Election Roundtable Discussion: Three Young Women Talk About Bernie and Hillary

 

Recent remarks by Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright which have been reduced to ‘the boys are with Bernie and you’re a bad feminist if you are too’ made me desperate to know whether or not this divide between the Democratic candidates is a fair one. And what would a supporter of each candidate have to say about it? After scouring the internet for robust writing by women about the election, particularly about their candidate preferences, and coming up relatively empty, I decided to call upon some brilliant women I know for their thoughts. This roundtable was primarily inspired by recent talk around the overly simplistic “sexist Bernie Bros” vs. “Hillary feminists” as well as an article from Monday declaring that single women are the most powerful voting block. I wanted to find out what women think of how the media is portraying them as supporters of each candidate (or not), as well as their rationale for choosing one over the other.

Below is a conversation that occurred from Wednesday February 17-February 21 between myself (a supporter of both candidates), a Bernie supporter, and a Hillary supporter.

 

MH: Hey all! I wanted to begin with the source material: Weekend of February 5-7 at a rally for Hillary supporters, Madeleine Albright said, “A lot of you younger women think it’s been done. It’s not done! You have to help! Hillary Clinton will always be there for you. And just remember there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.” Subsequently, Gloria Steinem made an offhand remark Friday February 5 in her interview on Real Time with Bill Maher, “Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie.” To be fair, she followed it up in the “Overtime” section of the show with, “We’re not voting for Sarah Palin, excuse me! We’re voting for a woman who represents the majority of women and men. Of course we’re not voting for [her just because she’s a woman]… Most of us are raised by women. Whether women or men. Because we are mostly raised by women, we associate female authority with childhood, emotionality, irrationality… I really don’t think we will be able to recognize human talent in all of its forms when men are raising children as much as women are and women are in the public forum as much as men are.”

 

I found these comments and the backlash against Albright and Steinem really fascinating because it encroaches upon this territory of feminism that is still quite uncertain: would a female president be a different kind of president? Is it inherently meaningful that the leader of the free world is a woman? If so, how?

What is your general reaction to the divide among women voters that Albright and Steinem establish above,  that “good feminists are with Hillary // Bad feminists and bros are with Bernie”? 

 

AD: I just want to start by saying that the comments made by those so-called “feminist” women really grate!! They are so patronizing to younger women, as if we AREN’T making informed political decisions. And, at least in the super-progressive liberal circles I run in, women *don’t* think the battle for equality is “over,” rather they are attuned to the many other facets of feminism, i.e. intersectional feminism that cares for poor, immigrant or women of color, among others.

Also, it would be one thing if the two candidates running had roughly the same politics–in that case the “you’re sexist//you don’t understand women’s struggles” accusation might stick better–but Bernie and Hillary really have fundamentally different politics, and to me that makes all the difference. In my view, Sanders’ strong aversion to war, his fight for a $15 minimum wage, and his proposals for universal healthcare and free public college education will significantly impact women who are most at-risk—that is minority, poor, non-American women—in addition to the policies he shares with Clinton (Planned Parenthood support, LGBTQ rights, minimizing the gender pay gap), are what earn him my young feminist support. His stubborn hatred of the big banks also makes my anti-capitalist heart skip a beat.

 

That said, I do think having a woman president would be great, if only to break the (largely white) male leader streak. I just don’t think that a victory for one woman is a victory for all women. I’m also not sure that I see an essential “difference” in the way a woman would lead…women are for sure not a monolith…is that the question? Interested in getting into this more.

 

MH: I definitely agree that the patronizing tone of Steinem and Albright was disturbing (Steinem later apologized and on that very same episode said young women are more radically feminist than we [her generation] ever were) though I tend to expect this kind of hypocrisy from white feminists, and especially white feminists in their 70s and 80s. But I disagree that Bernie and Hillary have fundamentally different politics currently. I think I would agree that their track records demonstrate some differences, but I cannot imagine Clinton being against the markers of Sanders’s platform you mention “fundamentally.” I think they are actually fundamentally the same politically (they believe in equality of wages, fair immigration regulation, some kind of racial justice) but they have different approaches and/or strategies. Maybe I misunderstand the difference between politics and strategies? I’m really interested to hear from Sophie on this front.

In terms of the very essentialist-leaning question I posed, What difference would a female president make? I think the answer is interestingly twofold: on the one hand, a female president would make no difference and on the other hand it would make all of the difference. That is to say, I don’t think it would make a difference to the day-to-day job of President, but it would make a substantial symbolic difference. Not only will a whole generation of young American women grow up thinking that femininity and the presidency (and, by extension, a stereotypically subservient gender marker and authority) are no longer mutually exclusive, but also the country will take on a different global symbol. As seductive as these historic and symbolic changes are, I support Sanders (for now) because I prefer someone whose ideals hope to generate “real” change rather than the mere visual appearance of change. Some of the celebrity endorsements of Hillary have backfired for me in this way, namely http://www.people.com/article/lena-dunham-hillary-clinton-campaign-video-celebrities. Though I know that’s not necessarily a fair assessment of reasons to support Hillary.

I want to add that it does not matter so much to me whether or not Sanders achieves the changes he pronounces, but rather the mere fact that he says them out loud. The word “fearless” has been attributed to Sanders and many feminist Clinton supporters have claimed that Hillary cannot perform in such an aggressive way because she would be, as Nicki Minaj would say, a “bitch” whereas Bernie is a “boss.” What do y’all think of this inequality in how Bernie and Hillary are judged? Is it real or imagined? Should it sway our votes? Or, feel free to respond to any and all of the random statements I’ve made above.

