108 posts
Latest Posts by hushpuppy5-blog - Page 4
I wonder if cis people ever step back and think about just how much trans people have to spend just to live a happier life. I wonder if they realize just how many trans people live poor/live in poverty because they have to juggle between everyday expenses and the expense that being trans is. And that's the expense left if your insurance is "kind" enough to even try covering your healthcare if you need medical care in regards to being trans.
« Foreigners follow American news stories like their own, listen to American pop music, and watch copious amounts of American television and film. […] Americans, too, stick to the U.S. The list of the 500 highest-grossing films of all time in the U.S., for example, doesn’t contain a single foreign film (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon comes in at 505th, slightly higher than Bee Movie but about a hundred below Paul Blart: Mall Cop). […]
How did this happen? How did cultural globalization in the twentieth century travel along such a one-way path? And why is the U.S.—that globe-bestriding colossus with more than 700 overseas bases—so strangely isolated?
[…W]hen 600 or so journalists, media magnates, and diplomats arrived in Geneva in 1948 to draft the press freedom clauses for […] the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights […], definitional difficulties abounded. Between what the U.S. meant by “freedom of information” and what the rest of the world needed lay a vast expanse. For the American delegates, the question belonged to the higher plane of moral principle. But representatives of other states had more earthly concerns.
The war had tilted the planet’s communications infrastructure to America’s advantage. In the late 1940s, for example, the U.S. consumed 63% of the world’s newsprint supply; to put it more starkly, the country consumed as much newsprint in a single day as India did over the course of a year. A materials shortage would hamper newspaper production across much of the world into at least the 1950s. The war had also laid low foreign news agencies—Germany’s Wolff and France’s Havas had disappeared entirely—and not a single news agency called the global south home. At the same time, America’s Associated Press and United Press International both had plans for global expansion, leading The Economist to note wryly that the executive director of the AP emitted “a peculiar moral glow in finding that his idea of freedom coincides with his commercial advantage.”
Back in Geneva, delegates from the global south pointed out these immense inequalities. […] But the American delegates refused the idea that global inequality itself was a barrier to the flow of information across borders. Besides, they argued, redistributive measures violated the sanctity of the press. The U.S. was able to strong-arm its notion of press freedom—a hybrid combining the American Constitution’s First Amendment and a consumer right to receive information across borders—at the conference, but the U.N.’s efforts to define and ensure the freedom of information ended in a stalemate.
The failure to redistribute resources, the lack of multilateral investment in producing more balanced international flows of information, and the might of the American culture industry at the end of the war—all of this amounted to a guarantee of the American right to spread information and culture across the globe.
The postwar expansion of American news agencies, Hollywood studios, and rock and roll bore this out. […] Meanwhile, the State Department and the American film industry worked together to dismantle other countries’ quota walls for foreign films, a move that consolidated Hollywood’s already dominant position.
[…A]s the U.S. exported its culture in astonishing amounts, it imported very little. In other words, just as the U.S. took command as the planetary superpower, it remained surprisingly cut off from the rest of the world. A parochial empire, but with a global reach. [And] American culture[’s] inward-looking tendencies [precede] the 1940s.
The media ecosystem in particular, Lebovic writes, [already] constituted an “Americanist echo chamber.” Few of the films shown in American cinemas were foreign (largely a result of the Motion Picture Production Code, which the industry began imposing on itself in 1934; code authorities prudishly disapproved of the sexual mores of European films). Few television programs came from abroad […]. Few newspapers subscribed to foreign news agencies. Even fewer had foreign correspondents. And very few pages in those papers were devoted to foreign affairs. An echo chamber indeed, [… which] reduced the flow of information and culture from much of the rest of the world to a trickle. […]
Today is not the 1950s. [… But] America’s culture industry has not stopped its mercantilist pursuits. And Web 2.0 has corralled a lot of the world’s online activities onto the platforms of a handful of American companies. America’s geopolitical preeminence may slip away in the not-so-distant future, but it’s not clear if Americans will change the channel. »
— “How American Culture Ate the World”, a review of Sam Lebovic’s book A Righteous Smokescreen: Postwar America and the Politics of Cultural Globalization
"It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends."
— Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
https://www.out.com/celebs/2022/3/14/emma-watson-threw-shade-jk-rowling-while-presenting-baftas
“I’m here for ALL the witches by the way.”
All the witches, except J.K. Rowling, who is the main one responsible for your presence in that stage.
It’s bad enough the Harry Potter actors lack talent. No, no, no. They also had to be a bunch of disrespectful, hasty brats who refuse to show even a sliver of gratitude to the woman who made them who they are. They could have plucked any child actor off the street to play those three. Of course, Daniel Radcliffe was picked because he shared a likeness to the character that Rowling fancied. I don’t even know how Hermione and Ron got snagged. Again, they could have been played by anyone. Either way, I guess we could say that their acting has improved slightly throughout the years. They’ve convinced everyone that they are hefty supporters of the gender cult and will spite anyone who says otherwise. As we’ve seen in these recent years, it seems that the stake at which any opposers are burned is solely reserved for women. Rowling is far too influential, leading into every bit of the gender cult’s lives. They read her stories and loved every page of them. They related to them. I’m sure the actors related to them as well. What the heck happened?
“Transgender women are women,” said Radcliffe, like every other "scientist" on the bird app.
