I don't want to ever get married
Feminist/Gender Theory, Identity, Pop Culture, Society and Politics

I Don’t Ever Want To Get Married – Am I ‘Woman-ing’ Correctly?

Originally published on Fanny Pack, 19th October 2016.

Hello, I’m a woman and I don’t ever want to get married.

It’s not a proclamation likely to make anyone gasp, shudder, faint or feel an uncontrollable urge to form a Frankenstein-esque mob of angry villagers to hunt me down and force a wedding band around my finger, but it is likely to auto-generate one particular question in most people’s heads like a predictive text:

In a world where we – especially women – are still expected to tie the knot at some point in their lives, almost as a default setting, this might seem like a fair response. Except that I don’t think it should be. Not me, Oprah Winfrey, Kourtney Kardashian, Chelsea Handler, Jon Hamm, Charlize Theron, Helena Bonham-Carter and anyone else – famous or not – who choose never to marry their significant other do. But even though marriage is now very much a choice in most places, culturally it still feels like very much the opposite.

Jennifer Aniston magazine covers

I know that it is first-hand – without being Jennifer Aniston – because every time I have to vocalise (when prompted) that I won’t ever be getting married, the reactions I usually get make me feel like I’m either the bearded-woman at the Victorian freak show, or I’m accidentally doing something eyebrow-raisingly rebellious. I’m inadvertently railing against the all-powerful regime of hen parties and white veils and ‘His’ and ‘Hers’ monogrammed everything. It kind of makes me sound like I’m actively fighting against the entire institution, but that’s not true either. Not wanting to get married is exactly the same as being an atheist: just because you don’t have a religion, it doesn’t mean you’re actively trying to stop everyone else from having one. (Richard Dawkins, aside.)

Well, just call me The Walking Dead forever, in that case. Weddingbee.

There’s also this ridiculous wheeze echoed through “think-pieces” and trolling comments in the darker recesses of Reddit and Twitter that feminism has “killed” lovely old-fashioned notions like romance; empowering women to focus too much on silly things like gender equality and their careers rather than keep protecting the sanctity of the nuclear family, as if marriage and motherhood were the last holy bastions holding back the coming apocalypse spilling forth from Hell.

Here are some home truths: not believing in marriage doesn’t mean you’re not a romantic person. I’ve got two very-worn out copies of Love, Actually and When Harry Met Sally that can attest to that fact. I can also tell you categorically that I was a non-believer in marriage long before I called myself a feminist. Feminism didn’t ‘convert’ me into something I’m not – it just helped me give voice and reason to feelings and beliefs I already held to be true.

The main root of my feelings was planted when I realised that women are culturally conditioned from young ages to ‘aspire’ to marriage as a crowning achievement rather than the simple lifestyle choice it actually is. This conditioning continues into our adulthood, when we’re then culturally pressured into thinking that spending the amount of money we’d also deem an appropriate price tag for a two-bedroom semi-detached house on what is essentially a piece of paper, two bits of boring jewellery and a giant party made-up of estranged relatives we can’t stand and random acquaintances is somehow the key to life-long happiness.

As a kid, I bought Barbie dolls already decked out in their perfect bridal gowns and consumed hours of Disney princess films that were remiss if their heroine’s journey didn’t culminate in a wedding. I watched women in countless TV shows and rom-coms as a teenager lovingly pour over wedding scrapbooks they’d had since they were children; try on wedding dresses just for the fun of it; browbeat tired and disinterested caricatures of boyfriends into the perfect proposals and then scream and wail when their actual wedding plans started going awry, as if their very existence depended on one day in their whole lives going absolutely perfectly for fear of the rest of it being cursed to fall to shit. And once the rings are on, the curtain falls. Their lives are fulfilled, done and spent.

I watched these stereotypes of wedding-crazy women and wondered why I couldn’t relate to them. Was I not ‘woman-ing’ correctly? Then one day it hit me. I’d always played ‘wedding’ with my toys as a child, but I never actually imagined myself to be the bride. To someone who did relate to all those things I mentioned earlier, that might seem like a sad realisation. To me, it was life affirming. I’d seen all the evidence of what marriage could be and what it could mean. My own parents have been very happily married for over twenty years, too. Having weighed all this up, I’d been able to come to the informed opinion that weddings really meant nothing to me, bridal gowns didn’t make me giddy, and being a wife wasn’t a description or title that suited me.

Wedding dress scene from Friends

Just about the only thing I would do in a wedding dress. Cosmopolitan.

