We love some good satire at here Gender Relations, which is why the other nights Daily Show had a great segment about men losing their status and power here in America. Samantha Bee goes head to head with sociologist, Dr. Warren Farrell, and I think she does a great job. Her expression of traditional masculinity (the hunting at the end being the best example) against the men’s expression (which seems very unmasculine) shows a very interesting dynamic of men losing power, and how they choose to act..

The men explain the problems they face (although they have a hard time really coming up with answers) in a way that is very sensitive through talking circles. So, there is a irony between the fact that they are losing their traditional senses of power and the fact that they are acting more ‘effeminate’. At the end, Bee even suggests that they are turning her into a lesbian and that they are ‘vaginamen’, which illustrates perfectly that the worst they have to lose is the traditional sense of masculinity (which is very aggressive at times), and that the images of men can be something different. There is a thin line with satire, because by calling them vaginamen, she could be emasculating them even further. There is also an irony that men are upset about WOMEN taking over their positions, yet they are “acting like women”. Maybe the gender struggle is more about power than anything else. When you feel like you are at the bottom (even if it is an illusion), then you become more sensitive, open, communicable, etc. An interesting theory to mull over.

Samantha also cracks a joke about reclaiming their manhood (after making a joke about masturbating in a circle) in relation to their sexuality, which is hard to tell if the joke is clumping sexuality and gender together or not, but something to consider.

On a more serious note, the ominous news clips at the beginning of the segment are not unlike the feelings these men are expressing in these groups. I don’t find the groups themselves to be hurting anyone, inherently, but you must look at why they are there. They seem like relatively sensitive men (talking sticks?) who are hurting about a loss of power, yet reacting unlike a man of power would react in the situation. Maybe because they are large cultural changes that are happening allowing females to take positions of power, education, and presence in the media, men cannot directly do anything about it.

This feeling of defeat that the men are feeling should be used as a reflective one to both :

Empathize women’s past struggles // There is a huge increase of women coming into power, but have they not earned it? In the past more women have sought out higher education (which makes them more qualified for a large amount of the jobs in our country). Although, matriarchy is not a better model than patriarchy (and I certainly do not see it coming to that, as men are STILL in power), I think this gives men a unique opportunity to try to fit into the ‘high heels’ of women’s historic disadvantage.

Focus on creating better relationships with women // Men and women are not that different. There does not have to be large power differences (shouldn’t the best person get the job?). When men and women work together, really the only loss that can occur is one of traditional power structures. Focusing on how everyone can work better as human beings and not men or women can be beneficial.

I have seen a lot of these men’s groups popping up lately. Magazines dedicated to the proposition, entire organizations functioning on the sole thought that men are losing their grips of power, but when you look at the statistics (which I believe Samantha and The Daily Show point out quite eloquently), it becomes easy to see that men have nothing to fear with their hands grasped tightly to the major corporations in our country. I can see how women becoming equal could threaten a man’s position, but it has been a position that fits wrongly in the place of decency. We are equal people, and before this gets too corny, I would like to end by saying that these groups could help awaken men to be more sensitive and open (but without the banter of losing power).

Feministing (where I found this clip), really positions themselves in the area that the segment was unsuccessful and that it seemed to be making fun of men who weren’t meeting the traditions of masculinity anyways. I would agree with this (which was addressed in some of my comments above), but at the same time, it is important to realize why the men are there. I think the groups are great because men are expressing themselves in non-traditional ways, but it is as a backlash to women becoming more equal. Even though they do break out of traditional dominance of masculinity, they aren’t doing it for the reasons of safety or progressive attitudes, but because they feel like they are losing something (that does not inherently even belong to them) If men becoming more sensitive and women becoming more equal is the end of the formula, then why not? I do understand the point of the target, and I feel like the nature of TDS is to draw attention to a group like this (to get an alternative view – agreed they could have done it a little better), but I think Bee’s behavior in the segment is really reflective of trying to reject traditional masculinity that those men feel like they have lost (which I think the origin of why the group is formed is very integral to understanding why they are breaking out of the traditional format of masculinity). It’s a touchy line, and hard to discern one way or the other, but her gross representation of masculinity was one I felt paired interestingly with the gross behavior of the men.