 

ST: Maya, I agree that Bernie and Hillary don’t have fundamentally different politics. I do think Bernie speaks more to and for the working class, which I like, but I don’t think Hillary is in any way a corporate shill. I’ve read a couple good pieces dismantling that lately (here—though the first couple paragraphs seem no longer true, Bernie definitely has a shot at pulling the nomination). I think, for the most part, the distinction you draw between politics and strategies is correct. There are places where their political views differ—I agree with Bernie on the death penalty (he is squarely against, whereas Clinton is an “in the rarest of cases only” person), but Clinton on gun control. Bernie is far from a gun nut and it makes a difference that he’s from a rural area, but having grown up in DC, I am for the strictest gun control possible. When it comes to the strategy for implementing the politics they basically agree on, Hillary’s strategies just make more sense to me. For example, when it comes to college tuition — I don’t think making public colleges free for everyone is feasible or necessary. I am very lucky in that I was able to go college without going into debt. I did not need and therefore did not deserve to have public resources go towards making college free for me. Clinton’s plan — detailed here — seems like a much more feasible way to make college free by significantly reducing tuition, making community college free, and replacing loans with grants.

 

I also agree, Maya, that having a female president would make a difference in an important symbolic way. A generation of women and men will grow up without seeing a distinction between femininity and presidential authority. Of course identity doesn’t trump politics; Carly Fiorina or Ben Carson would both be nightmares. But, I would love to see my niece and others in her generation grow up and hit voting age without having yet lived through a white male presidency, where gravitas and authority weren’t associated with white men (I imagine that were Clinton to become president, she would face some of the same ridiculous shit Obama has faced. As much as the GOP tends towards partisanship in general, I cannot imagine the same level of obstructionism with a white male president).

 

It feels to me like Albright was more patronizing than Steinem; the rest of everything Steinem said in that interview (notably, the interview was with Bill Maher, who is kind of the worst) was complimentary towards young women’s activism and involvement in politics. That she’s in her 80s and has been working towards this for most of her life doesn’t justify the dumb part of what she said, but I think it does make some sense of it.

 

I think from both Hillary and Bernie camps, although as far as I have seen, more from Bernie camps, there have been a lot of patronizing assumptions made about women:  that women only vote for Bernie because of “the boys,” that women are only voting her Hillary because she has a vagina, etc.

 

Aldona—to call people sexist *simply* for supporting Bernie over Hillary is absurd and offensive and unfair, and absolutely a thing some people do. But, a lot of the criticism leveled at her is sexist and/or misinformed. Maya’s Nicki Minaj analogy seems apt. The thing that has bothered me most are the memes that have nothing to do with their politics.

 

AD: Okay, I definitely have to elaborate on what I mean by “fundamental” because I stand by it. I was not clear in my original comment, and definitely like the policies/strategies distinction. There are two aspects of Bernie Sanders’ campaign, and by extension what I believe his presidency will look like, that stand out to be as fundamentally different than Clinton’s, regardless of similarities in their positions on key issues. They are (1) he is unwilling to take campaign donation money from large special-interest groups, and (2) he doesn’t talk about trying to work with Republicans. Those are the fundamental differences I see, although I do also like how he goes further than Clinton on the issues they dis/agree on (he wants a $15 min. wage, she only wants it raised, for example).

 

I’ll for sure vote for Hillary Clinton if she gets the nomination, but speculations about who can better work with Republicans seem absurd to me. I don’t see the GOP as rational, responsible, or caring lawmakers at all and am pretty sure they’ll stubbornly oppose any Democrat in office. I am positive Obama’s blackness has fueled their hatred, but am also fairly positive that the Republican party is so fucked up and antagonistic at this point that even though a white male president might not meet the same level of obstructionism, obstructionism would still make things unworkable, and conceding to the GOP’s increasing extremism on any level would be harmful. The only solution I see is to vote them out of office and get special interest lobbyists out of the government process completely, not to try to work within our already-messed-up framework.

 

Thankfully, I have not really been witness to the “Bernie bros” that I see everyone talking about, nor do I watch cable news, so I haven’t seen much of the sexist attacks on Hillary Clinton that you mention. (Although my roommate did tell me how much she “hates Hillary’s voice”…cringe) I really want to push back against the “bitch/boss” thing though. The moments I can remember in which the nation really loved Hillary Clinton are also times when she was, or appeared, unapologetically in charge (I’m thinking “Texts From Hillary” http://textsfromhillaryclinton.tumblr.com/, and the Benghazi hearings specifically). The criticisms of Hillary Clinton I’ve seen from my FB vantage point have been how she doesn’t go far enough with her progressive politics. I have yet to see evidence that sexism is the reason for this hesitation but keep on seeing writers insisting on it. It’s worth considering the myriad privileges she has as a rich, cis, straight white woman who has many long-standing powerful political connections. I find it hard to believe such a woman would structure her politics around “bitch” accusations…I could be wrong, but I have yet to see anything more than conjecture to bolster that claim.

 

As for seeing a woman in the White House, I have no doubt it will happen within our children’s lifetime. It could even happen in 2016, which would be great, but I’m too excited about Sanders, his democratic socialism, and his larger critiques of the political system to not vote for him in the primary.

 

ST: I agree with your assessment of the GOP; very much not a fan (have either of you seen the document circulating the internet right now that’s taken from something Mitch McConnell wrote in law school? He states very clearly that the senate should not take a SCOTUS nominee’s political philosophy into account. The hypocrisy is incredible). But I think it is inevitable that we will have to work with them. They control Congress right now; even if they don’t hold onto congressional control this election, midterm elections with a democratic president in office tend to result in GOP congresses.

 

Something I’ve seen circulating facebook a lot that has struck me as, at least, as somewhat sexist are those memes with questions about random things (music, etc) and made-up answers marking Bernie as “cool” and Hillary as not. Which is maybe some of what Steinem was getting at in her “where the boys are” statement—not that young men are making their political decisions thoughtfully and young women are just following them, but that everyone is gravitating towards the “cool” candidate, and “cool” is often synonymous with “guy stuff.” (This does, of course, still imply that young voters don’t really know what they’re doing. Plenty of them probably don’t—there are people who research and think and decide to support Bernie for lots of real reasons and there are people who support him because it seems like the cool thing to do; there are people who support Hillary just because it seems like the thing to do for them, too).  

