Rewatching My Old Favourite Slapstick Comedies Since Becoming a Feminist.

As a “90’s kid” I grew up watching a lot of raunchy 90's and 2000’s comedies. I loved slapstick comedies. A lot of these movies had Jim Carry in them. He is goofy, fun, and generally known for his funny faces and over-the-top silliness. But recently, (that is, since taking some Women’s and Gender Studies Classes in university, and being introduced to feminism for the first time), I re-watched one of my old favourites, Me Myself and Irene, and I was… pretty disgusted. How did I ever used to like this? Putting aside the ridiculously ableist premise of the film, (Man gets diagnosed with a mental illness that makes him dangerous when he doesn’t take his meds – HA!), just about all of the jokes when a woman is in the frame, are misogynistic, at the expense of the only female character in the movie.  This got me thinking; are any of my other old Jim Carry favourites any better? 

Representation in the media is important. How we view types of people in movies generally shapes how we feel about those types of people in real life.

I decided to revisit some other old Jim Carry movies from the 90’s that I used to love to see how they stand the test of time, and how well they hold up to today’s standards of representation and feminism.

So, if Hollywood ever wanted to remake any of these, (because come on, everything’s getting a remake these days), how could these classic slapstick comedies be fixed to satisfy the ever more “woke” audiences of today?

I will be critiquing them on four criteria:

1 The Bechdel test

a. The movie has to have at least two women in it,

b. who talk to each other,

c. about something besides a man

2 Mako Mori Test

a. Does the female character has a narrative arc

b. that is not about supporting a man's story.

3 Overall, were most of the jokes at the expense of women, or other specific groups?

4 What would I change in the Remake?
(I’m going to avoid the whole “gender swap” remake thing that Ghost Busters did. While it would be really cool to see these movies remade with a funny actress in the lead, for the sake of this article it just seems like a cop-out.)

The Mask 

The story of a “nice guy” who is always being walked on by his coworkers, his friends, and the women in his life. When he finds a magical mask, it transforms him into the man he’s always wanted to be (which just happens to also be an out of control, walking cartoon cliché). He ends up robbing a bank, dancing with the lounge singer, and – SPOILERS saving her from being held hostage by the mob.

Bechdel Test: FAIL. There are four female characters total, two of which could be considered main characters (Tina the lounge singer and Peggy the reporter), and two of which are walk-on characters (Stanley’s friend from work and his landlady). None of these characters ever meet or talk to each other.

Mako Mori Test: FAIL. Neither of the two female characters have character arcs of their own, independent from the male lead’s story.

Overall, were most of the jokes at the expense of women, or other specific groups?

Overall, the jokes were actually very well done. Mostly. There were a couple jokes that play off of some old cultural stereotypes, such as the “Pepe Le Pew French lover” stereotype. When The Mask meets up with Tina in the park he becomes the Pepe Le Pew type character and basically just goes on about how much he wants to have sex with her. It comes across as kinda rapey, just like the old Pepe Le Pew cartoons do. In real life, being pushy with someone about sex isn’t exactly charming.

Basically, whenever either Tina the lounge singer, or Peggy the reporter are in the scene, the jokes usually have some sort of sexual connotation. When the women are not in the scene, then Jim Carry’s jokes go back to being goofy, cartoon-inspired antics. Also, both of the female characters rely on their sexuality to trick the male characters in the movie.

The other thing that I hope Hollywood pop-culture has overcome is the idea presented in this movie that “Nice Guy” equals “Doormat”. In the movie, Stanely Ipkiss (Jim Carry) is constantly being walked on by his coworkers, his friends, and the women in his life. By the end of the movie, he learns to stand up for himself, in a climactic scene where he has to fist-fight the bad guy in order to save the girl. Today, I hope that Hollywood has realised by now that there are many different ways to present masculinities, and that being “nice” doesn’t automatically make a man “weak” or lesser. It shouldn’t have to take a fist-fight for a man to become worthy of respect.

What would I change in the remake?