A tip of the hat to Feministing, where I found this story.

What is your take on the segment?

So, with the Superbowl on it’s way this Sunday, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding some of the ads that are going to be displayed or not displayed. In my previous post, I mentioned CBS’ involvement in showing anti-abortion ads for the group Focus on Families. A little update of that effort : CREDO (the organization involved in the petition to pull those ads) have gathered over 120,000 signatures, which CBS is very aware of, but choose to ignore. Regardless of your stance on the issue, it is hard to feel sympathy for CBS’ hypocrisy with their “No-Advocacy” policy, when they start banning other advertisements that may promote certain lifestyles they do not wish to align themselves with.

Now, I have come across two specifically that really benchmark what kind of game is being played at the superbowl this year (pun intended). Even with the number of people that watch the Superbowl, football is largely a masculine sport with male followers. With that being said, I think it sets the stage for the two banned ads (I am sure there are more) that came my way.

ManCrunch

ManCrunch, which is an online gay dating site has had their ad refused by the powers that be. Now, there is already a little controversy with this ad in general. The signs in the back, the displeased friend, etc. Although there are multiple interpretations, I would say that having a football related , gay ad would be a good ad to run, regardless of some of the negatives. I think the ad breaks the gender barrier of saying that masculine, football-loving men are, indeed, gay as well. Take from the ad what you will, but the ban is very obviously one of gay nature (and im sure the image of very tough, football-loving, men shunning their heterosexual nature isn’t part of that AT ALL). The thing to consider here is the mash-up of gender and sexuality. Even though these men are retaining their masculine qualities (being strong, etc.), their masculinity is instantly stripped once they are gay. It’s an interesting and ironic measurement of gender studies to see how those two can be separate, then closely tied in specific circumstances.

GoDaddy

This one has surprised me. GoDaddy is notorious for very sexist, over the top, sexualized advertisements (FOR WEB HOSTING!). Just last year I switched my hosting to DreamHost because I did not agree with Bob Parsons’ take on women, the industry, and advertising. I didn’t want to support such blatant objectification of women. That is why their latest ad can only dictate the humiliation of effeminate acting men. In the ad, Lola (an ex-football player), built a business as a clothing designer. Of course, Lola is very “gay acting” (effeminate), and even though effeminiate does not equate homosexuality, I think it is implied in this ad. I am not sure the intent GoDaddy had with this one. Danica Patrick has been their mascot for quite some time, and she is in her full suit (sometimes she’s barely wearing anything), and narrating the story of Lola. I’m not sure if they were TRYING to sell limited images of gender (how a masculine man can become feminine with the snap of selling clothing — hint : selling clothes does not make you snap your fingers and lisp) or if they were trying to get the gay vote (if they were, they need better marketing consultants). Either way, it’s fail, so it is good this is pulled off the air, but in the same time, the reasons for it being pulls are also for the wrong reasons.

Now, between the ManCrunch and this ad, both gender and sexuality for men take a beating, as well as women’s right to choose abortion as an option. I am not sure how in 2010, we are regressing so much, but apparently the marketers are pulling out all the stops on this event.

I don’t watch the superbowl (as a male!), but I wish I did , so I could boycott the event. I really am excited to see what ads actually air, and then the final release of the rejected ads. If you have any other gender/sex related banned superbowl 2010 ads, let me know! Also, let me know your thoughts on the ads!

Although I have yet to get all the way through the book “Packaging Girlhood” by Lyn Mikel Brown and Sharon Lamb, it is a great analysis of how marketing and media extrapolate gender stereotypes for girls and sell them through tv, movies, clothing, and other society “packages”. The authors of that book , including Mark Tappan, have recently released their followup “Packaging Boyhood”. My copy came in the mail today, and I have read the intro thus far, and it sounds really exciting.

Anyways, the authors will be at the University of Maine (in Orono) on January 26th for a few events :

Stodder Hall
10 – 11:30

After this presentation and discussion they will be at the

Women in Curriculum Luncheon in the Bangor Room starting at 12:15

If you haven’t heard of the books, pick them up, they are a great stepping stone into gender based marketing research and are really comprehensive (as much as you can be on the media) with their examples and though process. I am sure after reading Packaging Boyhood I will have a new take on some of the blogging that I do myself. I already am having some interesting realizations after reading the introduction.