 

A note that doesn’t directly have to do with this conversation: more than getting special interest lobbyists out of government (overturning Citizens United is super important, but would leave a lot to be desired), we need major, major redistricting. That is the best way to get congress to actually represent the interests of the country.

 

I also don’t think Bernie is quite as radical as he advertises, which isn’t surprising from a politician (which he is). That’s not to say he isn’t progressive or wouldn’t *largely* act in what I think are all of our shared interest.  But Dolores Huerta just endorsed Hillary, citing their respective records on immigration:

 

“My question for Bernie is, where the heck was he for the last 25 years? Where was he on immigration reform? On indefinite detentions? On vigilante justice against undocumented workers? He was nowhere. That’s where.

Perhaps he’s had a change of heart, in which case, great. But why is he speaking as though we, the advocates and community members working for years to keep families together and push for immigration reform, haven’t been trying to make any progress until now? Specifically, why is he pretending like Hillary Clinton hasn’t been on the right side of this while he was on the wrong side? She’s got the track record to prove that she was in the fight with our community, Ted Kennedy, and President Obama. Bernie certainly doesn’t.”

https://medium.com/@DoloresHuerta/on-immigration-bernie-sanders-is-not-who-he-says-he-is-b79980adff6a#.wug6qpcdv.

 

And, while Sanders certainly gets points for voting against the Iraq War, his record also isn’t exactly that of a pacifist. He has made deals with Lockheed Martin, and seems to support military technology development when it benefits Vermont’s economy:

 

During his 2012 reelection campaign, Sanders ran against a Republican who opposed the F-35 as a waste of resources. Sanders was all for it. In a 2012 statement, Sanders made the point that the F-35 would have to be located somewhere, whether in Florida or South Carolina or Vermont. “I would rather it be here,” he said. 
So I will stick by my view that politically, there is no fundamental difference. Both of them are progressive. Both of them have also voted and acted, at times, in ways that do not mean the highest progressive standards—standards we should continue to hold, while also knowing that in part *because* we live in a democracy (sort of), and not everyone shares those standards, they won’t always be met (again, redistricting will help get more accurate representation of the country’s interest, as will getting rid of racist and utterly unnecessary voter-ID laws). And, because I think that they are on pretty even footing in terms of their values —both the values they hold and their commitment to those values —because I find Hillary’s plans more specific and more feasible, because I think Hillary would be better at the sort of politics necessary to battle obstructionism, and, yes, because she is a woman with all of the above qualities, she is getting my vote (if Sanders wins the nomination, though, I will not only vote for him but volunteer for him, as I will do for Clinton if she wins).

MH: As often happens when you begin to talk about any two things that the media has made out to be diametrically opposed like Sanders and Clinton, the truth behind such opposition is much more ambivalent and complicated. Are some Bernie supporters sexist? Probably. But is it automatically anti-feminist to not support Hillary? Hell, no. Would a woman in the White House change the world? Nah. Would this particular woman in the White House make a significant impact on the trajectory of the country? This is where the true disagreement between supporters of each candidate lies. The only silver lining that I can see resulting from the heated divide that the media draws between this false marker “Bernie Bro” and “Hillary feminist” is that it has spurred us to talk about the very real facts of misogyny, ageism, anti-semitism, and economic (dis)advantage in this country. So whoever wins the nomination, at the very least, we as a general public have thought an awful lot about their identities and hopefully this, directly or indirectly, makes their presidencies that much richer and capacious.

Advertisement

Trigger Warnings: A Discussion

Just in time for back-to-school, three writers at ACRO who are involved in high school or college instruction unpack the rhetoric of the “trigger warning”.

Trigger warnings began as a way to tag texts that may provoke a reader’s PTSD, but they have become widely used in tagging texts that contain content that ranges from offensive to traumatic. What began in social justice forums in the blog-sphere has made its way into discourse about the academy at large, leading to a call for the re-examination of the pedagogical value of certain canonical texts, the role of the professor and student in a shifting higher-education system, and the ethics of certain kinds of representation.

Good Shots: Discussing Warrior Grannies, Blood Bags, and Furious Feminism in “Mad Max”

This post contains spoilers.

George Miller’s latest chrome-shiny installment of the Mad Max franchise packs a lot of excitement into a movie whose plot is basically just…they drive down a road. They drive back. Somehow, though, this bare-bones plot sequence had me gripping the armrests and gasping in my seat. Below, three Acro Collective movie buffs sit down to discuss their favorite brands of huffable chrome paint, Furiosa’s makeup routine, and what kind of snacks Nux brought along on his first war ride.

Just kidding.

---

E: Did you guys have high expectations going in to see this movie? I feel like it’s been kind of polarizing, but I don’t know enough about the older Mad Max movies to compare.

B: I did, mostly because of the hype surrounding the film both with its critical acclaim and its overtly feminist notions, which were drawing a lot of attention. I generally have little to no interest in seeing action flicks (the action paradigm bores me), and had admittedly never heard of the Mad Max franchise, but was curious after reading some reviews sans spoilers and hearing people talk about it.

A: While I was excited about hype that I’d seen on Tumblr and various articles making fun of MRAs, I didn’t have very high expectations. I had already been burned by one action movie this month, which shall remain nameless, and I was still pretty wary. However, I figured anything that caused that much talk would probably be worth seeing, but not really having much else to do played a large part in going to see it.  All that aside, I really enjoyed it!

E: What were your guys’ favorite parts? I’m still a little hype from seeing it — I went in with REALLY low expectations, think-piece praise aside.

B: I really liked when the clan, which is a matriarchal society just as badass as Furiosa and her gang, was introduced. I appreciated the elderly women being portrayed as powerful and capable. With ageism being just as bad of a problem as sexism in the film industry, especially for women, it was refreshing and perhaps surprising to see this. Also, Furiosa’s cry to the earth was predictable (and even cheesy) to me, but I really commiserated with her there. Like damnit, really?!