Ron, played by Rubert Grint. has also expressed concern over Rowling’s own tweets, alongside the other dogs in the cast willing to roll over and beg for forgiveness from the gender gods. I expected less from the males who will receive little if any consequence from women losing not only their status, but also the very name to describe themselves. That is why I find Emma Watson, who has decided to be the most vocal about it, all the more disappointing. She is a woman, but she believes a man, regardless of his history of abusing or opposing women, or basic biology, can claim female one day and be validated accordingly. She brought this belief to the BAFTA (British Academy of Film and Television Arts) awards of 2022, where she expressed her subliminal yet pivotal comment that she’s here for “all the witches”. This was after Rebel Wilson, who has also taken shots at Rowling (join the club!) introduced her as not as feminist, but a “witch”. Arguably, feminism and witchcraft go hand in hand. Using your inner power to effect the world is about as feminist as it gets.
There is a power in realizing one’s sense of self, which women have been stripped of. If she channels that power by waving a wand or meditating to positive mantras every single day, go for it, girl. It means nothing, however, when you use that “power” as a means to verbally put down another woman in her show of power. Especially when many of us with common sense know that prioritizing ourselves in the midst of gender ideology is the only true power. Giving in to the social contagion does not make you brave, Watson, et al. It just means that you are more than willing to lay down and take whatever these abusive jerks have to give you. I don’t even know which celebrities are worse: the ones who go out of their way to appease the gender cult, or the ones who stay silent. They have all that power and influence, but they would rather push or ignore this dangerous ideology than lose their status. They will chant “transwomen are women” and effectively leave trans men—->biological women<——in the dust. Why? Because they are still women, and they will always be oppressed by the dominate male society, regardless of what they call themselves.
It would be foolish to say that women have no solidarity. We are allowed to believe and act separately of each other while loving one another. However, that can not be at the expense of our own rights. A woman should be able to state clearly what a woman is. Not the IDEA of a women, but the basic science of one. A woman is an adult human female. A girl is an infant, adolescent or teenage human female. Women with DSDs, who the gender cult loves to throw under the bus due to how they've developed, are still adult human females.
A male’s delusions should not be our conclusion.
If Emma Watson is here for all the witches, those witches certainly don’t consist of women. From this incident, most of us women are wondering how Hermione would behave. Arguably, Hermione is the true feminist AND witch of the two, fictional or not. Hermione never backed down, especially if it meant another person being bullied. Heck, if it was HER getting bullied. None of us non-celebrities can truly describe what goes on behind closed doors with most people in the entertainment industry, but it doesn’t appear to be good. J.K. Rowling, due to her status as a writer, may have more freedom with her words. As with anything, people are free to critique those words. More celebrities are subjected to slander. What is not okay, however, is the threats of violence that have been made toward her. Men and women alike, threatening to have revolting things done to her, and all because she acknowledge biology. What would all of them do with those special little labels they put on themselves if biology wasn’t real? It seems real enough if you want to change it, medically or by name. Their idea of gender is no more real than the Harry Potter characters, but their minds have not grasped that because these people are experiencing a strange case of Peter Pan Syndrome. The rest of us have to coddle them like Wendy Darling as they scream and kick up a fuss over something people have known for ions but now seem to have forgotten.
Even more interesting (and again, I don’t expect a single valuable word out of her male co-stars), while Watson claims to be a feminist, she seems more than willing to ignore the violence being spewed toward Rowling in particular. While she says nothing, this action reveals everything. Acts of violence against women are fine, especially if we disagree with her.
Hermione, fellow savior of Hogwarts and founder of SPEW (Society for the Promotion of Elfish Welfare), does not approve.
P.S., SPEW was also adapted from the real life organization, Society for Promoting the Employment of Women. As more proof of her witchiness, in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, she states, "The truth is, you don't think a girl would ever been clever enough." Hermione knows the game of the wicked world we live in.
And J.K. Rowling got into this whole disaster for speaking out FOR another woman. Not against her. She knows a woman shouldn't be fired over a non-violent opinion, nor should we ignore the dangers that gender ideology poses.
Emma Watson thinks everyone can be a woman, if they wish. Even the males that have harassed her and other women, both on and off stage. She has been brainwashed.
But she's the feminist.... Okay….
“In one scene, a scientist reports finding traces of asbestos in samples of products, while other experts report a catalogue of shocking issues on the rise such as changes in brain development, birth defects, ovarian failure and infant mortality.
We also see Palmer meet with individuals who have exhibited severe reactions to certain beauty products and hear their emotional accounts of devastating medical issues such as hair loss, speech problems and infertility. The scale of the issue, one commentator gravely declares, is an “overlooked epidemic”.”
Welp, so much for the prediction that he and Chris could host within a few years as the ultimate Oscars gimmick.
Two genuine apologies and he resigned from the academy. But it's just not enough for these people.
All his projects are on hold. Deals are on hold. Now he can't attend the Oscars for ten years.
I've never witnessed anyone in Hollywood actually be punished by Hollywood until now.
My gripe with Euphoria.
Cultists Presenting Our Choice of Embracing Womanhood As Acceptance of Oppression
Their idea of "gender" is still binary and ignores women's complexities. ♀️
I've made it known that I've watched Euphoria in full. Both seasons were a mixed bag of unnecessary plots, weird lines, faux feminism, and depressing messages. I decided I would not continue watchin aftee season 2 as I felt ill with myself. The show tries so hard to be deep, but refuses to actual rely on more than its award winning actors. The underage sex was also a major issue. I found myself skipping any scene presenting these acts, but I knew that was not enough. With or without the sex, this show continues to exploit its female characters while shedding some humanity on its male ones. One could argue that some female characters did receive humanity. That list consists of Rue, Lexi, and Jules. Immediately, this list has a problem. Starting with Lexi, she is barely afforded screen time. Her development is about as rushed and undercooked as a fast food meal. She was only afforded more screen time when it came time for a male character, Fezco, to find romance as well as push the plot. Both of these acts ignored vital aspects of her character. As for Jules, he is male. He is afforded the same humanity as his other male peers because they have that in common. Jules is, of course, a part of the hyper-feminine and hyper-sexual crowd, but on him, these qualities are presented as quirky and cute. His female counterparts are still seen as shallow eye candy at the threat of being disposed of and mocked when they can't straighten up by themselves.