See you there!

Yesterday, I was browsing the interweb for gender related materials and came across someone’s blog from a few days ago entitled “Reasons Cosplayers Scare Me“. At first, I was not clicking for gender perspectives, but Cosplay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosplay if you don’t know what it is) seems a little strange to me, but for different reasons than the author of this post. As I read the post, I got relatively annoyed (which is usually the emotion I feel when brash gender stereotypes are thrown onto the playing field). As you keep reading you can tell that everything is tongue-and-cheek, but I thought I will respond as if it weren’t because I have heard a lot of of people talk about cosplay in almost this same manor.

THE PART I WOULD LIKE TO FOCUS ON IS DESCRIBED BELOW

WTG

• Sometimes I like to play a game with my friends and random passerby called “What’s That Gender!?” The goal of the game is to determine the sex of the person in question. If close examination of the subject does not cause the real gender to become evident, players are encouraged go up to the subject and attempt to begin a short conversation in order to determine how deep the subject’s voice is. If the gender is still in question, players punch the subject in the crotch and measure on a scale of 1 to 10 how much pain was caused to the individual. Optionally, players without the guts to do such a thing can just throw their hands in the air and scream “WHAT ARE YOU!?!?!” If the subject does not answer, it is determined that he/she is a mute mangirl. I’m betting that the thingy in the picture to the right is composed of two bearded Vietnamese midget women standing on each others’ shoulders. It really is a toss-up though. Disgusting, and yet hilarious.

Okay, so there are some real ignorances presented in this paragraph alone. First of all playing a game called “What’s that gender” both implies that it matters and that it is not about how that person identifies but more how they are filling their prescribed gender stereotypes. I will admit , what little I do know of cosplay, there is a lot of gender ambiguity. You see this a lot with anime and Asian exported media.

Reading more the details of this “gender game” these people play (which they very well may not even play and this could just be a humorous commentary on cosplay – but really shows a reinforcement of gender stereotyping). Although this article WAS NOT written in a serious manor, this “gender game” happens on a daily level outside the cosplay world. We are constantly (and I am guilty as charged as well) assigning gender to people who we have no clue about. These people could ID as masculine, feminine, a mix of both, neither, anything.

The author also suggests that the (obvious) man is a “thingy” and that if a person does not fall discretely in their roles then they are categorized as a thing. This is extremely interesting to analyze because when we objectify humans (which happens all the time), it becomes very easy to hate on them. Now, I am not going to lie, I think cosplay is a little weird (not because of the gender ambiguity, but rather the extreme levels of role playing a fantasy life that is very outside our own life – but to each their own), but everyone has the right to express themselves how they want to. Even though this article is aimed in a humous way, it says a lot about our culture because if we saw the man in that picture walking down the street we would play that “gender game”, and some people may take it as far as objectifying them as a human being. It is important to humans to label others so that they can ID them as good or bad, but we need to note that things like sexuality and gender are not good or bad, they just are.

Though cosplay is a very unique subculture of dressing up like favorite anime characters (or video games), a portion of these people are partaking in cross-dressing (though they may just see it as fun and not cross-dressing in a transgendered sort of way), but the outside sees this as a socially queer (pun intended) thing to do. These attitudes need to stop. I don’t want to get much into the psychology of cosplay, but I can imagine that a reason these people are dressing up and living alternate lives is in part because they have been cast away from (or feel they don’t fit right) in the society that we have created. For that, I do not blame them. I also think, they just want to do it for fun, and if we send the message that it is not alright even to “cross-dress” for fun, then what are we telling people who truly are transgender?

Although the subculture is a little strange to me (any subculture can seem strange to outsiders), I think that cosplay introduces some interesting topics on gender. The fact that men and women are dressing like a different gender (called CROSSPLAY), they are therefore playing with gender (gender bending), and also just some of the characters being gender ambiguous allows for a conversation about deconstructing gender to happen. Rather than adopt the attitude of the author of that blog, we can look and say “wow there are other forms of gender expression out there”. It is good to have parts of our culture that shows gender ambiguity because otherwise there would be no alternatives. Even if people do not feel gender ambigious , there is nothing wrong with being fluid with gender, or just playing around. There needs to be more than Halloween that says “we can step outside of our traditional roles”.