A: I think at that point I was ready to scream with Furiosa too. The Vuvalini (an amazing name if you ask me) were definitely my favourite part. By the time we meet them we’re already pretty far in and have witnessed the capabilities of not only Furiosa but also the wives. Then we get even more awesome women?!? (Yes!) I really loved the kind of generational familial structure they represent post-apocalypse. This is something that we don’t get at the Citadel where Immortan Joe is, for all intents and purposes, the beginning and ending of familial hierarchy. The war boys are an unclaimed mass and his heir, Rictus is (often literally) just an echo of Joe.

The older actresses also brought out one of my other favorite things about the movie which was its aesthetic, especially with regards to texture. As viewers, we are prompted to look, see, and survey not only the landscape but also the pure spectacle of the war party. (I think I could stare at the spikey cars and built-up war tanks forever.) For me, the Vuvalini were especially beautiful because set against the always already deteriorating War Boy, their wrinkles were a beautiful and hard-won testament to their bad-assery.

The Vuvalini with The Dag | Photo from thepandorasociety.com

E: Yes! But really the whole world of the movie was pretty captivating and well-built for me. I feel like they were able to pack in a lot of detail without a lot of exposition (although Max’s hallucinations felt like a bit of overkill…) — from the strong religious/cultish overtones of Joe’s Citadel to the impact of the short declarations throughout the movie: “Our children will not be warlords”… “Who killed the world?” etc. This movie clearly blends feminist critique and ecocritique together under the umbrella of patriarchal exploitation, which I was not expecting going in. Another thing it does well is to show how everyone, men included, suffers under a rigid system of exploitation. Like I think we feel for Nux just as much as for some of the brides.

Did anyone else feel like Tom Hardy’s character, Max, took on a traditional sort of…hot-female sidekick role in this movie? Lol. So many close-up shots of his face!

Pretty, gritty Tom Hardy | Photo @MadMaxMovieUK/Twitter

And of course, not a lot of dialogue…

B: Yeah, I take it all back, actually… the aesthetics, from the vehicles to the makeup and costuming to the entire universe they created, were actually my favorite part. I even somehow liked the unsettling motif of running fluids – the water being poured out of the Citadel, the women being milked, blood supplying, running gasoline, tears. It was very visceral for me. In addition to the ecocritique, I can see a nod to the hazards of commercial farming, especially with the milking of the women and the breeders, but that could just be my reading.

I totally think Max was akin to a traditionally hot female sidekick character. Funny that you say that! I was cracking up when you were like, “I don’t think he got that. He doesn’t seem smart enough,” when Furiosa explains the rig’s starting kill-switch sequence (while we were watching the movie). He’s eye candy, but more importantly, I think he represents solidarity… an ally for feminists and women in general. He’s a physically strong male who does not in any way subjugate the female-driven dynamic; he enforces it and works alongside the women (almost bowing down to Furiosa… an “aww” moment for me was when he finally revealed his name to her and WILLINGLY supplied his blood to her) to collectively reach their end goal. And when Furiosa and the women are lifted up to power in the end, he steps aside.

A: I agree, Max definitely is riding shotgun on this one. And his position as atypical protagonist permeates everything he does and every position in which he is placed. Here, I’m thinking about his position as a figurehead mounted on the prow of Nux’s car. Which I found really telling given all of the Norse mythology (the War Boys are vikings with cars instead of boats)  floating around. While Max is the eponymous character and we see him first as narrator, he’s an unnamed body (blood bag) for an incredibly long time. He fights with Furiosa as a partner and their chemistry is that of comrades (even though she’s a much better warrior). Like Belinda said, the solidarity, especially in those scenes, was super refreshing.

E: As a blood bag, he’s placed in line with the escaping brides too — as a body who is first and foremost a physical resource.

Directors love putting Tom Hardy in a mask… | Photo @MadMaxMovieUK/Twitter

 

B: That, again, speaks to how that particular patriarchal system is oppressive to both men and women of all ages, looking at the War Boys and someone like Max.

A: Max is possibly the most vulnerable in these situations, because while he fights and survives, he is a universal donor and potential blood bag to any and everyone.

Which seems an interesting way of configuring your “hero” especially if there’s another version of the story in which the because we’ve seen the fierceness of Furiosa and the wives (Toast, Splendid, Capable, The Dag, and Cheedo) we could easily imagine them overtaking him? He just feels more vulnerable to me because of his “blood status.”

B: He is surprisingly strong for having so much blood drained out of him, though. I think the oppressed are similarly vulnerable, just in different ways. It’s with the fluids again — some like Max are sought after for their blood, some for their milk, some for their fertility/child-bearing. That all seems horribly abusive to me. (I keep feeling like this has a pro-vegan message, but that could just be me.)

E: [Aside: Tom Hardy’s character is just like his character in Lawless…lol. Has most of his blood drained out, still able to walk and fight and stuff. A+]

B: I read an article that claims that Mad Mex isn’t feminist or even good for that matter. One of the reasons stated is the use of the beautiful “Maxim Hotlist” models as breeders. I initially thought the women seemed almost too perfect as well — but then I realized they were purposely selected for their beauty by Immortan Joe, and beautiful women can be marginalized (especially in the sex trade industry) and conversely powerful. How did you two feel about the use of those actresses?

A: There is that for all intents and purposes “wet t-shirt” scene” but its purpose felt more about exposition than exhibition. We need to see Splendid (Rosie Huntington-Whiteley) and her huge baby bump so that we can know what has happened to these women and why Furiosa is helping them escape. Her body a symbol of the broken system and instantaneous backstory insert.

E: It’s so funny that the article you linked would claim Mad Max is “overdone.” It is the B-movie to end all B-movies, lol. Its mode of existence is hamminess.

B: LOL, in some ways, that’s kinda true. But it doesn’t make it bad. B-movies rock.

E: And yeah, I have a problem with constructing beauty and feminism as mutually exclusive. There’s nothing that says we audiences can’t enjoy a good model-like lineup in a movie that’s excessive in almost every other way.