And then there's Rue....
She is a special case, being the lead for the show and ultimately earning more nuance accordingly. She is contrasted from the hyper-feminine, presenting as "tom-boyish". I feel I should note that these are inherently loose terms to use. No one is feminine or masculine as both of these ideas are constructed, mostly to place femaleness as submissive, unstable, and something to dominate, while men retain the supposedly masculine qualities of productivity, strength, and power. We are all a blend of unique and fanciful qualities that do not need a name. Anyhow, Rue is reserved to being the gender neutral girl of the show. We don't see her in a skirt or high heels, and make-up is the last thing on her mind. This shouldn't present her as superior to the other girls on the show, and one could state that it doesn't. We see the other female characters gain recognition and what we could loosely call "life experience" from their pretty auras and ability to social network. We don't see Rue reach out to anyone. Her place seems more firm beside her sister and mother, who love her and fear the path she has taken. Only Jules becomes a pivotal outside figure in her life. This other figure becomes a strong point of interest, so strong it leaves her vulnerable. On the other hand, Rue is occasionally shown conversing with the other girls, but the vibe is different. Even with the girls amongst eachother, their tolerance of eachother feels narrow. Despite a mostly female cast, the show does not attempt to show female solidarity in a way that feels consistent. They are shown being friends one moment, then disregarding eachother the next. Maddy is quick to fight other girls, Cassie carelessly betrays Maddy's trust, and Kat has been written so hollow at this point that she'll swing wherever the plot calls her to. Rue is a non-factor in their group as her plot simply does not mesh with theirs. She is essentially, and I hate to say it...
Not like the other girls.
If we start to question why in this misogynistic dumpsterfire, we will start to see. It is not a matter how she was written, but rather who it she was written for.
In my search for meaning behind certain characters and motivations, it was inevitable that I would come across certain articles about behind the scenes drama. Anyone familiar with Hollywood and the media knows that "drama" usually happens when an actress states her disconfort in hiw she's being handled. This is far from new. So, for this post, I am mostly addressing the words and actions of Zendaya Coleman, the executive producer of the show "Euphoria" and the actress who plays Rue Bennett. I am addressing to lead up to my conclusion on why her character has been identified in the way that she was. Evidently, Zendaya was heard in an interview insisting that Rue was a non-binary lesbian.
Non-binary. Lesbian. I have already spotted two issues. For the sake of time, I'll go ahead and explain why she can't be a lesbian, at least in practice. Of course, the show does not allow the viewer to linger affectively on her sexuality, so I am making huge guesses here.
She is shown to have had past sexual encounters with males and is currently in a relationship with one (even if he presents as female). It is clear that she exhibits distaste with those last experiences, although she tries to sound flippant. Obviously, I can't speak for lesbians on how they're sexuality works, but Rue's current (specifically the early stages of season two, as they seperate later) relationship status deems her, speaking simplistically, attracted to the opposite sex. Then again, it is hard to see her sexuality as being stable to begin with due to her addiction and mental disorders. She could fall victim to idolizing anyone that fits a current need. She could have a low sex drive as well, but that may also be the addiction messing with her libido. She is shown getting physical with Jules in season 2. However, these instances never involve intercourse, and she is shown to indeed lack the ability to enjoy any sexual act due to her harsh relapse. In a sense, we don't know what's up with her.
Long story short, Rue is not a lesbian in any meaningful sense of the term. Zendaya, that is strike one. ❌
Onto this non-binary business, I would like to ask if any of the male characters on this show are said to be binary. We could point to male characters that feel gender non-conforming, like Ethan, or characters that suffer to uphold their "masculinity", like Nate and Cal. Although, we are not told they are non-binary. Non-binary is reserved for girls, something to add an edge to them when they feel all hope is lost. It appears to girls as a form of escape, even as they dice their perfectly healthy bodies and are told to ignore the pain. Where is Rue's pain? She is still referred to as a she and doesn't seem to give a whoomp about it. So why would Zendaya claim she was a non-binary character when she is merely a girl in neutral attire? Does being non-binary suddenly afford her more empathy than the other girls? Does it help them mute any questions about Rue's sexuality? Why is it that her wardrobe depicts her as anything but female?
Well, it's because Rue wasn't meant to be a biracial female.