Stanley Ipkiss is still a doormat character. But instead of everyone calling him “too nice” and a “nice guy”, the supporting characters are always telling him he needs to stand up for himself once in a while. Stanley has low self-esteem. Then he finds the mask and becomes his crazy, cartoonish persona. He still falls for the lounge singer, Tina. But Tina also, has plans to escape the lounge that is run by the mob. She has been working on a plan to run away for a while, which is accidentally, thwarted by The Mask and his antics. There is a scene where Tina gets to wear the mask. (In the original, the protagonist, the antagonist, and the dog get to wear it, but Tina doesn’t?). In the climactic scene from the original movie, Stanley has to save Tina and a bunch of party guests from the mob boss and his bomb. In the remake, Stanley and Tina can work together to save the party guests in the lounge and the bomb from the mob boss. And by saving the lounge, and the party guests, Tina is able to complete her plan to escape working for mob. Was that so hard?

Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls

Summary: A man is sent to a remote monastery to get Ace (Jim Carry) to solve an important case: A missing sacred bat. Ace is hired by a big game hunter and wildlife conservationist to investigate the case by gaining the trust of two rival African tribes.

Bechdel Test: FAIL – I can think of four instances of women talking in this movie. Of those instances, there was one time two female characters talked to each other (a mother and daughter) but it was about the male lead.

Mako Mori – HA no. There is only one recurring female character in the movie, that is to say, she is in more than one scene. And surprise! She’s only there to be the love interest, scratch that, the sexy lamp.

Overall, were most of the jokes at the expense of women, or other specific groups?

Yes, very similar humour to The Mask, more on that in a bit.

What would I change in the remake?

A simple fix for Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls would be to give Ace’s native African guide, Ouda, and the Watchati princess, both more fleshed out, well-rounded characters. While the whole premise of the white guy coming into the foreign culture and making fun isn’t exactly without its problems, having some more interesting character development in the native African tribes people would help to humanise their characters instead of being broad stereotypes.

Noticing a Trend

After watching Ace Ventura When Nature Calls, and The Mask, and talking to some friends about some of Jim Carry’s other old 90’s movies, we noticed a trend. It seems that a lot of these old 90s Jim Carry movies tend to follow the exact same type of humour: Woman on the screen? Make sexual jokes about her or directly to her. No woman on screen? Go back to being silly and cartoony.

Also, in the case of Ace Ventura When Nature Calls, apparently, it’s okay to disrespect other peoples’ cultures if it’s for a joke in the movie too.

Final Thought

Maybe I’m being too hard on the Jim Carry movies. It is possible that a lot of slapstick movies from the 90s are just as bad at their representation of women and minorities. Take for example, the Scary Movie franchise, The Naked Gun movies, or anything with Adam Sandler; all of which could have definitely used some richer character development for their female and minority characters. More research is needed here.

Have the slapstick movies of today gotten any better? I would argue that, while there is an increasing number of slapstick movies being made with women as the primary funny characters, (Ghost Busters, Bridesmaids, The Heat), there are still far more slapstick comedies with male leads, where the only females are either the “nagging wife” or the prize at the end of the movie.

…Honourable Mention goes to Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates, by having a well gender-balanced cast of funny characters in a silly, slapstick movie. 

Constructing Gender, Social Movements and Changing Security Concerns

Louise Weiss and other
Parisian suffragettes 1935 

Politics, security and international relations are fields which the concerns of women have traditionally been ignored. The first wave of feminist movements aimed to give women a voice in politics by granting women the right to vote. While this was a tremendous moment in history, the right to vote was granted within a structure built around dealing with traditionally masculine issues. Thus, while women could participate, the issues of security that were considered feminine were ignored.

In recent years there has been a growing push to include ‘feminine’ issues into the realm of security, politics, and international relations. If the logic of realism, militarism and ‘hard power’ are inherently masculine; the expansion of politics to include feminine issues has come to include human security, gender emancipation, and a greater emphasis on diplomacy. I believe this push for expansion comes from two sources, the contributions of post structural feminism explaining that gender is a socially constructed idea and the popular woman’s movements which have emphasized the insecurity of women because of the effects masculine security politics have had on their lives. These social movements and recent scholarship challenge traditional notions of security and gender identities

A mother runs into a soldier of the \
Jorge Rafael Videla dictatorship during a protest in 1977 

          

Members of the Madres de Plaza de Mayo at a march

 Examining the stances taken by women’s movements over the years, we can see how gender identity has undergone several changes through ought the years and the effect these changes have had on security issues. Protesting the abduction of their children by the Argentinian government, the ‘Madres de Plaza de Mayo’ represent a group of women who have embraced traditional ides of femininity by protesting under the identity of mothers looking for their missing children.

