Does pink really stink?

In the run-up to Christmas there's been a lot of talk in the feminist-sphere about gendered toys, and the difficulty in buying gifts that don't reinforce tiresome gender stereotypes. Ms. have a great feminist gift guide for girls on their blog and feminists have welcomed the news that Sweden's Top Toy company depicts boys playing with dollhouses and girls playing with toy guns in their catalogue. I welcome it too, being well acquainted with a 6 year-old boy who loves the colour pink and often asks to go through my make-up bag. However, while I think while gender-neutral toys and freeing kids up to play with toys that have historically been assigned to the opposite gender are definitely a good thing, I think there should be some caution in assuming that everything pink, well, stinks.

I say this as a strident feminist who grew up in an all-pink bedroom with a toybox full of Barbies and My Little Ponies. I say it as an educated, unmarried woman who does not want children, is indifferent to the concept of marriage and has never, ever dreamed that some day a man will come and transform my life. Girly things aren't necessarily evil. Barbie may be an irritating silicone-pumped airhead, but to me as a child, she was just a doll whose hair I brushed. She didn't make me want six-foot long legs (which bizarrely, you could bend forward at the knee) and I didn't ever relate my own flat eight-year-old chest to her pneumatic bosoms. I liked dressing her in pretty outfits, and that was about it. I knew she wasn't real nor did I really want someone in my life who actually resembled her.

I guess a lot has changed in 21 years though - as far as I'm aware you couldn't buy pole-dancing kits for children back in 1991, or padded bras for young girls. Children weren't nearly as sexualised or aggressively marketed to, although I've learnt that in 1992 a talking Barbie that said "Math Class is Tough" was pulled from the market, so we were hardly living in a post-feminist utopia back then either. But yes, I can see why feminists, educators and parents are increasingly concerned about not sending the wrong message to little girls. That message being - and one that is still too frighteningly popular in the modern world - that how you look is what matters most, followed by getting male attention, money and being a princess.

However, the danger with tearing the Barbies out of your daughter's hand and directing her towards toy diggers and trucks, is that we end up denigrating that which is seen as 'feminine' and reinforce the idea that traditionally masculine preferences are superior. If my daughter wanted to play with dolls, I'd let her - because as a child I played with plenty of dolls, both the glitzy Barbies, Sindys and Jems and also the baby-sized 'proper' dolls that I'd put in a crib and 'mother'. And guess how I turned out? Firmly feminist, proudly child-free and with no desire for babies of my own. And because like most kids, I didn't stick to one thing in particular, I also played with Lego, and my brother and I had a particular fondness for our toy farm and a red wooden train which we named HobNob. As demonstrated by the 6 year-old boy who will try on my lipgloss then run to play with a toy tank, and who will alternate between drawing sharks and rainbows, kids' tastes are pretty varied (not to mention sometimes, completely bonkers). 

Yes, it's ridiculous to swathe things in pink in order to 'entice' girls - primary coloured Lego was good enough for this girl, thanks - but at the same time, many girls will continue to gravitate towards all things pink like bees to a flower, and this shouldn't be a source of concern. Because if  we start deeming a 'girly' colour as somehow inferior, this implies we see femininity as inferior. And I know, I know - the very concept of 'masculinity' and 'feminine' things are socially constructed, and that if we'd been saying pink was a ''boy's colour' since time began we'd probably see it as a manly, butch colour. But all that aside, as soon as we pit 'masculine' tastes against 'feminine' ones we're only reinforcing damaging gender binaries. Traditionally 'feminine' work has long been denigrated - motherhood, nursing, cleaning, care work, secretarial work etc. I don't think it's coincidental that the traditionally 'pink collar' jobs are the ones with the worst pay, least security and benefits, most exploitation etc. And yes, one of the ways to combat this is to get more men on board (as a former carer I can definitely attest to the value of having more men in the profession). But the other way is to remind ourselves that much as we are trying to make the point that women aren't only fit for cooking, cleaning and caring, those traditionally 'feminine' roles are still roles that deserve respect, as much respect as any traditionally 'masculine' role does (and not least because a lot of 'feminine' industries enable a lot of traditionally 'masculine' industries to exist by taking the burden of caring and homemaking men).