To explain further, I feel that I must state the obvious. Sam Levinson is white and male. Rue's story is borrowed from bits and pieces of HIS life and HIS struggles. This is not the viewpoint of a biracial girl struggling with addiction. This is a white man struggling with addiction, thus her presence as non-white and female in a largely white and male point of view is almost contradictory. Race is hardly if at all touched upon in this show, and that's not even addressing the lack of non-white leads to begin with. I don't mean to group Maddy and Kat, as they are presented as having latina origins, but those aspects of their identity are hardly given any light. I could almost say that Maddy presents as yet another "spicy latina" in its neverending and damaging occurence. Kat's ethnicity is not even touched upon enough to give it meaning. As always, there is not an asian character in sight. The black characters are presented fleetingly or as throw aways. Mckay left the story in the speed it took to say his name, and this was after his assault. No resolution. Lexi receives help for her play from a black girl who gets screen time so minimal that I don't remember her as anything but "Squeak". She simply exists. When we observe Rue's biracial identity within the story, it is never given prudence. Obviously, Sam would not be so knowledgeable of this, but where was Zendaya's input? So worried about her clothes that you forgot her skin color made an impact, it seems. Ali, her sponsor, giving a snippet of dialogue does little to justify the lack exploring identity outside of false beliefs. You can not automaticy suffer oppression by switching your pronouns. Rue somehow being a they/them, despite retaining her she-ness, proves the shallowness of the writing room. Somehow, she is not allowed to identify as a girl because that would be too hard. She cannot identify as a girl because girls can not somehow be nuanced, growing and changing in spite of the male gaze leering over them, telling them that their complexity as a female is impossible.
Somehow, she is less than female because she refuses to place effort into "femininity" in the same way as her female peers and the trans-identified male standing beside her. Jules' character is the definition of breaking gender norms as he is a man dressed in traditionallly female clothing. Why is he not just non-binary?
Rue is not less than female, and nor are those other girls despite the narrative presenting Jules' experiences as congruent to theirs. Despite their differences, they are all females with a difference in style. Non-binary is code for male. Just admit it, because somehow the world has made man the default when they did not create life. Women were here first, way before femininity and masculinity. We are both strong and gentle. We are life and death. We are complex. We are 🌿NATURE🌿. Assessing femaleness as a costume is assuming that lack thereof makes a woman less than a woman. It also adds to my point that only men are allowed story progression that does not heavily involve their sexuality. Their romance is an afterthought, a side goal in their stories. They don't have to conquer their virginity because they're not expected to be pure and nice. For women, romance and perfection is shown as the only thing we strive for. Rue is not perfect, and she certainly isn't that romantic. What would you do if people were naked? Would your gender theories work then?
That's strike two. ❌
My last qualm followed shortly after discovering her first comment. Maybe it pains me to see a woman disregard her existence for a man's unsound beliefs. It hurts even worse when assessing her words in the following post.
All women. Did Hunter tell you to say that?
I've already seen how TRA's and trans-identified males feel about black women, and they make it so blatant. Black woman are adult human females. We have female anatomy. When did we become other kinds of women simply for the color of our skin? We have been dehumanized and mocked enough! Stop lumping us with deluded autogynephiles who see our oppression as a privilege. As a woman of color, it is terrible to see her ignore this basic fact just for the sake of brownie points from a cult.
Strike three! You're out. ❌❌❌
i know that women are physically "inferior" to men according to male standards of physicality only, but i wish we would stop tripping over ourselves to prove that we are better than men in a lot of way. like i think it's important that we learn to appreciate our body's capabilities, but even if we were weaker than men in all ways who gives a shit? that's not an excuse to treat us like they do. lol a man irl wants to tell me he's stronger than i am, cool bro, im way fucking smarter than you tho.
a fucking horse could kill you with a single kick, what of it? a bull could crush you. a bear could maul you. you could die from a bug bite. a little infected cut. why does you being "stronger" than i am mean you are allowed to subjugate me?
My gripe with Euphoria. Part 3:
The Mixed Melodies of Maddy
For some, Maddy's character may be hit or miss, for a multitude of reasons. My main reason was that I wasn't sure how to feel, at least on a larger scale.
Maddy Perez, played by Alexa Demie
Like some of the other female leads, we are meant to ogle her as a very sexual and "empowered" teenager. Her archetype is presented as the cheerleader to Nate's jock. Both are rude, tend to achieve what they want, and have their horrendously unstable relationship to wave around to others. There is something that Maddy lacks, however, and that is Nate's disregard for others. Maddy is shown to empathize, especially with her friends. I would almost say that she cares for them more than she does Nate, but that idea could be challenged. She is shown to be confident and straightforward, which are good qualities, until the writer's decide otherwise. The viewer is left wondering how much of these confidence is a facade after all, especially when coupled with Nate. It is interesting to see how Nate's demon dick impacts the girls he's with. When Maddy was with Nate, she had seemed to have a streak of violence and hostility with others. When this relationship broke off, it was as if she mellowed, taking on a laid-back persona similar to Lexi's. There is still much to critique about her character, both pre and post mellow. It helps to have some background for Maddy Perez. At a young age, she was subjected to the controversial industry that is pageantry. Her confidence and skill helped in her success, which was quickly tarnished when her mother removed her from this arena due to the prevalence of pedophiles. I feel like this was the opportunity to introduce something big for the show, possibly a critique on the sexualization of girls as young as 3 years old.....but no. That misshap was brushed aside in a manner of "it happens" as Maddy rushes toward other avenues. She comes to the conclusion that she would rather do "nothing", then switches to possibly doing something in order to attain the high value of the women who's nails her mother painted. This is all to avoid the trappings of being both impoverished and in a strained relationship like her parents.
When she meets Nate Jacobs, this is where more of her character gets called into question. We see her purposefully portray herself as the perfect girl to Nate Jacobs, who has an odd list of demands (likes girls hairless, slender, small noses, chokers, and other shallow things) that supposedly Maddy is able to meet. She even lies about having never had sex just to increase her appeal. She will then use this newfound sexual status with Nate to convince him into treating her like the rich women she aspired to be, having him buy her lavish presents. This rich woman status feels more like pr*stitution, to put it flatly. The show presents her using her body for currency as empowering and confident. She even analyzes p*rn so that she can carry on their "techniques". It is stated offhandedly, that she doesn’t derive pleasure from doing so. Her body is no longer hers. It is Nate's, which he feels free to use at his own discretion.