B: You’re so right. If the universe was entirely realistic and mirrored society to a fault, then the women would seem out of place. But c’mon. It’s B-movie status and, in that universe, those women are hardly the most overdone aspect.

A: I think it would have been different if they were just “The Wives” but they have names and distinct personalities. We even know their names before Max’s.

Photo @MadMaxMovieUK/Twitter

 

E: There is the fact too that the two most obviously/conventionally attractive women get killed in the most gruesome ways… Rosie Huntington Whiteley’s character dies early on, as does Megan Gale’s character, The Valkyrie. It’s hard to argue that RHW was there just for her beauty, too, because her final scene was so gruesome and we didn’t see her face then — just the reactions of those around her. She’s literally treated like a piece of meat on the cutting block, which is the extreme logical end of beauty in the world of the movie. With that kind of ending, it’s hard to see beauty as a particularly desirable trait by the movie’s standards.

B: Ooof, yeah, so brutal. I had to avert my eyes. Beauty and feminism shouldn’t be mutually exclusive, like you said, E. I appreciated that the women do not subscribe to more traditionally masculine forms of strength and power; they instead maintain their femininity. Furiosa kind of reminded me of a grittier Khaleesi from Game of Thrones. She’s just and a liberator, and isn’t afraid to show emotion, but ruthless to those who threaten the safety of the women she is trying to protect.

E: In any case, I feel like there are holes in the logic that argues that beautiful models preclude this film from being “truly feminist,” especially because the movie is pretty brutal and un-naive about the endings available to women so prized for their beauty in the movie’s world. We, as audience members, can appreciate their beauty extra-diegetically, but I think in the world of the film I’d rather not look like RWH…

I’m thinking too about the scene in which RWH puts her beautiful pregnant body as a shield between Joe’s gun and Furiosa driving the truck…

That scene points to some kind of understanding of beauty as not merely ornamental but like… a bargaining chip? Something of value in the economy of the movie? It’s a scene where a woman uses her beauty not in the “traditional” way of attracting, but as a way of strengthening and protecting another woman.

A: Yeah, that’s almost a weaponized beautiful body. A literal shield.

B: It’s a weaponized female body at its most explicitly female, with the pregnancy.

E: The female body reduced to its most biologically “female” moments? Like breastfeeding and giving birth.

A: But these are the places the world building breaks for me. The bodily functions almost have to become allegorical because, while the moments like the milking build atmosphere, I kept wondering how much milk they were producing and why?

B: I think for food, perhaps? Because there wasn’t enough water? For crops or anything else. Could be why they ate bugs and lizards.

A: I guess. It just seems that these are points where bodies as they operate now (where mothers have healthy babies, create milk for those babies milk, or we have voluntary blood donors), and as they are being exploited to operate in the movie (Joe’s inability to produce healthy heirs, breastfeeding for who knows what reason, and a collection of captive blood-bags), actually can’t work well after the apocalypse?

E: Yeah, I’m not sure why the milk. But in any case, those are images that will stick with me for a long time, regardless of how well they mesh with the logic of the world.

B: Yeah, I can see it being allegorical. Because Joe is hoarding the water, so the resources technically exist somewhat (unbeknownst to everyone else), but most others in the society are nonetheless exploited and have no access to the water (aka wealth, maybe?).

Immortan Joe and his “family” | Photo @MadMaxMovieUK/Twitter

A: I really think that the film could be in quiet moments asking us to consider the way bodies operate or will be able to operate once the world effectively ends. It seems like certain types of production that seem valuable (breast milk) might not be anymore. Just like the way Joe wants to build his empire through traditional childbirth but can’t.

B: What do you mean by the way bodies operate?

A: For me I wonder why the numerous War Boys,who are functional despite their half-life status, as considered less desirable human “products” in this fairly established post-apocalyptic world that renders what viewers might consider “able” bodies “dis-abled”. I guess I just wonder how much the film wants to question this paradigm of ability. It seems especially interesting to think about, when we consider the way that Furioso can kick ass with or without her prosthetic.

B: Ohhhh, that’s a good point about her prosthetic. Really fast diversion: there’s a theory that Furiosa was taken to be a breeder but her mother protected her by severing her arm so she wouldn’t be *perfect* and wouldn’t be a good fit in that role; that is why she has the prosthetic arm. But Joe still cared for her and took her in and she is treated better than the other workers, i.e. she looks cleaner and healthier than the others.

A: That’s really interesting to think about Belinda, especially when we think about the interchange with Furiosa and Splendid (RWH) after she get’s shot or “damaged.” Also, we might think about how bodies operate in a post anthropocentric space? I think that those questions are definitely lingering in the background.

E: I think that’s definitely something the film is asking us to think about — especially because Joe’s War Boys are being born with only a half-life. Everything in Joe’s empire is designed to be in short supply, and therefore more controllable… he and his fellow exploiters use fairly short-sighted modes of production that spoil things long-term, like the Green Place (hence the line “Who killed the world?”) while unnaturally extending bodily production that is meant to be more short-term, like the breast milk.

Production is also a question because it simultaneously moves the movie forward (need for gasoline), yet it’s not really clear how the economy of the world really works — like what do the poor people at the base of the cliff do for a living? Who produces anything — even the vehicles that drive the plot?

Most of the humans in this movie are dependent (or forced to be dependent) on machinery in a very visual, literal way… or treated as machinery themselves… it’s definitely bringing up questions of the posthuman but not in a sexy, sleek cyborg fashion.

B: Yes, treated as machines. That’s a great point, and ties in with Furiosa’s prosthetic arm. But it’s a juxtaposition because she becomes more empowered in being able to drive the rigs and do work that the men in that society would do with her physical beauty being “endangered” (and her thus not being a breeder). The pregnant woman becomes a literal piece of meat that is butchered and portrayed as commodity.

E: I guess that’s where it meshes with ecocriticism, because these dependent humans are grotesque — like the People Eater, or Joe.