 

And although I know we're talking on a much more trivial level here, I do think the same goes for the gendered spheres children find themselves in. If your daughter's determined to smother her life in pink, refusing to give her what she wants for Christmas isn't going to dampen that desire for all things fuschia. But then, if it's your son who wants a magenta bedroom, you won't change his mind either by forcing a toy gun into his hands. Yes, there are dangerous messages send out by gendered toys - that being a boy involves violence and aggression, and that being a girl involves being passive and superficial. And we need to intercept those messages, but not by imagining we can fight the influences of media and peers single-handedly. Educate your child that what matters is being a kind person, treating others well, being generous and not judging on appearances, and for all the dolls and pink in the world they might just grow up to be a feminist anyway. Like this non-silicone enhanced short-legged brunette did.

 

(Oh, and if you could teach them to sit still in restaurants and be quiet on aeroplanes, that'd be super fab too.)

The Theatrics of Equality

Today's Guardian reports that 'too many plays performed in theatres subsidised by the taxpayer are dominated by male roles' and that the actors' union Equity has contacted 43 directors of subsidised theatre companies, asking them to rectify this situation. Lynda Rook, chair of the women's committee at Equity goes on to say "If young women want to go into the arts and they are not seeing their gender reflected that is a problem - you can't be what you can't see."

Wise words indeed - ones which got me thinking, perhaps the blame shouldn't entirely be lain at directors' feet. Yes, they choose which plays their company will perform, and therefore have a duty to ensure parity in gender roles as far as is at all possible. But responsibility for the number of women in plays lies with playwrights, not directors. And it's easy to find plays with fantastic and substantial male roles - not so much with female roles. Macbeth? One main female role (wife) to five main male roles. Death of A Salesman? One substantial female role (wife) and two flimsy female roles (one a call girl, the other a mistress) to five key male roles. It's not just numbers though. It's about decent parts too. And this is something I noticed when, as a drama student at an all-girls school, I regularly ended up playing male roles (even though I've never topped 5'2", teachers clearly sensed my 'masculine energy' from somewhere!). The male roles were often so much more complex, nuanced, interesting and fun to play.

Would I have swapped my role as Eddie in A View From The Bridge for that of obedient wife Beatrice or naive niece Catherine? No chance. I got to stand on tables howling 'I'm a patsy, what can I do?' while all the female characters got to do was simper. Similarly, as Deputy Governor Danforth in The Crucible I got to boss all the other characters around, preside over the courtroom and bellow 'HANG THEM HIGH OVER THE TOWN!', whilst the female roles were limited to exhibiting either hysteria or noble piety. The Crucible does at least have a variety and number of female roles, I suppose. But as far as I could see, female characters never really got to push boundaries. They were Madonnas or whores, evil bitches or good wives. Whereas I just got to be a man - the one role seemingly immune to easy labels. And yes, it was great fun getting to break away from the tedium of teenage girlhood by playing men - and yes, we did study a lot of Arthur Miller at my school.

So I suppose the approach taken needs to be twofold - directors do need to choose plays more wisely, and not just keep putting on Henry V (although an imaginative director would realise the actors playing male parts don't necessarily have to be female - just look at my long reign as the gender-bender of St Albans High School). But plays featuring decent, complex, stereotype-breaking female characters also need to be written in the first place. More Beatrices, fewer Ophelias. We need to see female characters with lives and identities in their own rights, not just as complementary figures to a man's struggle. Otherwise who do we have to blame when, raised on a diet of male-dominated plays like War Horse, Dr Faustus and Journey's End (standard texts for GCSE and A Level English), schoolchildren and theatre students alike come to see women as merely incidental to the crucial events of life and art?