All this, and Maddy admits that she is afraid of him. She has reason to be, given his violent streak not only from the 1st season where he chokes her, but also in the 2nd where threatens her life, then claims it was all a joke. In spite of this, she says that she is still attracted to him, although it makes her "sick to her stomach". It's clear why, and I think teen dating violence is often overlooked in the media, or isn't given the nuance it deserves. The girl’s abusers are not framed as such. Instead, these are boys with a troubled past who need rehabilitation through her love and her love alone. Never mind the stalking, the yelling, or the inappropriate touching. He says he "loves her". Unfortunately, these girls feel like they love them back. It's saddening to see Maddy's usually confident nature fizzle under the gaze of Nate. She is willing to hide her bruises for him, wrongly accuse someone for him, and even beat her friend over him. I do not want to claim that her character isn't strong because she still loves her abuser. A lot of women unfortunately fall in love with those that hurt them. Perhaps it is the need to give back, even when a lot has already been snatched away from her. Nevertheless, the show sees Maddy as empowering because of this toxic love. She gets right back with Nate despite her weariness of him, and even some lingering hatred. Still, this hatred is not as aimed toward him as I would have liked.
Despite ending things in season 1, we jump to season 2 with Maddy making the claim that she would like to get back together with Nate, and the two soon resume this rugged relationship. This was with Maddy's knowledge of Nate's secret tapes, mind you. Tapes exhibiting graphic material of Nate's father and other men, mind you. But they get back together, with Nate's undiclosed relationship with Cassie almost floating in the background ready to burst in the season's finale. It soon does, however, and Nate and Cassie's lies are both exposed. Nate has lied and physically assaulted Maddy, but Maddy's aggression is turned to the lesser crimes of her former friend. Sympathy isn't a requirement for these characters, but I think the direction taken in having Maddy beat her friend at this revelation is one that I find typical. Regardless of his crimes, Nate is allowed to retain his humanity in not getting humiliated. Lexi's parody of him and his fellow jocks did not single Nate out the way the portrayal of Cassie did. Cassie's misguided attempt at finding attention winds up giving her a kick so far down that I hardly see her getting back up in one piece. Maddy hits Cassie with her shoes, leaving her bleeding and forced to stand her crumbling ground against a girl not much different from her.
Obviously, Nate is stronger and far more aggressive than Cassie could ever be, but why would Maddy result to violence? Is it because it is easier to beat down on another girl than to directly confront the boy who caused you the most harm? I do not mean to excuse Cassie's actions, as they were harmful to do to a friend. Also, I can't suggest that Maddy would have gone behind Cassie's back the way she did to her, but the result of this conflict landed in a direction that was telling, to say the least. Nate gets to eject his father from his life and resume in the next steps toward his "redemption". Meanwhile, Maddy and Cassie while likely not recover from this conflict, or they will find a difficult way of doing so. These girls that the show loved to deem powerful and strong in their sexualities were ultimately thwarted by exactly that: their sexuality. They did not learn anything outside of not being able to trust eachother. The thought of looking collectively at how their view of themselves, how they have been used, and how they can rise from this does not occur in the narrative's conclusion. What lies in wait is what remains dormant in most stories. The male leaves the women to their squabble as he comes on top and better than ever. The women, in their frustration and miguidance, are confused into hating eachother.
My gripe with Euphoria. Part 2:
The Lifestyle of Lexi
I may do some of these characters separately as opposed to in pairs. I may pair character who share similar plot elements or affect each other's storylines in a major way. In some cases, I might even give them a seperate page for further analysis if necessary. While Lexi connects to both Cassie and Rue's characters, I feel like specifically addressing how she was written.
Unfortunately, I might show my favoritism here because Lexi is one of the more humanely drawn character that I found myself relating to. She is the younger sister of Cassie and is comparitively more introverted. She has a contrasting choice of attire as well, dressing more conservatively in a prim, bookish style that.
Lexi Howard, played by Maude Apatow
Character outfits notably play a large role in this show, specifically in its eye-catching presentation as well as a reflection of the characters. Maddy, Kat, Cassie, and even Jules are shown to be more chic in their style and very willing to show some skin. These characters are presented as the hyper-feminine and hyper-sexua) characters of the show. They've been presented naked and sometimes afraid when facing certain sexual encounters. Lexi is one of the few characters who gets to keep her top on and not have sex, lust or really any other risky obstacles define her character, but that comes at a cost in this show. That cost was, of course, her screen time. She did not make up overarching storylines like Rue's love for Jules and her addiciton to drugs. She was also not anyone's main attraction until season 2 when Fezco (the local drug dealer) started taking interest in her. My concern was also that this male lead is indeed a drug dealer. That is not me rejecting any of his good intentions toward her. Funny enough, despite his job, he is probably as nice as the male characters get in this show. Still, he has a dangerous occupation that has been shown to lead to trouble. This is the bad boy-good girl plot that seems to flourish in the media. Like most good girls, her story is only seen as interesting to work with when she becomes a troubled male character's point of interest. Her additonal screen time ultimately amounts to a rushed plot. I would be lying if I said I didn't enjoy her theater production in which she presents a detailed rendition of her life alongside the other characters. In the 2nd season's finale episodes, Lexi also appears to be facing an evolution in her clothing style that reflects these speedy changes. Her outfits become bold, taking on darker colors and more exuberant flourish.