It’s a choice that women in the past fought tooth and nail for me to be empowered to make. But, I think it’s important to remember that my ability to make that choice is a luxury not afforded to everyone. Women and girls are still being forced into marriages they wouldn’t choose for themselves, sometimes to men who are physically and sexually abusive to them. My ability to choose also carries heterosexual privilege too. If I wanted to spend my life with someone of the same sex, I would either not be able to marry them at all if I lived in certain countries, or even in countries that have legalised marriage equality, the choice to not get married would still be less viable as LGBTQ couples face complicated legal baggage around having children. And, as Princess Jasmine’s father learned in one of my favourite Disney princess films, the decision to get married should be based on love, not legalities.

The Sultan allows Princess Jasmine and Aladdin to wed.

“Screw bureaucracy – I’m the damn Sultan!” Fanpop.

At the end of the day, we need to stop treating marriage as an inevitable destination rather than the equal-opportunities choice in our lives we have fought – and still fight – for it to become. If you like it, put a ring on it. Or not. And that should be nobodies’ business but your own.


Advertisements
Standard
Scarlett Johansson as 'Motoko Kurasungi' in 'Ghost in the Shell'
Anime, Identity, Manga, Pop Culture, Sci-Fi, Society and Politics

Hollywood vs. Anime: Dawn of Whitewashing

Why race matters when it comes to casting anime adaptations.

Two weeks ago we got out first glimpse at Scarlett Johansson as Major Motoko Kurasungi from the upcoming live-action adaptation of 90s cyberpunk classic, ‘Ghost in the Shell’. This casting sparked a tonne of outrage when it was first announced last year, and this image of Johansson in costume for the role has only served to dredge all of this vitriol back up again. Why? Because yet again Hollywood has inexplicably chosen to race-swap an Asian character, and to add insult to injury – they were even reports that Paramount and DreamWorks ran tests to make Johansson look “more Asian” using VFX.

What the actual fuck, Hollywood?

This isn’t the first time we’ve seen a live-action anime adaptation lose its ‘Japaneseness’ in translation, and it looks like it certainly won’t be the last. It all started with the terribly conceived ‘Dragon Ball Evolution’ movie (2009) that cast white actor Justin Chatwin in the role of ‘Son Goku’ for the live-action adaptation of Akira Toriyama’s iconic ‘Dragon Ball’ franchise. The film was a massive commercial and critical flop, and more importantly, a painful disappointment for fans.

Dragon Ball Evolution

The cast of ‘Dragon Ball Evolution’

Fast-forward to 2014, and ‘Edge of Tomorrow’ (2014) is released to far better reception. The film was loosely based on Katshuro Otomo’s manga, ‘All You Need Is Kill’ (I use the word ‘loosely’, loosely here) and starred Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt. Since then, it seems that Hollywood has begun snapping up live-action anime rights like they were going out of style. In the last few weeks, Netflix has announced its plans to produce a live-action ‘Death Note’ film adaptation starring white actor Nat Wolff as ‘Light Yagami’, and we’ve even had reports that several studios are battling it out for the live-action rights for Pokémon. And let’s not forget those ‘Akira rumours that have been circulating around for years now. The way things are going you can probably look forward to Zac Efron playing Kaneda in 2018.

Tom Cruise in 'Edge of Tomorrow'

Tom Cruise in ‘Edge of Tomorrow’

You might be wondering why any of this matters – why, in these fantastical stories in which cyborg cops patrol the streets of future Tokyo or a teenager possesses a supernatural book and chats to an invisible Death God that looks like Robert Smith on an acid trip should it matter what the races of the characters are. And you’d be right to think this if it were not for the fact that Hollywood has an unfortunately long track record of whitewashing characters of colour – particularly Asian characters. From Micky Rooney as ‘Mr. Yunioshi’ in ‘Breakfast at Tiffany’s’ (1961) to Tilda Swinton as ‘The Ancient One’ in Marvel’s ‘Doctor Strange’ (2016), the only thing that seems to have changed in the last 40 years is that the offensive accent has been dropped.

Mickey Rooney as 'Mr. Yunioshi' in 'Breakfast at Tiffanys'

Mickey Rooney in ‘Breakfast at Tiffany’s’

The argument I hear constantly in defence/explanation of these casting decisions is that big budget films need a “bankable” star in order to justify and recoup the money the studio shells out for them. Director Ridley Scott took this line of defence in response to criticism levied at him for his whitewashed casting in ‘Exodus: Gods and Kings’ (2015).

“I can’t mount a film of this budget, where I have to rely on tax rebates in Spain, and say that my lead actor is Mohammad so-and-so from such-and-such […] I’m just not going to get it financed. So the question doesn’t even come up.”

Despite the fact that I’m pretty sure the director of ‘Gladiator’, ‘Blade Runner’ and ‘Alien’ could get a 3-hour film in which an old man picks chewing gum off the bottom of his shoes financed if he really tried hard enough, this argument is incredibly depressing and frankly inexcusable. If a “bankable” star has to be white in Hollywood then why is that something industry leaders like Scott can just shrug off and accept? It’s not something that would ever be acceptable in any other job sector without serious human rights violations, so why should the film industry be exempt?