“A prime candidate for a rousing
round of “What’s That Gender!?” – Slapstic

Like I have said, even though this article was written tongue-in-cheek, many people play the game of “what is that gender” (and well beyond cosplay).

I wonder what Sherri Shepard would have to say about this?

Thank You Avril Lavigne for leading the forefront of “non-conformist conformists”. See, this is a tad personal. I used to be a huge Avril fan. I used to think that she stood for standing apart from the crowd, challenging norms, all of the great things about “being liberal”. Her second album talked about abuse, broken homes, and living life to it’s fullest, then she took sabbatical from all these values – got a make over (with some plastic surgery), and suddenly she is the BEST DAMN THING — according to her new album. There is much wrong with her new album in the way of gender, but the worst is her newly released video. Hot off the internet reels take a look : (the lyrics are right below the video if you want to follow along)

Let me hear you say hey hey hey
Alright
Now let me hear you say hey hey ho

I hate it when a guy doesn’t get the door
even though I told him yesterday and the day before
I hate it when a guy doesn’t get the tab
And I have to pull my money out and that looks bad

Where are the hopes, where are the dreams
My Cinderella story scene
When do you think they’ll finally see

[Chorus:]
That you’re not not not gonna get any better
You won’t won’t won’t you won’t get rid of me never
Like it or not, even though she’s a lot like me
We’re not the same
And yeah yeah yeah I’m a lot to handle
You don’t know trouble, I’m a hell of a scandal
Me, I’m a scene, I’m a drama queen
I’m the best damn thing that your eyes have ever seen

Alright, alright
Yeah

I hate it when a guy doesn’t understand
Why a certain time of month I don’t wanna hold his hand
I hate it when they go out, and we stay in
And they come home smelling like their ex girlfriends

I found my hopes, I found my dreams
My Cinderella story scene
Now everybody’s gonna see

[Chorus]

Give me an A (always give me what I want)
Give me a V (be very very good to me)
R (are you gonna treat me right)
I (I can put up a fight)
Give me an L (let me hear you scream loud)

One, two, three, four

Where are the hopes, where are the dreams
My Cinderella story scene
When do you think they’ll finally see

[Chorus]

Now, I don’t even think I NEED TO POINT OUT THE WRONGNESS WITH THIS SONG, but I will do it anyways. There quite possible could be many more levels of dark age gendering than even I can find, but let’s start with the basics. It is easy to construe this song as a “positive girl power proverb” but I think it’s also easy to see the very patriarchical values and female submissiveness within her lyrics as well.

I hate it when a guy doesn’t get the door
even though I told him yesterday and the day before
I hate it when a guy doesn’t get the tab
And I have to pull my money out and that looks bad

OKAY, well she wants chivalry once again (and she wants it bad, she’s DEMANDING IT). She wants a guy to be her slave, which could be interpreted two ways – both of which are nothing to be proud of.

1. Matriarchy - there is a possibility her terms are to set things straight and be on top, but matriarchy is not a better system than patriarchy because if people have power over each other does it really matter which gender it is?
2. Helplessness - can you not open your own door? It’s no secret that a huge gender stereotype for men is to protect and serve women (and yet degrade them?). Regardless, it is easy to see that if she wants a guy to open the door, she can’t do it herself. To me that’s a huge slap in the face to the female population to say “guys have to do stuff for us”. There’s a difference of being nice to someone and helping them out and doing something because it is both expected and prescribed to your gender role.

BUT WAIT, Let’s not forget she also hates it when “a guy doesn’t get the tab” because if Avril Lavigne (working woman with millions and millions of dollars) puts HER OWN money out, it looks bad. This also says two things to me.