Her outfits were still just a minor thing about her. The psychology of the character was given in brief flashes and short quips, but I had something to work with. Her relationship with Cassie was far more my concern. It took me a minute and even stumped me when I found out later in the series that Cassie was the eldest. She embodies all of the aspects of a stereotypical younger sibling, which we often see presented as bratty, self-centered, spoiled, etc. It is a part of the controversial "birth order theory", which takes a look at how birth order determines a child's capabilities. These qualities tend to stem from the youngest children not having room to be resourceful, probably having an older sibling to fall back on. There was plenty going on in the Howard household for the girls to develop that kind of reliance on one another, although Levinson did not attempt to give them that much screen time. Still, we get a glimpse that a younger Lexi is the more resourceful one to whom Cassie often released her woes. We see their realtionship reach a breaking point in the seadon 2 finale when Lexi's play very much shine's a light on Cassie as a person. In theory, this goes back to the the turbulent lifestyle both girls had to live. Their father had a drug addiction, which we learn later how that impacts their reactions to themselves as well as to characters like Rue. Cassie seems to take the fore-front, or more active approach in their father's slow decent into addiction. She is ready to love him regardless, openly supporting him even though is not specifically sure of what has occurred to him. Lexi is more reserved and noticeably more analytical of her father. We don't get to hear much of how she feels about this, specifically in the aftermath. It seems to have affected Cassie quite blatantly as we see her break down in the last episode, and in front of a live audience nonetheless. It was heartbreaking to watch their cold views of eachother be brought to light. Lexi saw Cassie as broken, but she also saw her sister as someone she hardly knew. This decision of her sister's ditziness and sexual nature sheds some light on Lexi's thought process, but we hardly see her reflect on this in moments that span longer than a minute. We also see Cassie's feelings emerge as well, where she states that Lexi is so "uninteresting" that she has to chronicle everyone's life just to add some spice to her own. Here, the narrative presents some interesting conflict between the two, but they don't get that time together. We are instead shown Lexi running away as Cassie is left to be chased and beaten by Maddie Perez. We are later shown that Lexi does rise again, ready to finish her pretty successful (and expensive looking show). Still, it did not feel like an enjoyable conclusion for either of these characters. Although the show is setting itself up for a third season, I doubt that any more time needs to be waisted as Sam Levinson continues to not flesh out the supposedly less interesting characters. It's clear why Rue remains front and center, but why are other characters given such shallow archs (and possibly unnecessary falls)?
Fezco (Angus Cloud) and Lexi (Maude Apatow) sitting together
Returning to the dynamic between Lexi and Fez is made even more odd when her father's story lingers in the background. Sure, Gez has the laid-back nature that matches her own, but he sells drugs. Plain and simple. Her father used them. This does not seem to give much in terms of morality for her characts. She may question his actions here or there, but it does not seem to affect her as directly as it should. Her attraction to him should be more of a struggle. Honestly l, we could even factor in Rue as an addition to this struggle. Rue and her were close for a long time, and she had to sit and watch as her friend fell into the same path as her father. She has been seen even helping Rue cheat her away out of a positive drug test, marking how strongly she feels about Rue as a friend. We see how this conflicts her to a certain point, but not enough time is given for this reflection to be effective. It is fairly obvious that Fez is the one selling Rue more drugs to fuel this addiction, but Lexi is not allowed to think about that. This would get in the way of the artificial plot that the writers constructed for her in order to push her into the limelight. Her need to start this play and simultaneously run it is also a leap in her character that leaves me with more questions than answers. We see her play review the lives of the show's main characters in an almost sympathetic way, but her narration hardly explains away her conflicting actions alongside her hasty development in confidence. This development presents itself, consequently, as force to drive the plot rather than a natural progression.
Humanity has no bounds...
Yall what the fuck
My gripe with Euphoria. Part 1:
The Defamation of Kat and Cassie
So against my better judgment, I watched the darn show....
Both seasons.
It had your typical "teen" drama filled with drugs, sex, and depression, and it was exploitation at its finest.
This is not to say that teens don't experience these things. Far from it, but the way the show frames these experiences does not come off as genuine. We get the sexualization of teen girls and the exploration of how women view their feminity. By exploration, I mean it was some grown man's interpretation of what he feels a powerful and complex teenage girl should look like. That usually always deals with her sexuality. She should be sexually desirable, even when her mental health is at stake. This is shown drastically in characters like Kat and Cassie, two young girls who feel like they are "empowered" in their sexually escapades, and this is done at the expense of their childhood. Teens are practically still children. Legal age has nothing to do with the development of the brain. These characters were told that their value was rested in mainly their sexuality, especially since society saw them as expendable and useless. They tried to show Kat coming into how she views herself, but that storyline was quickly tossed and they left her character hollow.
Image of Kat Hernandez, played by Barbie Ferreira
She started off an actual lead in the story. We see her as the odd one out amongst her friends, Maddy and BB. This oddity, of course, is her virginity. The concept of losing virginity goes back into the idea of a woman's purity and social standing. I have grown to loathe these plot points in teen shows. They are never handled with care or consideration, especially as it relays the idea that a girl can't truly progress in life until she has been conquered, presumably by a man. The story remains even more tasteless when these girls enter a party and Kat is coerced into having sex with some boy from another school. This results in a video being spread, showing her engaging in this deed. I'm sure some laws were broken here, but nevertheless, Kat has to do some damage control in order to stay out of trouble. It is unfortunate to see the show almost enjoy displaying what was clearly her first experience with sex in such a degrading manner. For the sake of plot, I'm sure it suited her to not have her face shown. Still, it makes one wonder about the facelessness of women who are watched online from such humiliating videos. We don't even know if they consented to being video taped. Kat sure didn't.
