bigger in the eyes of many white people. Her constant accusations of racism directed toward her fellow contestants and the fact that she wore her alienation and distrust of her team-mates on her sleeve opened up a whole world of racial speculation and ridicule. I would say debate, but in all of my internet travels, I haven’t found much of anyone who wanted to go out on a limb for Omarosa. The fact that so many white people felt justified in their hatred for Omarosa (a hatred that could be passed of as a benign over-investment in a guilty pleasure: a reality TV series) is telling. She became the symbol of everything that went wrong in the post-Civil Rights Era: paranoid “reverse racism”; the ungrateful and undeserving product of affirmative action; the “uppity” Black person who puts on airs; the beautiful, hyper-sexualized Black woman who pulled the wool over the powerful white man’s eyes.”9Olive next makes a connection that many others are making on Internet sites, namely, that Michelle Obama, the wife of Democratic Presidential nominee, is the new Omarosa — a bitter, selfish, uppity, ungrateful, overly-ambitious Sapphire. One of the derisive nicknames for Michelle Obama is “Omarosa Obama.” This demonstrates how the Sapphire caricature has broadened from an emasculating hater of Black men to a bitter woman who hates anyone who displeases her.
Michele Obama as Sapphire
Sociologists often speak of how dominant groups praise a behavior when done by its members, but criticize a minority group for demonstrating that behavior. To use sociological jargon, this is an example of an in-group virtue becoming an out-group vice. According to the blogger abagond, “Where white women are said to be ‘independent,’ black women are said to be ‘emasculating,’ robbing their men of their sense of manhood. Where white women are said to be standing up for themselves, black women are seen as wanting a fight. And so on. The same actions are read differently.”10 Being an articulate foe of injustice may be seen as a praise-worthy trait among Whites; however, Black women with similar traits may be seen as bitter, selfish complainers.
Michelle Obama challenges the scripts that many Americans have for African American women. She is the antithesis of the Mammy caricature. The traditional portrayal of Mammy looked something like this: an obedient, loyal domestic servant, who cared more for the family members of her employer than she did for her own family; overweight and desexualized; and, most important to the portrait: not a threat to the social order. Michelle Obama is a Harvard-trained attorney, a conscientious mother, physically attractive, and she critiques and challenges the culture. She also does not fit the Jezebel image or its modern variant: the butt-shaking Hoogie Mama — though FOX News tried to imply this when they referred to her in text as Senator Obama’s “Baby Mama.” Michelle Obama is not a Tragic Mulatto; she is a dark-skinned woman actively involved in civil rights and community activism. The so-called Tragic Mulatto was ashamed of her African heritage; Michelle Obama embraces her African American heritage and expresses her dissatisfaction with racial injustice.
So, if she does not fit one of the three dominant historical caricatures of African American women, what imagery is left? Ideally, she would be judged on her individual traits and not as a one-dimensional stereotype; however, there is little ideal about patterns of race relations in this country. Racial stereotyping, too often, is a convenient way to pigeonhole others into categories that make sense to us. Instead of allowing Michelle Obama to be central to a new cultural narrative of Black women (and the Black family) there is a growing tendency to view Michelle Obama’s words and behaviors as examples of the Black woman as Sapphire. When she said, while speaking at a Milwaukee, Wisconsin political rally, “for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback,” she was accused of being an unpatriotic, ungrateful, and angry radical. In this portrait, she is more Pam Grier (sans the gun and the hypersexuality) than Sapphire Stevens; her supposed bitterness and hatred are directed toward her country-and implicitly its White members-and not toward Black men. Finally, there was a label to stick to her. According to Erin Aubry Kaplan, a journalist and blogger:“It’s worth noting how Michelle was admired as long as she filled the prescription of a successful black woman on paper — college grad, married to an equally successful black man, a working but attentive mother, financially secure, immaculately turned out. But as soon as she began revealing herself as a person and airing her views a bit, she began shape-shifting in the public eye into another kind of black woman altogether: angry, obstinate, mouthy — a stereotypical harpy lurking in all black women that a friend of mine calls “Serpentina.” The consternation about Michelle suggested an old racist sentiment that you can take the girl out of the ghetto, but you can never take the ghetto out of the girl.”11Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham and other conservative talkshow hosts rushed to paint her as the ultimate