Tilda Swinton as 'The Ancient One' in 'Doctor Strange'

Tilda Swinton in ‘Doctor Strange’

The cold, hard truth is that directors like Ridley Scott – and Hollywood in general – just doesn’t seem to care about race – even if it has a detrimental effect on the authenticity of the story they’re trying to tell and sell to us on screen. And, as writer/director Max Landis recently explained on You Tube, even if directors and writers do care, the combination of financial fears and lack of opportunity for actors of colour to make it to ‘A-List’ status has created a “broken system” set against them. For anime fans, all this means that for the foreseeable future we can look forward to a sea of white faces masquerading as our favourite Japanese heroes, heroines, and villains.

Popular Shonen Jump anime characters: Goku, Luffy, Naruto, Ichigo, Gintana.

A casting-call of some of the most beloved anime characters.

This problem is particularly relevant to anime and manga adaptations because of the quintessential ‘Japaneseness’ of the medium. Anime – as well its unique visual style – is filled with stories, characters and themes that rely deeply on the country’s cultural heritage, social and political history, and distinctive sense of humour to be understood. For non-Japanese otaku, this allure of ‘otherness’ is what makes us binge-watch an entire show on Crunchyroll, or spend hours styling a ridiculous wig before a convention, or empty our pockets for imported plush toys.

We don’t love anime despite it being Japanese; we love anime because it’s Japanese.

Anime Fan vs. Non-Anime fan cartoon by Loldwell

And whilst there has unfortunately been evidence to the contrary, to me the idea that an audience will only pay money to see characters on screen that match what they look like has as much basis in reality as the fictional worlds those characters inhabit. I think the amount of tears we all collectively shed whilst watching a child’s imaginary friend fade to nothing in ‘Inside Out’ proved that. (Uh, spoilers for ‘Inside Out’, btw.)

It is of course true that miscasting doesn’t automatically mean a film will be bad. ‘Edge of Tomorrow’ – despite rinsing out every ounce of Otomo’s manga it could get away with – turned out to be an interesting and well-executed sci-fi action movie. But, if a film starts off by miscasting the race of it’s main character, then how much respect do you think those pulling the strings really have for the source material, or for us – the fans?


Image Credits

Featured image: Scarlett Johansson in ‘Ghost in the Shell’ / Movie Web

  1. Cast of ‘Dragon Ball Evolution’ / Playstation
  2. Tom Cruise in ‘Edge of Tomorrow’ / Cinema Blend
  3. Mickey Rooney in ‘Breakfast at Tiffany’s’/ Wikipedia
  4. Tilda Swinton in ‘Doctor Strange’ / The Metro
  5. Anime characters from ‘Shounen Jump’ / Anime World Info
  6. ‘Critically JaPanned’ by Loldwell / Loldwell.com

 

Standard
Sports Illustrated cover
Body Image, Fashion, Feminist/Gender Theory, Identity, Pop Culture, Society and Politics

There’s Nothing Empowering About Those ‘Body Positive’ Sports Illustrated Covers

Originally published on the Fanny Pack blog on February 23rd 2016


Last week the 2016 Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue released no less than three different covers featuring three different body types: American model Hailey Clauson, UFC fighter Ronda Rousey (who appears in a body-painted swimsuit), and plus-size model and body image activist Ashley Graham.

Ashley Graham, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Annual 2016

Ashley Graham, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Annual 2016

Hailey Clauson, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Annual 2016

Hailey Clauson, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Annual 2016

Ronda Rousey, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Annual 2016

Ronda Rousey, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Annual 2016

It marks the first time a size 16 model has graced its cover and needless to say, the Internet went crazy. “Wow. Just, wow,” gushed The Huffington Post. “The body positivity movement is booming,” proclaimed Shape magazine. “And we couldn’t be more excited that SI picked women who add fuel to the fire.” Exactly the kind of responses that SI had been hoping to create as Assistant Managing Editor MJ Day made clear at their unveiling event:

“All three women are beautiful, sexy and strong. Beauty is not cookie cutter. Beauty is not ‘one size fits all.’ Beauty is all around us and that became especially obvious to me while shooting and editing this year’s issue.”

 She’s right, of course. Beauty certainly isn’t “cookie cutter” or “one size fits all” and seeing this (not so) ground-breaking idea finally appearing on the covers of an iconic beauty magazine gives it even more commercial validation for all those women out there who have never considered themselves to be ‘conventionally’ beautiful. And yet, as I looked at these uniquely beautiful cover girls in their swimsuits, all I felt was unease. There was just something about all this self-congratulation and buzzworthy empowerment that didn’t sit right with me.

Let’s break it down.