In episode 2 of season 1, we continue her story with flashbacks of her childhood that show her struggling with her weight as well as the loss of her first boyfriend. Her fight with body image is inherent. Even more heart-rending, Kat finds this new spike in internet fame to be intriguing and goes on to upload more videos of herself to a p*rn site (faceless of course).
Her cam-girl status was simply to shock, not offer meaningful commentary on teen girls and the exposure of themselves to a world that despises them. I believe the actress herself even commented on not wanting another "fat girl" plot line. Of course, not much followed from that outside of her story being cast out.
Consequently, we see her character get more and more one note. Thankfully, she has quit her dominatrix job by season 2, but ber struggles with identity are still realistically persistent. The show refuses to expand on that past episode 3, however. She grows unsatsified with a boy, Ethan, who appears to really like her. The show tries to dispaly how her self-esteem could not be solved through sex, but they refuse to leave her with a shred of diginity. At this point, we can infer that she loathes her body, but is afraid to admit that to a world that will reject her admission. Instead, she fantasizes about getting with someone that views her as an object to be sexually assaulted (shown in a weird Game of Thrones where she is practically r*ped by a warrior). Again, a real life circumstance for some teen girls and women, but also one the show refuses to explore further. We see her then gaslight and berate Ethan in the 2nd season's last few episodes, presenting the idea that girls only want "bad boys" in the end. This is in refusal to address Kat's emerging belief in how she lacks confidence herself and how it was a facade. We don't get to see her feel devastated by her actions, despite being shown as a character very capable of sympathy for others. Her facade of care free sexual appeal is put to the fore-front, and we as the audience are meant to see her just as shallow as she portrays herself. It is also important to note that her counterpart from the 2012 Euphoria series, a character by the name of Noy, dealt with a little more plot wise. Noy's character is actually shown to face long-term consequences from her sexual exploration. Kat's edition of this is shown to be so careless and almost glorifying as a result. Sex of any kind came come with risks, and that should have been shown for her. We don't know much about the men she experiments with, both online and off, how old they are, or what they've done in their pasts. The plus-sized girl in this series is not given any more nuance than she is in most other media portrayals. Kat is still the promiscuous and plus-sized girl who is hard to love. We are no longer able to have her point of view. We are no longer able to sympathize with the girl in this seemingly female-centric show.
Image of Cassie Howard, played by Sydney Sweeney
Cassie is shown desperately clinging to any male figure in her life, carelessly placing her own friends on the back burner. This may be reminiscent of real life, but again, the show does not attempt to humanize her. We are somehow meant to objectify her, especially with the amount of times we've seen her topless. The camera seems to thoroughly enjoy scanning over her body. It matches the ominous and far from hidden attention that her body received upon reaching puberty. This attention, of course, was given by men, strangers and family members alike. Of course, she is naturally unaware of the male gaze as it strips her first of her awareness, hiding behind smiles and gentle gestures. As her body blossoms, the world decides when it would be best to attack. Much like Kat, this attack is confused for affection. With an absent father, much of any male attention can be taken as fickle. Subconsciously, it becomes her mission to keep them however she can. She lives in a world where keeping a boy means you must give much of yourself away to please him. As we know, this does not earn the male’s respect, but rather his denigration. Her character is humiliated and remains unaware, as we see boys talking crudely about her behind her back. To them, she is sexually starved. It is almost sadistic, and masochistic on her oart, how much we are shown her being desperate. Even as we see her get with the seemingly kinder Mckay, it wasn't long before she was being roughhoused by him in bed and gobbling goldfish for his college initiation. The actress, Sydney Sweeney, even explicitly came out and said she asked for less nudity in her role. This is not something that should have to be told, but I guess the director didn't see her for anything but eye candy. You shouldn't need nudity to enthrall and audience, especially at the expense of your actresses. Sam Levinson (writer, producer, director) appeared to have eased away from nudity, noticeably in the show's second season. That did little to polish the show, however. In the 2nd season's final moments, we see Cassie spiral into a fit of grief and righteous fury, feeling rightfully that the world is against her. Of course, this does not excuse her from her own selfish acts. She is decides to get with the ex-boyfriend of her best friend, Maddy, and hide this up until all is revealed by a character I will discuss later. We know the origin of Cassie's lust for love, but she is ultimately shown as shallow and in the wrong. We do not get to discuss how she can come to find more stability in her life, to love herself and love other women. She just simply exists as visual entertainment beside the near sociopathic Nate Jacobs. We see Nate pull her close and push her away, and she is willing to come back everytime. We are supposed to believe she is not allowed mercy, even as she struggles with her own hidden addiction. We see her character painfully go through an abortion, which surely contributed to her declining mental state. This is shown in episode 7 of season 1. It's a plot fleetingly introduced and would never be spoken of again. Shock value for you. We do not get to see her mourn over this loss, although we are aware that this teenager would not do well with a child at the moment. Still, we don't know how she feels about having kids. We do not know how she feels about sex (I mean truly feels, not in how she presents it in scenes with Mckay and Nate).