Boys on Film: Movies, Masculinity and The Hunger Games

*** SPOILER ALERT - If you are one of the remaining folks who hasn't seen The Hunger Games and still wants to, do not read on! ***

When one of my co-workers took some cheques to the bank to deposit in our company's account, the clerk serving her noticed our company name (the Feminist Majority Foundation, the charity that owns Ms. Magazine) and asked the following, oh-so-enlightened question:

"Do you guys all hate men?"

My colleague politely responded no. But that's what feminism has come to mean in so many minds. Pro-woman must equal anti-man, especially if you're one of those charming Men's Rights Activists (MRAs). This was a criticism levelled at the fantastic film Thelma & Louise, as not only did it (gasp!) focus on two female leads and put men on the sideline, but it highlighted the fact that (shocker!) some men do some terrible things. Not all men - Jimmy, played by Michael Madsen, is a loyal and caring boyfriend to Louise. Hal, played by Harvey Keitel, tries his hardest to prevent the two protagonists becoming victims of the law that is meant to protect them. And yes, there are three male characters who do shitty things - Harlan, the bar-room charmer who turns out to be a violent rapist, J.D., the buff cowboy who gives Thelma her first 'proper lay' but then robs her, and the truck driver who sexually harasses our ladies and gets his comeuppance. And guess what - there are plenty of real-life men who do those things and are never brought to justice, but having this highlighted in a film was clearly too much for some, and they either demeaned the film by labelling it a 'chick flick', or simply accused it of promoting man-hating - or at least a negative picture of masculinity.

However, masculinity can be extremely negative, let's not deny it. This is not the same as saying men are bad - it's saying that the macho stereotype that is demanded of them definitely is. Being violent, aggressive, arrogant, domineering, ruthless, selfish and positioning oneself as superior to the opposite sex are precisely the characteristics that harm our planet and its people every single day. So what about alternative models of masculinity?

Well, I started thinking about this when I finally caught up with the rest of the Western world on Saturday and went to see The Hunger Games. Yes, I realise I'm a little late to the party, but the phenomenon took a while to filter through to this non-American, and I also wanted to be a purist and read the book first. When I finally saw the film, what came through to me was not just the incredibly positive representation of a female as strong, intelligent, self-sufficient and able to protect and provide for others, but the contrasting depictions of men. Katniss's father is entirely absent from her family, leaving her to take over as head of the family, and provide for her mother and sister. Her friendship with Gale is an equal partnership based on practicality and mutual respect, so far devoid of romance. It is Gale who is left behind to look after Katniss's family while she is tasked with representing her District - another inversion of the 'women belong in the domestic sphere whilst men go out in the world and do Important Things' trope.

Haymitch, Katniss's only mentor, is a drunken shell of a man whose life has been forever tainted by his experience in the Hunger Games. Although he attempts to impose discipline on Katniss and make her 'likeable' for the cameras, he is rarely successful in getting her to toe the line, reminding me a little of the relationship between Giles and Buffy, where Giles' timid attempts to play the patriarch was always scathingly blown out of the water by the headstrong, attitude-laden Buffy. Haymitch does end up with affection for his charge, perhaps realising that her unwillingness to play the passive female is what may actually lead to her survival in the Games.

Then there's Cinna - ah, after Lenny Kravitz gave a face to Katniss's one unconditional friend in the Capitol, who doesn't love Cinna? He's beautiful, gentle, and he genuinely cares about our heroine. Although he is limited in his ability to help her, his moral and emotional support is depicted as invaluable, both in the book and the film. Cinna's sexuality is ambiguous - his soft voice and physical mannerisms, plus the stereotype of men who work in fashion being mostly homosexual, could imply his character is meant to be gay. However, his 'effeminate' characteristics could also simply be a side-effect of living in a future where everyone, male and female, is insanely groomed, appearance-obsessed, and make-up has become de rigeur for both sexes (interestingly, Cinna always wears black unlike the other Capitol characters who are drowning in colour, perhaps showing that he has not fully surrendered to their fashion fascism). Cinna also helps Katniss in both traditionally 'feminine' and 'masculine' ways - his fashion know-how gives her visual appeal to the crowd through her costume (and importantly, without sexualising or objectifying her), but he also provides strength and comfort when she is consumed with terror at entering the arena.