angry Black woman, and they wondered aloud what she had to be angry about. Not all the lambasting came from White Americans. Mychal Massie, chairman of the National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives-Project 21 — a conservative Black think tank, said:“I find it reprehensible that those like herself and her husband, being devoid of credible positions, are able only to blame America and castigate its citizens. And that is exactly what Michelle Obama did — with one sentence, she attacked every American, regardless of party affiliation when she uttered those profane words…Many Americans contribute to the Obamas’ extravagant lifestyle. From those who clean their floors to those who sweep their sidewalks. Her comments reveal ingratitude and were an insult to millions of hardworking Americans and legal immigrants who appreciate the freedom and opportunity America offers. This country has made it possible for Michelle Obama to enjoy every privilege she and her family enjoy. Compared to the eloquent grace of Jackie Kennedy, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush and yes, even Rosalind Carter, she portrays herself as just another angry black harridan who spits in the face of the nation that made her rich, famous and prestigious.”12
Central to these “critiques” of Michelle Obama is the couched argument that a person who is a successful attorney and administrator living in a nice home has forfeited the right to talk about injustice and inequality. This argument is short-sighted and flawed. It implies that only poor people have the right to express concerns about poverty, only the sick and diseased have a right to complain about inadequate health care, only a victim of crime has the right to complain about high crime rates, and so forth. The day that the privileged in this country — and that includes Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Mychal Massie, and Michelle Obama — are as disgusted with injustice and equality as is the poor Black or Brown or White single mother in Detroit, Michigan, is the day this country takes a living step toward realizing its potential as the “city on the top of the hill.” Critiquing America is not the same as hating America.
How does her saying, “for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback,” validate Massie’s claim that Michelle Obama is “another black harridan?” A harridan is a “scolding (even vicious) old woman.”13 Calling someone a harridan for expressing an opinion is an ad hominem argument that tries to dismiss the substance of their opinion. Members of society who express unpopular opinions are often dismissed with personal attacks.
Newt Gingrich and the Republican Party rode the anger of White men into political dominance in 1994. What were they angry about? Affirmative action? Multiculturalism? Liberalism? Few people, especially members of the dominant group, questioned whether White men had the right to be angry. After Senator Hillary Clinton lost her bid for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination, a great deal of media attention was given to Angry White Women, so angry they threaten to vote for the Republican candidate. Some of their anger was fueled by disappointment; that happens in every national political campaign. Others were angry because Senator Clinton’s campaign symbolized, for them, the struggles and promise of being women in this culture. Some were angry about the sexist slurs, some thinly-veiled, others obvious and gross, that were directed against Senator Clinton. These angry White women had lots of reasons to be angry, but the point here is that their right to be angry was rarely questioned. However, when a strong-minded, high profile Black woman expressed even a hint of displeasure at injustice in this culture she is treated like a non-patriotic, ungrateful Sapphire. The Black woman who expresses anything short of a patriotism that borders on chauvinism is condemned.
With people of color, in this case Black women, there is a tendency for labels to become enduring stereotypes. The Sapphire portrayal has been around for as long as Black women have dared critiqued their lives and treatment. Sojourner Truth was seen and treated as a Sapphire, as were Ida Bell Wells-Barnett, Fannie Lou Hamer, Ella Josephine Baker, Shirley Chisholm, Anita Hill, Alice Walker, Rita Dove, and bell hooks. But the Sapphire label has not been restricted to abolitionists, anti-lynching crusaders, civil rights activists, politicians, and Black feminists/womynists. Black women executives who voice disapproval at company policies run the risk of being seen as Sapphires, especially when the policies involve race and race relations. Young African American women who show displeasure at being treated as potential thieves when they shop are treated as Sapphires. The Black woman who expresses bitterness or rage about her mistreatment in intimate relationships is often seen as a Sapphire; indeed, Black women who express any dissatisfaction and displeasure, especially if they express the discontentment with passion, are seen and treated as Sapphires. The Sapphire name is slur, insult, and a label that attempts to silence dissent and critique.