1. Same Old Roles – there is part of this that may be saying “even though I have money and fame, I am still a woman” and is held down by those ideals. Even though some women are strong and unique, there are still parts of their lives that conform to gender norms. It is hard to speculate because it is such a personal detail, but also because fame is a whole other paradigm of gender roles.
2. Sold Out – bell hooks explains about the same thing happening to Madonna “selling out”. Avril will do what it takes to make money, and if that includes making music that seems like a 15 year old would  be singing in her diary, so be it. It’s hard to blame Avril, for millions of dollars would you sing a song about guys opening doors for you – probably so.

The part that annoys me most about this portion of the song is that she has money and she has fame — why would she need a guy to get the tab? Although possible unconnected, a lot of this behavior seemed to happen after she got married.

NEXT ON THE LIST :

Where are the hopes, where are the dreams
My Cinderella story scene
When do you think they’ll finally see

[Chorus:]
That you’re not not not gonna get any better
You won’t won’t won’t you won’t get rid of me never
Like it or not, even though she’s a lot like me
We’re not the same
And yeah yeah yeah I’m a lot to handle
You don’t know trouble, I’m a hell of a scandal
Me, I’m a scene, I’m a drama queen
I’m the best damn thing that your eyes have ever seen

This next part gets ultra-annoying as she is talking about the above things (men holding doors and paying for her) as hopes and dreams. What signal is this telling little girls – that hopes and dreams are made up of what a man can provide for you and do for you — a true fairy tale. Now we won’t talk too much about Cinderella today because I have entire projects about construction of gender in fairy tales, but you can imagine what sorts of things I have to say about “princesses”.

The chorus recreates the same gender stereotypes that teenage girls are sassy, brassy, and snobby. She gives a lot of attitude and tries to pull away from the mainstream, but is being a drama queen what anybody really wants to hear about. Then the self-righteous “best damn thing your eyes have every seen” really puts the cherry on top of the “i’m so pretty and beautiful, cater to me”. Now some of this lingo may seem progressive for women, but Avril Lavigne looks a certain way. She may dress “alternatively” (which has been majorly changed with her new favorite color being pink – go figure), but her messages do not co-incide for everyone.

LASTLY :

I hate it when a guy doesn’t understand
Why a certain time of month I don’t wanna hold his hand
I hate it when they go out, and we stay in
And they come home smelling like their ex girlfriends

Now, speaking on this issue as someone who does not experience a period is just hearsay, but I have many friends that are girls, and there are certain times of the months my friends don’t turn in to “raving bitches” – which is the fun stereotype that Avril (A GIRL!!!) is trying to re-create. Now, we won’t get into the matter too deeply, but I don’t think it is necessary for AVRIL to speak on every female and how they act during their periods.

The next part seems to be put in there solely to throw a stab at stereotyping men. Most of the song stays focused to giving women their traditional roles, but this is one where men can continually be cheaters! I don’t know about all you readers, but I have never cheated in my life. There is a HUGE contradiction in her lyrics here because she is all for “shattering what women can and cannot do” (though this song seems rather the contrary). Nevertheless she says “we stay in” – why do women have to stay in? Is that a choice or a gender construction she is creating ONCE AGAIN. She is telling all the teenage girls out there that their boyfriends are going to cheat on them when they are out (because no doubt the hidden context is that men are disgusting pigs — I wonder if her husband is a disgusting pig….?).

I was on her myspace and looking at her pictures and saw this one girl comment “you are so pretty, I wish I looked like you, but I am too fat”

– now if Avril Lavinge was a counter-culture icon (first of all she wouldn’t be on mainstream radio and writing material like this), it would seem obvious that atypical features of beauty are just as welcome. I felt so bad for the girl that posted it because she aspires to be someone else, someone who is “hot” (avril actually has a song called “hot” on her new album, and in the video she is on a stripper pole). What are teenage girls to think when “the best damn thing that your eyes have ever seen” is a 110 (guessing) lb. girl with long blonde hair, famous husband, tons of money, and is still not satisified? Could anyone hold a cup to her? Not in this society – so instead we get 13 year old girls on myspace thinking they are fat and ugly because they are no Avril Lavinge, which sounds to be “the worst damn thing that my ears have ever heard”.