Maddy confronting Cassie in season 2 episode 8
We do not get to see her discover that love does not exist solely in connection to a man. It should have existed in the love for her sister, possibly even in her flawed mother, or in Maddy and Kat. Primarily, that love should have been for herself, even if it took a long time to find. I highly doubt the upcoming 3rd season will give her that level of complexity and growth. She is just a dramatic plot point. Someone to be put in her place when she breaks under societal pressures. Obviously, self love is not everyone's conclusion, but Cassie, like Kat, is young and very impressionable. It is difficult to tell if the show sees them as such. Girls are told to act like mature adults, and are shamed if they don't achieve this in a way that leaves them both f*ckable and manageable. There is still time for them to learn, but where is their help? Or their conclusions?
My gripe with Euphoria.
Introduction
I remember my initial decision to cower away from this show. I discovered through review videos and articles that this was far from teen-friendly, despite having a teen-centric cast of characters. This show opposes my morals immensely, but I think I was only intrigued by the main plot of drug addiction, which is a slippery slope to take in the media. I had seen that the main show writer, Sam Levinson, also struggled with addiction, so I figured there would truth to this fictionalized tale.
Euphoria's (2019) concept is not particularly new, however. It is based on a 2012 Israeli show by the same name, directed by Ron Leshem. The original had some of the same elements: a troubled group of generation Z teens, somone with a drug addiction, a girl with weight issues, a drug dealer and his brother, etc.).
Cast of Israeli "Euphoria"
I don't know much about the Israeli version outside of that, especially without access to the show. I have heard that it takes on a bit of a more sympathetic approach to its characters. Levinson's adaptation seems to take on a different approach in the form of HBO style exploitation. As someone who is part of Generation Z and is aware of our statistics, I find it peculiar that a lot of these teen-centric shows portray us as hyper-sexual alcoholics who wouldn't give it a second thought to try drugs on the side. It's bee documented recently (in the years 1995-2015) that the opposite has been occurring. Of course, our world is being adapted from the mind of a thirty-four year old man. Older men, young teens, and sex seem to be a reoccurring theme. We see how female characters are treated versus the males. There is even the inclusion of a trans identified male character in the midst, who I found myself weary of throughout both seasons for reasons I will explain in later posts.
It is easy to see where Sam includes himself in the drug addiction plot. The other plots, however, are just as telling on the psyche of male directors and writers and how they view the women and girls that they construct in their narratives. His co-writers are Zendaya and Drake. Notably, Drake has been shown to have his own immoral actions on full display, so his influence is one to take heed to just as much. Zendaya's ideas of feminism are also warped, as she believes in males deserving the rights to be in female spaces. Someone who can simultaneously compare a man's mental illness to a women of color's biological status already sets me up to critique the debased "feminism" of this story.
It is no longer a matter of these female (and even male) characters being complex when we are simultaneously told they are empowered by their flawed actions. Or, on the opposite side of things, we are told that they should be discarded accordingly when it suits the narrative.
I will dive into this mess of glitter and shine and tear away this show's esthetics as I navigate my thoughts throughout my viewing of both seasons. I will explore the female (and one female presenting trans) characters and analyze what I see fit based off of what I took away from them.
reblog if freud would have diagnosed you with female hysteria in the 1800s
My radical feminist starter pack
To Read:
Suggestions from the inbox:
MEGA PDF
More books here, here, here, and here
de Beauvoir: The Second Sex (1949)
Brøgger: Deliver Us From Love (1973)
Burstow: Radical Feminist Therapy (1992) PDF
Collins: Black Feminist Thought (1990)
Criado-Perez: Invisible Women (2019)
Daly: Gyn/Ecology (1978)
Daly: Beyond God the Father (1973)
Dines: Pornland (2010)
Dworkin: Intercourse (1987)
Dworkin: Last Days at Hot Slit (2019)
Ekis Ekman: Being and Being Bought (2013)
Firestone: The Dialectic of Sex (1970)
Friedan: The Feminine Mystique (1963)
hooks: ain’t i a woman (1981)
hooks: Feminist Theory (1984)
Jeffreys: Beauty and Misogyny (2005) PDF
Jeffreys: The Industrial Vagina (2000)
Lorde: Sister Outsider (1984)
MacKinnon: Are Women Human? (2006)
MacKinnon: Butterfly Politics (2017)
Miles: Who Cooked the Last Supper? (1988/2001)
Millett: Sexual Politics (1970)
Moraga: This Bridge Called My Back (1983)
Rich: Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence (1980)
Russ: How to Suppress Women’s Writing (1983) PDF
Saini: Inferior (2017)
Wolf: The Beauty Myth (1990)
Wollstonecraft: A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792)
Please feel free to message me if you have anything to add!
Completed:
Dworkin: Pornography: Men Possessing Women (1981)
Dworkin: Right Wing Women (1983)
Solanas: SCUM Manifesto (1967) PDF
I am getting so sick and tired of women being told to off themselves because we're stating facts. Men are allowed to exclude women in every scenario, even when we should rightfully play a role. To some of these TRA's however, women just wanting that space to themselves is the equivalence of g**ocide and we should be k*lled and r**ped accordingly. These sentiments are being shared by both men AND women. I've even seen TIW getting dogpiled for speaking out, because they are still women in a very patriarchal society. How some women have fallen into this sh*t pile is beyond me at this point. I have seen some peak, while others dig themselves in further just for the sake of acceptance. At this point, I will have to remove anyone who supports them from my friendship circle. I can't mentally handle being around people who don't believe that my biological sex had impacted my life, or that my biological sex can be some man's outfit.