 These women provide an example of traditionally feminine attributes, (motherly, non-militant, and emotional) being been brought into the realm of security as a security issues. This represents an expansion of the security agenda beyond traditionally masculine issues. As it was the Argentinian government that was the source of the insecurity of these women, the ‘Madres de Plaza de Mayo’ also exemplify the insecurity that masculine centered security policies can have on women. Furthermore, the context of the ‘Madres de Plaza de Mayo’ demonstrate an instance in which the feminine identity of mother was used because of the security it offered. Had these women joined the rhetoric used by their children, they would have likely been arrested, and possibly killed, by the Argentinian government.  

Women's March in Washington DC, January 21, 2017

  In contrast, on January 21^st, 2017, millions of people took to the streets around the world in support of the ‘Women’s March.’ While including a number of interest groups, (the LGBTQ community, Black Panthers, Indigenous Rights and many more) this march ran under the banner of ‘Human Rights are Women’s Rights and Women Rights are Human Rights.’ In response to the sexist rhetoric of Donald Trump, this movement demanded ‘feminine’ issues be included as a security concern. 

Poster from Women's March

                    What we can see with these two movements is a push for women and feminine issues to be included in the realms of security, politics and international relations. The ‘Women’s March’ shows how popular this push has been. Looking at post structural scholarship we can examine the construction of gender identities and see how the feminine identity has expanded from that of mother (as seen in the ‘Madresod the Plazo de Mayo’) to include human security, environmental security and countless other issues and identities. In turn this has reconstructed the identity of security; expanding it from traditionally ‘masculine’ issues, to those affecting all people.        

 As a final note, there is wide consensus that gender is a socially constructed idea which lacks any inherent value. The demands made by social movements provide examples of various feminine and masculine identities. Examining these identities we can see that both masculine and feminine identities are continuously expanding and changing. In turn, this has challenged traditional ideas of politics and security, forcing both fields to deepen and broaden to include these new identities.  

If the issue of gendered security and the insecurity of people because of their own government follow this link to Amnesty International, an organization which has continuously fought for the universal human rights of all people. 

To visit images and works cited please follow the hyperlinks.

The Crazy Girlfriend

Emotions Running Wild

I believe it is essential to keep in mind the importance of averting gender essentialism while referring to situations involving gendered assumptions while reading this post. In my personal experience, avoiding gender essentialism, there have been stereotypes involved within my own personal romantic relationships. Male identified persons within my own relationships have felt as if they do not have to put in the same emotional involvement as their women identified partners (me) in their heterosexual relationships. The male identified persons in my own experience have talked about how they believe that women are the “emotional” partners. Stating that since they are men, they do not need to verbalize their emotions within the relationship, implying that is strictly the woman’s job. These ideals within my past experiences have created strains within my relationships due to a result of a lack of two-way communication. In my own personal encounters, I have heard multiple comments about how women’s emotions are viewed as “crazy” or “unjustified”. As a consequence of these stereotypical views about women in relationships, it can becomes impossible for women’s emotions to be viewed as rational at all. #emotionscount

Socialized From The Beginning

 I consider the role of socialization as prevalent in portraying these stereotypical thoughts that my male counterparts have expressed. Throughout the years many, but not all, women have been depicted as emotional driven beings. These depictions have been expressed throughout social interactions, the media and other forms of communication. From the moment individuals are born they are exposed to these views. 

Widespread Representations Through The Media

I believe the role of the media has been a producer of the ideas of gender difference. This has created the false image of the ways women behave within relationships. There are many videos on the internet portraying women as emotional and crazy within relationships while males are viewed as the stable, sane counterparts.