A:  And I think that question of production cycles back to the Vuvalini. They are farmers or producers with seeds, but they must sharpshoot because their environment is destroyed.

B: Yeah they are forced to integrate machinery into what is inherently natural and earthly in order to survive.

E: In a way I’m glad that Furiosa’s mission didn’t succeed. I feel like if she were to actually return to the Green Place, some feminist utopia, it would feel very… escapist.

A: You mean you didn’t want them to live with the crow people?

E: …

B: LOL. Yeah, the idea of a feminist utopia would undermine the eventual integration of these women back into society. There is no real utopia. There should just be something close to egalitarianism.

E: But really, it’s interesting to me that this “feminist” movie (or… no scare quotes, lol) doesn’t say the answer is to escape somewhere, even in fantasy, or to totally smash everything and rebuild from scratch.

E: The movie further undercuts the idea of escapist utopia with the failure of Nux’s “Valhalla” dreams, right?

A: Which is why Max’s lines about about “hope” and trying to scrape together some “redemption” (a regurgitation of Furiosa’s earlier comments) seems like such a perfect answer.

B: Like, women’s crisis centers and refuges are important (in our real-life societies), but the key is to always reintegrate them back into society so they can thrive… in reality. And not in some falsely secure, sequestered environment.

E: I think this movie would have been much easier to dismiss if it had gone the escapist route, too. Because where do you go from there, having watched them go to the Green Place? You come back to our world and that line of logic just closes itself off from real life.

B: There’s a need to work toward redemption for everyone and not just the women.

E: Yes.

B: With Furiosa at the helm, she can perhaps fix both the men and women who suffer under the oppressive regime, not just the few women she had with her.

A: Definitely.

B: Hence redemption?

E: Yeah, maybe. Or at least a chance. I guess we won’t ever know.

A: We won’t know, but she seems to have a good shot. Those War Boys were certainly willing.

B: SEQUEL.

Fresh Off the Boat: Roundtable Ep. 9/10

E: So before we start, B, I want to ask you about meeting the show’s creators!

B: I got to briefly introduce myself to [FotB writer/executive producer] Nahnatchka and tell her about my capstone project [for my journalism degree]. I asked if I could interview her about FOB and she directed me to her assistant! I’ve contacted him and am waiting to hear back. Unfortunately, I didn’t get to discuss anything at length with her.

But it was a great forum because it featured her and several LGBT activists and performers, including Rex Lee, who plays Oscar!

K: Aahhh that’s so cool!

E: Ooh cool! Let us know how the interview goes if you get to do it!

Ok, let’s get started?

Fresh Off the Boat: 7 and 8!

This week we’re looking at Fresh Off the Boat episodes 7 and 8. A quick recap: In episode 7, Louis proudly shows off his new Cattleman’s Ranch billboard, only to get involved in a vandalism showdown with the owner of the huge franchise chain Golden Saddle. We later learn that Louis stole the manual from Golden Saddle to start Cattleman’s. Meanwhile, Eddie struggles to get Nicole to notice him. In episode 8, the show introduces us to Phillip, another Asian-American boy at Eddie’s school. The episode explores the school’s attempts to force them together as ‘best friends,’ competition between the two boys, and the idea of being a “good Chinese boy.”

Esther: Episodes 7 and 8 had pretty different focuses and covered a lot of ground in terms of topics. Shall we start with episode 7 (“Showdown at the Golden Saddle”)? What did you guys think of the way this episode wove in two different pop-culture genres: the western and the gangster film? Was the episode satisfying in addressing the hypermasculinity of these two genres, translated into the sitcom lives of our characters?

Belinda: While those two genres are certainly hypermasculine, I didn’t quite see that aspect playing out in episode 7. Louis’ takeaway from his love of gangster films is that one needs to provide for his family at any cost, something in line with Asian-American (and other) immigrant values to a certain extent. What he ends up doing with the copyright infringement isn’t necessarily conventionally “masculine” (running away and essentially “stealing” an idea), but also isn’t illegal—it is actually not a bad entrepreneurial decision in the end, as Jessica points out. Jessica has such a strong voice and is so supportive of Louis that she softens his role as the patriarchal head. His need to provide for his family is undoubtedly masculine, but it’s not hypermasculine, akin to what we see in gangster movies.

Karen: First of all, full disclosure: I didn’t like episode 7 very much. I understand what they were trying to do, and it was interesting that they incorporated these classic film genres, but the episode as a whole wasn’t very funny (and that doesn’t even get into the weirdness of the b-plot, which we can talk about later). Anyway, I think Louis’ “competition” with the Golden Saddle can certainly be seen as a competition in hypermasculinity—especially because so far in the show, Louis has been all about what’s good for the business and by extension for his family financially (since he’s the de facto patriarchal head of the Huangs). I’m not so sure about the gangster film genre, but I agree with you, B, that it was nicely translated into an analogue for the (Asian-American) immigrant experience. Also a random, superficial aside: Jessica looks great with her curly hair and yellow dress!

E: Money and business have always been the ways in which Louis’ masculinity have been expressed, to me—especially since the whole show started with Louis moving the family away to avoid being under his brother-in-law’s thumb. I like that the show has attempted to subvert the narrative of the masculine patriarch with Jessica’s strong voice and character. Though I agree, K, this episode came across as pretty muddled and ultimately not that interesting to me. I did relate to Eddie’s bus struggle though, haha.

B: He wasn’t actively trying to compete with Golden Saddle, though. He ripped off of their idea and just hoped to succeed, and ended up almost surpassing them. I guess that competition comes into play with the whole billboard fiasco. The image of Louis getting squirted with the udders was pretty emasculating and disturbing, now that I think about it. Jessica’s right there with him, always on par and as a support system, so yeah that does subvert that patriarchal narrative.

E: Even though he wasn’t trying to compete directly, I think the show paints Louis as invested in a kind of traditional ‘American’ masculinity. Thus he opens the quintessential American ‘manly’ enterprise—a steakhouse. But I wonder if the show has been trying to break down this investment—like with the Wyatt storyline? Where the perfect masculine figure, who is also great at business, somehow disturbs and dissatisfies Louis.