The pros are obvious. Women of all shapes and sizes deserve to feel loved, sexy, and beautiful, and celebrating that breaks down the harmful monotony of the ‘one-size’ beauty culture. A lot of women feel undervalued and invisible when they can’t see themselves on a cinema screen, or a catwalk runway, or a shop window, or a magazine cover, and so the more the body positive movement is allowed to infiltrate all of these fiercely image-conscious industries, the more women will feel healthier and happier in their own skin without the crushing pressure to constantly change themselves.

Let’s also not forget SI’s clear target demographic: heterosexual men. Another misconception that the ‘one size’ culture helps to wrongfully prevail is the idea that there is similarly a singular type of woman that all straight men find attractive. But from my research of actually, y’know, talking to straight men about their tastes in women this just simply isn’t true. Men have a very diverse range of sexual tastes and desires that different kinds of women can easily fulfil. Sometimes they can even open them up to new fantasies they didn’t even know they had.

'Not Models' photo shoot calling out an M&S campaign for claiming to use "real women", from Stylehasnosize.com

‘Not Models’ photo shoot calling out an M&S campaign for claiming to use “real women”, from Stylehasnosize.com

Speaking of the straight male demographic, let’s get into the cons. There is always a fine line to tread between owning your sexuality and allowing it to be owned by others. This is something that has plagued feminist debate for decades, especially when feminist artists and performers use nudity or provocative imagery as a means of self-expression. Whenever I think about this debate, I am always reminded of a particular section from art historian John Berger’s Ways of Seeing (1975):

“A woman must continually watch herself. She is almost continually accompanied by her own image of herself. […] From earliest childhood she has been taught and persuaded to survey herself continually. […] She has to survey everything she is and everything she does because how she appears to men, is of crucial importance for what is normally thought of as the success of her life. Her own sense of being in herself is supplanted by a sense of being appreciated as herself by another….

 “One might simplify this by saying: men act and women appear. Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at. This determines not only most relations between men and women but also the relation of women to themselves. The surveyor of woman in herself is male: the surveyed female. Thus she turns herself into an object — and most particularly an object of vision: a sight.”

As inspiring as the body positive movement is, you can’t escape from the fact that these covers are sexualised female bodies for the approval, delight, and consumption of male eyes specifically. They still place sexuality and image as the most valuable trait for any women of any visible description. Ashley Graham is a role model for plus size women. But who cares about that unless she also looks great in a bikini! Ronda Rousey is a successful and respected female athlete. Yeah, but is she hot though? Any way you slice it, it’s the same old objectification but with a ‘body positive’ Get Out Of Jail Free card attached.

Now THIS is an empowering cover. (Ronda Rousey on the cover of Sports Illustrated May 2015)

Now THIS is an empowering cover. (Ronda Rousey on the cover of Sports Illustrated, May 2015)

It’s also worth noting that out of the three covers released, not one single woman of colour has been featured. I guess racial inclusivity and body inclusivity are two completely separate things to SI. 

In fact, I think I’ve finally worked out what that feeling of unease is that I just couldn’t find the reason for earlier. It’s exactly the same feeling I get from all those “real beauty” Dove adverts. For years, the personal care brand Dove has – in the brilliant words of Mark Duffy – “passive-aggressively assaulted women’s physical insecurities to sell beauty products.” Think about every Dove TV advert you’ve ever seen. Did you ever worry about not having soft enough underarms, firmer skin, or more radiant under-eyes before watching it? Nope, me neither. But apparently Dove thinks these are pressing issues to further women’s empowerment. Who cares about the patriarchy when you have a natural-looking glow!

Dove's 'Campaign For Real Beauty' Ads revealed to have been Photoshopped.

Dove’s ‘Campaign For Real Beauty’ Ads in 2008 were revealed to have been Photoshopped.

Hijacking an aspirational movement or trend like body positivity to use as an empty marketing ploy for easy headlines is certainly nothing new, but judging from the trend-worthy hype those SI covers have generated it’s effectiveness clearly hasn’t diminished either.

I’m not saying that Ashley Graham and Ronda Rousey aren’t empowering women. I’m just saying these particular photos of them aren’t. And incidentally, if you want to see some real body positive photos of women (and men) that don’t reduce their models to sex objects, then take a look through this great collection on Bustle.

Although I can see some of the positive benefits of using models of different sizes, when you break it down SI is still a magazine that pedals eroticised photos of swimsuit models to cater to straight male sexual fantasies and little else. The only difference here is that the editors have found a way to trick people into applauding that.


 

IMAGE CREDITS

1 – 3: Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Annual 2016 featuring Ashley Graham, Ronda Rousey and Hailey Clauson.

4. ‘Models vs. Not Models’ photoshoot campaign from Stylehasnosize.com

5. Sports Illustrated cover featuring Ronda Rousey, May 2015

6. Hacktivist photo from Dove’s ‘Campaign for Real Beauty’ advert campaign, 2008

Standard