It is incredibly easy to find videos on social media that portray women in a way that can make them seem in-superior. Simply by typing “crazy girlfriend” into search engines many results pop up.

The video 5 Tips for Overcoming Crazy Girl Emotions by Girl Defined, is a video made by two women giving tips to other women about 5 techniques that will help women control their crazy “girl” emotions. Throughout the video the women express the need to advert the emotions women feel as they are unnecessary. Find the link for the video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jxx1Ypbdwog

The media is also filled with pictures or memes depicting women as irrational beings in relationships incapable of controlling their emotions.

https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1708&bih=814&q=crazy+girlfriend+emotions&oq=crazy+girlfriend+emotions&gs_l=img.3...2953.10341.0.10465.29.13.2.14.16.0.219.1489.0j9j2.11.0....0...1ac.1.64.img..2.18.1590...0j0i30k1j0i5i30k1j0i8i30k1.ji3q7kDRkeo#imgrc=0d2ce_KD8JROsM:&spf=211

https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1708&bih=814&q=crazy+girlfriend+emotions&oq=crazy+girlfriend+emotions&gs_l=img.3...2953.10341.0.10465.29.13.2.14.16.0.219.1489.0j9j2.11.0....0...1ac.1.64.img..2.18.1590...0j0i30k1j0i5i30k1j0i8i30k1.ji3q7kDRkeo#imgrc=Kiti-nBI0KHpOM:&spf=325

Intersectional Understanding

Intersectionality is viewed as, “rooted in Black feminism and Critical Race Theory, intersectionality is a method and a disposition, a heuristic and analytic tool,” (Carbado, D., Crenshaw, K., Mays, V., & Tomlinson, B., 2013, pg. 303). I believe intersectionality can be used to view how multiple forms of oppression have played a drastic position in the way women identified persons are viewed and treated within heterosexual relationships. In many aspects of life, some women are portrayed in a stereotypical way. I believe intersectionality can be used to critically examine the role of the media, stereotypes, and gendered perceptions in the way women are viewed within heterosexual relationships as being crazy and emotional. #multiplecauses #donotjudgeabookbyitscover

Reference

Carbado, D., Crenshaw, K., Mays, V., & Tomlinson, B. (2013). INTERSECTIONALITY: Mapping the Movements of a Theory. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 10(2), 303-312. doi:10.1017/S1742058X13000349

A Step in the Right Direction: Fighting Princess’ Norms

Before Moana came, the closest Disney character I could relate to physically was Mulan, but I’m not Chinese. I’m Filipino. I look a lot like Moana, black hair, brown eyes, brown skin.  She has a body type that matches distinctly with that of past princesses.  It is realistic, but I call it more relatable.  As Disney’s first Polynesian “princess,” I know it’ll mean so much to young girls like my niece to see themselves in a strong character like Moana.  I like the movie Moana because it serves as an inspiration for girls to dream big and expect equality in anything they do.  Despite an almost universal love for Disney’s assortment of “perfect” princesses, a problematic trend is that many of these princesses are white, and most of them depict the helpless damsel in distress archetype.  Moana of Motunui fights these “princes' norms,” and I can’t help but love her for it #badass.  She also follows her heart despite what her dad thinks and says she should do.  I don’t like the whole “not listening to your parents” thing, but I believe one of the most important concepts of feminism is being able to choose your path and not letting other people put a hindrance on what you can do. Moana is also a strong girl who doesn’t need a man.  There is no single reference to a love interest for our heroine in this entire film. Moana’s independence is something that should be promoted way more in movies of this type. Young women deserve to know that they do not need a man to succeed. #independenceissexy