K: Right. But then again, the Wyatt thing can also be seen as a kind of competition for hyper-masculinity. Louis can be seen as dissatisfied because he isn’t as perfectly macho as Wyatt. Speaking of masculinity…Eddie’s whole courting of Nicole in episode 7, if we can call it that, made me really uncomfortable. The show has already established Eddie’s interest in her, but in previous episodes she’d flippantly ignored or rejected him, which undercuts his weird/uncomfortable advances. But in this episode Nicole is starting to be nicer to him, which makes it seem like the way Eddie has been trying to woo somehow okay? I don’t know, it was a forgettable b-plot altogether, but it just felt odd to me because Eddie never gets called out for his casually sexist behavior (even in the context of him being a kid and not knowing better).

B: I hope the show doesn’t take it in that direction; the idea of Eddie and Nicole dating is extremely uncomfortable for me. The age gap, in itself, seems inappropriate, in addition to Eddie’s misogynistic advances and behavior. I think they’ve just reached this point of understanding… Nicole is friendlier with Eddie on the bus, but I don’t know, and hope it’s not indicative of a budding relationship.

Jessica, Eddie, and Nicole | Photo @FreshOffABC/Twitter

K: Yeah, that’s true, they can just leave it like that and not develop it, which is what I hope the show will do.

E: I’m hoping she develops into that ‘90s trope of the cool older sister/friend who acts as a guide to life rather than a straightforward romantic interest.

K: That would be cool too!

B: Agreed…and she’d be a female character Eddie’s age. There really aren’t any of them in this show. It would do the show a favor to have her as his friend rather than love interest.

K: Also true.

E: Shall we move on to discussing episode 8? I thought this episode was much more productive and interesting than “Showdown at the Golden Saddle.”

K: YES!! I think the whole dynamic between Eddie and Phillip, and how Phillip acts as a foil to him in almost every way, was very well done without feeling too heavy-handed. The show really nicely avoided having the two Asian-American boys stick together just by virtue of their ethnicity, when it was clear they had nothing else in common. I love that despite all their teachers’ intentions of having the two of them pair up and be buddies at every turn, Eddie and Phillip were not here for that.

E: Lol the principal’s discomfort at calling Phillip in to meet Eddie was hilarious.

B: That also showed how teachers and principal were inadvertently racist, in a sense, to naturally assume that the two would get along because of their shared ethnicity.

E: Yeah, that discomfort (so ‘politically correct’) seemed to acknowledge on the administrator’s part his own awareness of how racist it was to assume that.

B: And the principal’s strange photo for his ex-wife showing “open-mindedness”… it was actually kind of the opposite of that, haha.

K: Yes, the principal character is a really great parody of PC white people in general.

E: Yeah I really liked that because it made this practice of shoving like-raced students together the butt of the joke. And I don’t know about you guys but that was an experience I personally went through at my school.

K: I didn’t have that experience because I went to a predominantly Asian-Canadian high school. And middle school. And elementary school…

E: I thought the episode did a really great job showcasing a common theme of Asian-American writing and experience—competition for achievements and managing the crushing pressure of expectations.

 

B: But Eddie doesn’t feel the need to compete. He’s really secure in who he is, which I like. He just doesn’t give a fuck, haha. But he does get annoyed with his mother for swooning over Phillip.

K: Yeah, I think that is a common experience, though—to have the expectations of your parents thrust upon you when you don’t want to engage in that with your peers. I’ve certainly had my mom told me multiple times, “why can’t you be more like [Asian-Canadian friend]?”

Photo @FreshOffABC/Twitter

B: Esther, that person was always you for me. Hahahaha.

E: Yeah the show ultimately rejects the narrative of intense competition, making Jessica less of a Tiger Mom figure. I thought the Jewishness of Phillip’s parents might be a clear nod to the controversy surrounding Amy Chua’s book, where she brags about the combined might of her Asian parenting skills and her husband’s Jewish background.

K: Ohh, I haven’t read Amy Chua but that’s a really interesting connection.

 

B: Yeah it is. But what’s interesting is that Phillip is, in fact, brought up solely by Jewish parents, but is the more competitive and “model minority” one. His parents were saying that HE’s strict with THEM… like with the Shabbat practices. So it seems like Phillip was less driven by his parents to be that way, and just more inherently “perfect” by Jessica’s standards.

E: Well Jewish people were the original “model minority,” lol.

 

K: Ultimately, though, I love that Jessica stuck up for Eddie when Phillip ditched him at Les Mis. That was such a Crowning Moment of Heartwarming.

 

B: Yeah, that was definitely a d’aww moment! My favorite moment between the two of them. So in the end, Jessica valued Eddie’s selflessness and was put off by Phillip’s selfishness/dishonesty. Without that crucial flaw, though, Jessica wouldn’t have aligned with Eddie. So I think that was a bit heavy-handed, that Phillip had to have a major flaw. But ultimately, it still works and is a powerful moment.

E: What I really loved about this episode’s focus was the way it deconstructed these themes of hyper-competition and achievement among Asian American kids that get thrown around mainstream media all the time.

K: Yes, exactly!

E: It was so nice to see those moments of competition dealt with “from the inside,” so to speak, on major network TV, because so often I see these tropes discussed in really casual, uninformed ways. Like, “all Asian people stick together” or “all Asian American kids are such high achievers” without anything to back that up, or any experience to discuss it in depth. And this offered some pushback against the prevalence of those surface ideas about competition in the Asian American community, without feeling totally contrived.

K: My favorite moment in this episode, though, was when Eddie and Walter FINALLY became friends. I yelped at the TV screen when that happened!

E: Yeah, that was so great. It also felt so real to me, like—that instantaneous bond that kids can feel over a shared love of something despite all of their earlier prickly interactions.