1 In, Crystal Bennett, “Cassandra and the ‘Sistahs’: the Peculiar Treatment of African American Women in the Myth of Women as Liars,” Journal of Gender, Race and Justice 626-657, 634-655 (Spring 2000), the authors use these words to describe the Sapphire, “evil, bitchy, stubborn and hateful.”
2 Here is an example from the episode, “I’se Regusted-Amos ‘n’ Andy, 1930, Victor 22393,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_yIba70Xz4&feature=related.
3 The peak of the show’s popularity was 1930-31, when it attracted an audience of between 30 and 40 million people a night, six nights a week — representing an astounding a third of the entire population of the United States.
4 Sue K. Jewell (1993). From Mammy to Miss America and Beyond. New York: Routledge, p. 45.
5 Bad Times on the Good Times Set,” Ebony, September 1975.
6 ”Transcript: ‘Fox News Watch,’ June 14, 2008,”http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,367601,00.html, accessed July 24, 2008.
8 Vanessa E. Jones, “The Angry Black Woman: Tart-tongued or driven and no-nonsense, she is a stereotype that amuses some and offends others,” The Boston Globe, 20 April 2004,http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2004/04/20/the_angry_black_woman/, accessed July 5, 2008.
9 Lorien Olive, “Omarosa Obama: Sapphire Lives,” Roadkill Politics: A White Working Class Perspective on Politics, April 15, 2008, http://roadkillpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/04/omarosa-obama-sapphire-lives.html, accessed July 2, 2008.
10 Abagond, “The Sapphire Stereotype,” Abadond, March 7, 2008,http://abagond.wordpress.com/2008/03/07/the-sapphire-stereotype/, accessed July 22, 2008.
11 Erin Aubry Kaplan, “Who’s Afraid of Michelle Obama?” Salon.Com,http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/06/24/michelle_obama/index.html, accessed July 25, 2008.
12 Mychal Massie, “Michelle Obama: Angry black harridan,” WorldNetDaily, February 26, 2008,http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57312, accessed July 25, 2008.
13 ”Harridan,” http://126.96.36.199/search?q=cache:JifKX_8dyy8J:www.thefreedictionary.com/harridan+harridan
&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&ie=UTF-8, accessed July 26, 2008.
Sandi Toksvig WILL ALWAYS AND FOREVER REBLOG THIS QUOTE
I’m taking a class called The Archaeology of Sex and Gender (I’m an anthropology and art history major), and we were studying female figurines from the Neolithic era. Some girl in my class brought up the point that when male figurines with giant phalli were discovered, they were interpreted by academics as symbols of power. When female figures with giant vulvas were discovered, they were interpreted by academics as symbols of fertility. “Why can’t the giant vulva be a symbol of power too?” she asked.
It blew my mind and reaffirmed my decision to study anthropology and art history.
Always seek knowledge
Always reblog. This is so awesome.
Such a good quote.
This quote gives me chills every time I read it. Also, awesome story, strugglingtobeheard!
This reminds me of a conversation a friend and I had recently about our work. She’s in the very early stages of writing her dissertation on scribes in early medieval England, specifically female scribes. One of the things we vented about was the universal assumption that men copied the vast majority of manuscripts in the period, when there’s actually very, very little evidence to suggest that level of exclusivity. There are very few manuscripts we know for a fact were copied by men, and most are anonymous. And if you look at the nature of religious institutions in England and the status of women between 700-1000ish, 1.) quite a few monasteries were founded by aristocratic women; 2.) many were dual houses, which housed both male and female religious, and some of those houses were politically influential—and also headed by women—and thus were likely to have access to good libraries; 3.) there is evidence that women in important institutions were reading and writing correspondence in Latin; and 4.) there is also evidence that noble women were patrons of book production and literate themselves (in the vernacular if not in Latin), because wills from the period survive in which women bequeath their libraries to various people. None of this is concrete, but I don’t think it’s a leap to argue that it’s almost just as likely any given anonymous copyist could as easily be a woman as a man. But in manuscript studies, the assumption is always that, unless the text might have some “obvious” interest to women, the copyist is a man. Which is pretty damn ridiculous, and just another reminder that the effacement of women’s contributions to civilization and the transmission (and generation!) of knowledge is an ongoing process of willful forgetting, as well as ignorance.