moana-2-e1479763483979.jpg

I also love that Moana takes advice and is led to her true self with the help of her wise grandmother. Having respect for the women who had helped us to take the right paths and appreciating their wisdom and guidance is another meaning of feminism for me. It isn’t about doing whatever I want; it’s about being the person that I want to be. Finally, the representation of the culture in this film is extraordinary. It is apparent that the team did extensive research on Polynesian culture (Herman, 2016).  While I cannot speak for this culture, it is always exhilarating to see non-white people being represented positively in the media. Disney did not only represent this culture in Moana, but they also cast actors who are of Polynesian descent to play the iconic roles. Moana is portrayed by Auli’I Cravalho, a native Hawaiian (Varner, 2016; Chinen, 2016). Maui is voiced by a famous wrestler-turned-actor, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, who is of Samoan descent (Varner, 2016; Chinen, 2016).  Even with the voices in the ensemble, Disney kept their casting choices true to the characters.  Moreover, Moana delivers in an era when females and non-white cultures can use positive representation more than ever.  From this, I hope Disney will continue this path in the future.

For a long time, young girls who do not have "white and skinny" features have been subjected to a lack of representation in a media appearance that is undeniably desirable to most young girls.  It is frustrating for these young girls who are not so able to find princesses that look like them.  Therefore, this is why it is important to have princesses of all shapes, sizes, and colors because positive values presented in Disney movies may be parallels to young girls' lives.  It rendered the fact that it is okay to be different, and girls can do anything they set their minds to.

#girlpower#empowerwomen

Reference

Herman, D. (2016). How the Story of “Moana” and Maui Holds Up Against Cultural Truths. Retrieved March 23, 2017, from http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/how-story-moana-and-maui-holds-against-cultural-truths-180961258/

Varner, W. (2016). Some Things About Disney's "Moana" That Real Polynesians Want You To Know. Retrieved March 23, 2017, from https://www.buzzfeed.com/willvarner/we-asked-polynesian-people-what-they-thought-of-disneys-moan?utm_term=.bbbdDO5VYm#.svkwZnGYP4

Chinen, N. (2016). How Moana Uses Polynesian Myths to Create a Prototypical Disney Story. Retrieved March 23, 2017, from http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2016/11/how_moana_uses_polynesian_myths_to_create_a_disney_story.html

Second radio show on March 20th!

Listen to our second radio show featuring reflections on intersectional feminism!

Islamophobia and the West: Why the Muslim Ban is Indeed a Muslim Ban

                On January 20th, 2017, Donald Trump was sworn into office as the 45th President of the United States, a somber image of hate and xenophobia attaining the highest office in America. It took President Trump a mere week to turn his xenophobic rhetoric into an executive order. Executive Order 13769, titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” was signed on January 27^th and was meant to deny entry of citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen for 90 days as well as suspend all admission of refugees for 120 days. The reason cited for this executive order were concerns for national security due to the rise of “Islamic extremism,” while a new method of vetting immigrants is developed. However, I would argue that this executive order does nothing to protect US citizens from harm and only further feeds the growing xenophobic and Islamophobic sentiment that Donald Trump has helped normalize with his campaign.

Why do people call it a Muslim ban?

                Proponents of the executive order refuse to call it a Muslim ban. They often cite the fact that countries that have the highest Muslim population in the world, such as Indonesia and Nigeria, were excluded from the ban. And while this is true, it ignores the developing racialization of the label “Muslim.” Media and many right-wing politicians use the term “Islam” and “Muslim” to describe Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS. Muslim is repeatedly associated with extremists in the Middle East. As a result, many people within the West use certain visual indicators to categorize, or rather racialize, people into the group of “Muslim.” These indicators include brown skin, bearded men, Middle Eastern accents, head-coverings, the Arabic language and more. As usual for racialized groups, these indicators are so broad that they often include people who don’t follow Islam while also being so specific to exclude huge groups of the people that do follow the religion. For example, because they wear turbans in accordance to their religion, Sikh individuals often face the same discrimination as Muslims, despite being in an entirely different religion. Furthermore, Southeast and East Asian Muslims are often excluded from the racialization because they simply aren’t associated with the extremism. I often hear that Islam is the root problem when it comes to extremists, hence why ISIS and other similar groups should be called Islamists or Islamic extremists. However, this statement ignores countries like Indonesia, which has the world’s largest Muslim population and yet, is not a threat to US national security.