Then there is Katniss's 'team-mate' in the Games - Peeta. Unlike the other males in the game, and unlike Katniss herself, Peeta is uncompetitive and fairly resigned to dying in the Games. Most of the evidence points to Peeta's total lack of aggression - when other males mock him during training, it is Katniss who has to persuade him to make a show of strength because 'those guys are looking at you like you're a meal'. It is Katniss who objects to being made to 'look weak' when Peeta admits his romantic feelings for her on TV, inverting the stereotype that love and romance are 'for girls', and his submission to Katniss's rage when she slams him up against a wall is distinctly un-Alpha-male. Once in the arena, Peeta appears to betray Katniss by teaming up with a group who are hunting her, but it becomes apparent that this is a tactical move to infiltrate and placate the enemy. When he is seriously wounded, it is she who protects him and nurses him back to health. The scene where she applies healing balm to his wound simmers with chemistry, and for me it was partly because of Peeta's vulnerability and willingness to defer to Katniss.

Peeta's lack of competitive/aggressive behaviour is sharply contrasted with that of Cato, the stereotypical 'Alpha male', who is depicted a little more than a brute, a mindless killing machine bent on violence and domination. The audience is meant to dislike him - he is the enemy because he kills without discrimination, and often seems to take pleasure in murder. His lack of moral code is what makes him objectionable, in direct opposition to Katniss, who only kills in self-defence or defence of another (such as Rue). Cato is definitely not meant to be admired, and indeed there seems to be a warning implicit in his last scene, where we see him bloodied and borderline-hysterical, finally aware of the futility of the Games - he laughs bitterly "I'm dead anyway" as he holds Peeta in a headlock and taunts Katniss that if she kills him, he will take Peeta with him. Cato appears to have been driven to distraction by the deliberate viciousness of the Capitol; they have encouraged and glorified his extreme machismo then abandoned him. I think there are some possible parallels here with the way men are destroyed by the exploitation of their need for masculine glory - army recruitment being a major example that springs to mind.

In contrast, Peeta has never wanted to play the macho game, and is calm in his practicality when the rules are changed and he immediately surrenders, telling Katniss to kill him because 'one of us should go home'. I can see how Peeta's passivity could be read as a negative indictment that feminism has 'emasculated' men, that his lack of aggression, willingness to play second fiddle to Katniss and defer to her expertise are all examples of the unattractive, 'feminised' man that the women's movement is accused of creating. Interesting that the qualities that were supposed to make women so attractive to men - being gentle, non-aggressive, unthreatening and letting others take the glory -is suddenly supposed to become so unattractive when embodied in a man. However, the swathes of female admirers joining 'Team Peeta' imply otherwise. A man comfortable enough with himself not to be constantly asserting himself via macho behaviour can be very attractive, as the army of Peeta fans will attest. Peeta supports and respects the girl he loves - many of us would agree there's nothing sexier. When compared with Cato's hackneyed blustering and frat-boy posturing, it's pretty easy to say who's a more attractive picture of masculinity.

What makes the 'good' male characters in The Hunger Games is loyalty. Even Thresh is afforded some audience sympathy when he spares Katniss because she protected Rue, whilst taking revenge on Clove, who gloats over Rue's death. His loyalty to his fellow tribute and the girl who protected her contrasts with his contempt for the amoral and sadistic Clove. Gale keeps his promise to protect Katniss's family. Cinna's support for Katniss never wavers, before, during or after the Games. And Peeta's loyalty to Katniss is always apparent.

These are visions of masculinity I can get behind. This is the kind of masculinity I want to see more of, both on the screen and off.