We need to aspire to break these molds of traditional beauty and also gender roles. It’s a real feat for Mrs. Lavigne to have sung a song that is built entirely on recreating multiple gender norms. This possible could be one of the most saturated reinforced gender songs I have ever heard.

There is a lot wrong with the entire album (minus a few songs that were undoubtedly stuck in for traditional fans), but this song for sure takes the cake.

5 years ago I never thought I would be writing a blog talking about Avril Lavinge in a negative way, but it just goes to shows that enough money can change anything, but then again consumers have the choice. I refuse to support her in any way shape or form (which meant throwing away a lot of memoriabelia), but the important part of this lesson is to BECOME CRITICAL THINKERS. I am not saying “BOYCOTT AVRIL LAVIGNE” (though I would probably give you compliments for doing so), but more about saying “maybe i like this song, but ya know she’s using some crude stereotypes about men and women”. Some people can like something and still see something wrong with it. I personally, cannot.

I thought I would come back and post a side by side of AVRIL THEN AND NOW.

2004

2007

Yesterday I talked a little bit about guns and how they are gendered for males. I wanted to follow up a little with that, as well as give some positive media interpretation on violence. Violence is a huge field in gender studies, but I just want to touch of a few key points, show a video, and discuss for a few moments.

In Michael Kimmel & Matthew Mahler’s article entitled “Adolescent Masculinity, Homophobia, and Violence” a discussion about school shootings attached to gender is discussed. There are so many “reasons” why this happens, but Kimmel and Mahler lean towards masculinity and homophobia being key to this spread of violence. None of us will ever truly get the answers to “why” it happens, but we can analyze common denominators within the scenarios. A lot of times they are revenge plots (what I was speaking on yesterday). In the article, Kimmel / Mahler feature a young man by the name of Michael Carneal. They tell his story, which may seem typical for school violence perpetrators. He was a band geek who “felt aliened, pushed around, and picked on. Boys stole his lunch and constantly teased him” (Kimmel, Mahler, 1447) Michael was a very hypersensitive student, so when the pushing got to far, he brought a gun to school (in the hopes of looking cool). He felt ignore, so used the instant fix he thought was best – “killing three classmates, wounding five others”. His golden words were “People respect me now”.

Now, I am also not here to offer up any quick fix answers. I don’t think violent video games and metal music are sole contributors to gun violence. As a child, I played more video games that i’d like to admit too. Parental monitor is a huge part of this because though playing Doom or Halo will not turn the average person into a gun-wielding murderer, the long term affects on the mental health could potentially wan senses of reality. I am not big on that argument just because I know I have played a lot of games in my time, but I think anything can contribute to a person’s mental health and bullying / homophobia / masculinity (expectation of gender norms) is a giant part of this equation. I would say they are the primary factors, and things like games and music are secondary factors.

With the recent burst of school shootings, hope is hard to find. People feel unsafe, but if we look at the large social context of school shootings and start asking “why is this happening” rather than “why did he do it”, we may find some different answers (not quick fix – “it was video games” answers either”, but more like the answers that Kimmel and Mahler find).

One piece of hope is a film called Home Room. The film was created in response to Columbine. Here is a short description of the film :

• The aftermath of a high school shooting leaves Deanna Cartwright (Erika Christensen) seriously wounded and nine others dead, including the perpetrator. Det. Martin Van Zandt (Victor Garber) is assigned the unenviable task of investigating the crime and finding someone to hold responsible. His attention settles on Alicia Browning (Busy Philipps), a darkly troubled outsider who, as the only person present throughout the entire incident, is both the key witness and a possible suspect. Further complicating her isolated existence, Alicia’s high school principal compels her to pay a reluctant visit on the still-hospitalized Deanna. Privileged and popular, Deanna differs dramatically from the alienated Alicia. Yet, beneath an upbeat appearance, she is struggling desperately with the emotional and physical scars left by the attack. Over the next few days, united by nothing more than their common suffering, the two young women form an unlikely friendship to cope with the tragic events that threaten to overwhelm them.

  

There are so many levels to the film, but every time I see the film, the last 10 minutes is an emotional roller coaster. I am going to post a part that really gives me chills (but really it’s a roller coaster ride up to the scene, so you should check out the movie yourself, it is one of my top 10 favorite films of all time).