                The reason I refer to the executive order as a Muslim ban is because it targets a specific, racialized group of people that the Western world sees as representative of Muslims. This fact has been repeatedly disputed by proponents of the Muslim ban because governmental discrimination based on race or religion is unconstitutional. This blatant discrimination opens the door for courts to overturn the ban and allow the affected individuals to enter the country, which has already happened in several states, such as New York. Furthermore, the executive order specifically prioritizes Christian immigrants from those areas, showing clear religious discrimination within the policy.

Isn’t this about America’s safety?

                Although the reason cited for the ban revolved around national security, everything about the Muslim ban contradicts that statement. Proponents of the Muslim ban claim it will keep Americans safe, but since 2001, no immigrants from the seven listed countries have been involved in domestic terror attacks. Furthermore, the countries where the 9/11 hijackers were from, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates, are not included in the ban, despite the claim that the ban would prevent another similar attack. It is also important to note that the Trump Organization has active business ties with the countries that were excluded from the ban. This becomes even more pertinent when we must remind ourselves that President Trump has not placed his assets in a blind trust, as is expected of presidents with business affairs. He put his children, Ivanka, Eric, and Donald Jr., in charge of his company, despite all three having obviously close ties to the government and the President. As it stands, President Trump can and has made presidential decisions that benefit his company so it would not be farfetched to assert that he purposefully left out countries important to the Trump Organization when drafting the executive order.

                Another important fact to note, which often gets overlooked in talks about extremism, is that Muslims comprise the majority of victims of extremism. In 2011, the US National Counterterrorism Centre reported: “In cases [in the Middle East] where the religious affiliation of terrorism casualties could be determined, Muslims suffered between 82 and 97 percent of terrorism-related fatalities over the past five years.” Muslims have always suffered at the hands of these extremists, which is why many Muslims don’t even consider ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haraam, and all the other extremist groups as Muslim. And despite this, Western media often portrays Muslims as terrorists or sympathisers, often causing Western Muslims to face discrimination and even violence.

                By feeding into Islamophobia, this executive order only further fuels extremist propaganda. ISIS wants Muslims across the world to view what’s happening in the Middle East as a holy war between the depraved West and Islam by convincing them that the West hates Muslims. Pushing that narrative can make some Muslims feel conflicted about their view of ISIS. If what they say is true, how can a Muslim knowingly side with the West, a world that hates them? This can make a Muslim hesitate and that’s all ISIS needs to continue committing crimes against humanity and indoctrinating people into their cause. Canadians and Americans cannot put their countries on a moral pedestal and still commit acts of discrimination that only further incites violence in the world.

Don’t immigrants bring crime with them?

                The Pew Research Centre has repeatedly disputed this assertion. As you can see above, first-generation immigrants are actually less likely to commit crime across all ages. Second-generation immigrants have the same likelihood to commit a crime as native-born individuals, which has been attributed to exposure to similar environmental factors as the native-born population. The idea that immigrants are predisposed to crime is partially due to disproportionate and biased media coverage and the nearly constant barrage of false narratives by politicians and political groups. The most topical example is of President Trump’s wall of Tweets and statements about immigrants and crime, which validates the xenophobic notions amongst the US population. Furthermore, it’s become very easy for anybody to publish an article or blogpost with skewed facts or tidbits of information taken out of context and for people to immerse themselves in a sociopolitical bubble, surrounded only by people and media that agree with them. It’s important to expose yourself to conflicting ideas and navigate all the information that’s out there, separating fact from alternative fact.

In conclusion

                We live in a world of both information and misinformation at our fingertips. Nothing should be taken at face value. It is our duty as citizens of the First World to be informed and engage in the political process because our actions directly and indirectly impact other parts of the world and other people who may not necessarily get a say in the matter. While land, sea, race, and religion may separate us, we as human beings all want the same thing: to live life on this Earth while we can. Tolerance and open-mindedness are fundamental to prosperity, while hate and fear threaten it. Donald Trump and his administration may want you to believe that immigrants and Muslims are synonymous with crime, death, terrorism, and evil, it is our responsibility to set the record straight. The Muslim ban is unconstitutional, discriminatory, and a harbinger of fascist regimes like we’ve seen throughout history.

“Never Again” is now.