If you do want to see the film and do not want to ’spoil’ this scene. I will write out the dialogue that I find offers an interesting perspective (from the teens in the video speaking).

SKIP THIS VIDEO IF YOU PLAN ON SEEING THIS (amazing) FILM. (Scroll below for transcript)

THE PART I SPEAK OF STARTS AT MINUTE 2:00 and ends at 3:03

DEANNA : “why the hell did you bring us here”

DET. VAN ZANDT :”because I’m a father and my kid will be your age in less than a heartbeat, and as soon as he is old enough to figure it out, he is going to ask me what it all means, and I don’t know what to tell him”

DEANNA : “your asking us? you’re the adult, you’re supposed to have all the answers. I can’t turn on my TV without hearing someone say why they think it happened”

STUDENTS : “violence on tv, nation rifle association, he was teased too much at school, harassed too much at school, guns without safety locks, guns without safety locks, violent video games, violent video games, violent video games, pulp fiction, pulp fiction, cry for help, culture of death, culture of death, magazines.”

DEANNA : “my head can’t hold all the answers I hear everyday. So you come to us because you want to know why, you wanna know what it means.”

“IT DOESN’T MEAN A GOD DAMN THING IN THE WORLD”

Then the film goes into the VERY EMOTIONAL ENDING. The film is overall just a great film. I think there is some really nice positive forms of gender in this film as well (the relationship between the two main characters is a great metaphor for hope that any two persons on this earth can connect and relate to each other). I think the detective going to TEENAGERS (and mostly girls) for answers because he does not know is a very atypical scenario for a man. Men asking for help is not supposed to happen according to the gender prescriptions.

The montage of students giving answers for why school violence happens is very interesting. We can see even more that school shootings is a predominantly male problem as they say “he”. Also, it is interesting to note, violent video games is said three times because it is the first scapegoat answer that the media uses, but if we look at that more – video games are also a predominantly male activity. It seems like a euphemism that the media uses saying “this is a male problem”. The comment at the end of this scene suggesting “it doesn’t mean a god damn thing in the world” really illustrates that we don’t have answers, and all of these scapegoat answers are not the big “WHY” (although I believe they are CONTRIBUTING factors). It almost seems like a slap in the face to victims of gun violence to say “sorry you got shot because Michael watched too many slasher films” because the double crossed message is that “it is okay to absorb these images of graphic violence, but when you act on them, BAD BAD”.

The other piece of the film I want to speak a bit on is that the captain in the film (the detective’s boss) has his heart set on setting someone accountable for the atrocities that occurred. He is a great metaphor for parents (he even says at one point – “we need to be the voices for these parents and victims”), but he takes an approach that looks for accountability within a single person. No single person is responsible for this type of violence (though there is obviously a huge burden of accountability on the shooter), but there is a piece that goes into upbringing, exposure, education, etc. I am not defending shooters, I am very anti-gun, but I think people are trying to always hold people accountable rather than look at the bigger picture. I don’t have a lot of solutions, but I think the film is so great at portraying so many points about school violence.

If you keep watching the video to the credits, the third song that plays is “I Don’t Like Monday’s” by the Boomtown Rats. The song was a response to a shooting that a teenage girl enacted.

• “I Don’t Like Mondays” was a UK number one single for four weeks in July 1979. Written by Bob Geldof and performed by The Boomtown Rats, it was the band’s second number one single.Geldof wrote the song after reading a telex report on the shooting spree of 16-year-old Brenda Ann Spencer, who fired at children playing in a school playground across the street from her home in San Diego, California. She killed two adults and injured eight children and one police officer. Spencer showed no remorse for her crime, and her explanation for her actions was “I don’t like Mondays.” The song was first performed less than a month later at the Fox Theatre, San Diego. ^(Wikipedia)
  

I think it is a great wrap-up to the film.

Home Room is undoubtedly a very sad movie, but also a movie of hope, unlikely friendships, people. etc. The focus on gender was a littled shifted and hidden today, but I wanted to follow up the article on “manly movies” with some of the reprecussions of those types of films as well as offer a film that takes the other side of the court.