B: But it happened to be over WHITE rappers. I was stoked to see them finally bond, but thought it was a tiny bit cursory just because of their former rivalry.

E: That was an instance when Eddie’s age worked really effectively though. I think that was something that could only really happen to a child – that instantaneous effect. Can’t wait to see if and how their friendship will develop!

B: While that was a really satisfying ending, I still wish Walter could’ve gotten more screentime in this episode.

K: Yeah, B, but maybe he will have more screentime from now on?

B: Right. I hope it continues to build into a substantial friendship, and doesn’t standalone as a single shared moment. Sure, they’re kids, but some serious shit has gone down between them, like the chink comment. I mean that was misguided and probably something they picked up from adults, but still…but yeah, in the end, I can still see that bond happening over a shared interest.

E: Yeah, we’ll see where the show takes it!

Stay tuned as we follow Fresh Off the Boat’s unfolding! Have thoughts about these episodes or the show in general? Leave us a comment!

Fresh Off the Boat: Week One

Welcome to the first of our weekly roundtables on the ABC sitcom Fresh Off the Boat, starring Randall Park, Constance Wu, and Hudson Yang. We are really excited to be discussing this show, which—for better or worse—is significant in being the first major network sitcom about an Asian American family in about twenty years.

Esther: Initial impressions?

Belinda: I want to start by saying that Constance Wu is a goddess!

E: Haha yes! When she showed those boys what’s what with her minivan? Goals.

B: She is definitely my favorite character so far. I was going through and jotting down funny quotes… and they were like 90 percent hers.

Karen: I think she also has terrific comedic timing.

E: “What….is this store so excited about?”

B: And her facial expressions.

K: Like, the mannerisms are so mom-ish that I forget she’s only in her 20s.

E: True, that is a weird thing though…how they cast such a young actress. I guess that’s what Eddie Huang meant when he wrote that the mom was “exoticized?” Like they had to make her sexy somehow because a scary Asian woman who’s also not sexually appealing is just a no go?

B: She seems young, for sure. Too young to be their mom. The accent seems a little contrived too.

K: I thought Eddie Huang was talking about her accent [when he said she was exoticized].

E: Oh I see. Yeah the accents seemed pretty put-on….especially because Randall Park is Korean….

K: He dropped the accent in episode 2 though, I noticed upon rewatch.

B: I think so. They could’ve still chosen someone who looked older but is attractive. But I don’t think that’s an issue of exoticizing her. That’s something Hollywood does to all women; it’s just ageism.

E: True. Do we want to talk about what our hopes/anxieties were for the show going in? There’s been so much buzz about it in the interwebz…so much pressure.

B: I need to read Eddie Huang’s memoir.  I haven’t yet, so I wasn’t exactly sure what I *should* want to expect, you know?

K: Honestly, I feel like the show was gonna get picked apart as soon as I saw the trailer, because it’s the only Asian American show on TV in such a long time. And because of that I felt more compelled to go into it optimistically.

E: It’s the first in twenty years! That’s crazy.

B: It seemed to be getting a lot of support from Asians, though. Especially among the ones I had talked to and knew. A lot of Asian Americans feel that representation — good or bad — is a step forward and is important.

E: Definitely. I’m more inclined to be generous toward the show…because I feel like if we, as a community, are so vocal in our dislike of every major opportunity for “mainstream” representation we get, the opportunities might dwindle, you know?

B: Any experience is going to be cornstarch-y. Even that of a white family, you know? It won’t be dead on to his memoir because of the nature of the show.

E: Yeah true it always has to be more vanilla. Haha “cornstarchy” I love that.

K: I agree. I think Mindy Kaling faced a lot of similar criticisms when her show first started. Not to say all of the criticism is invalid, but it’s unfair because you don’t see white-centric shows getting the same kind of scrutiny for racial dynamics and representation.

E: And she still gets heat for not making her show more about race.

K: Exactly.

E: I think people are just anxious and afraid to get too hopeful, especially because it IS a network show so there are all of these constraints on the subject matter and tone. Anyway, after reading Eddie Huang’s article about how much the show had been neutered, I was actually pleasantly surprised by the sharp tone the show sometimes takes.

B: I think the show did a brilliant job with it — as far as the racial dynamics. It was clever about it and never distasteful. Like that lunch scene with Eddie and the black kid. It was nuanced with showing how both he and the black kid were picked on, but in different ways, and were fighting to not be on the bottom.

E: I felt like white constructs of exotic Asianness were mostly the butt of the jokes, rather than presenting Asianness as inherently exotic.

K:Well that’s one good example of what I was saying re:POC-centered shows getting scrutinized. I’ve already seen a bunch of criticism about how the portrayal of Eddie’s interactions with the black kid are anti-black

E: Hm I could see how people would take it as anti-blackness, but I think it’s actually a really nuanced portrayal of how even kids can be aware of really complicated racial power dynamics. Like you see Eddie making an overture toward connection, but both he and the black kid know that the lunchroom (and in broader white society), whiteness rules the roost.

B: Yeah, like he doesn’t fit in with the black kid just because he likes hip-hop, like he initially assumed.

K: I agree with you. And I want to see what they do with that from here on out, if the black kid is a recurring character (which I really hope he will be!)

B: I hope they *do* become friends. That “chink” comment, though…[the real] Eddie was called a chink by a black kid as a kid… and felt it was important to keep that bit in, despite the network being like… Awk.

E: But you know, that really felt like the kids repeating what they hear the adults around them saying.And that m oment contained a tiny detail that was really touching to me…because when the black kid shoved Eddie he also prevented him from MICROWAVING his pizza lunchable! And you know the white kids would have made fun of Eddie for that.

K: Oh my gosh, yes.

B:So that was intentional?

E: That detail felt intentional to me, for sure. Not necessarily in an overt, attention-grabbing way but I feel like it’s adding nuance to the staging of these racial confrontations, like these kids are acting out racial dynamics that become more and more pronounced as they get older. And yet there’s a kind of understanding between them underneath that. Like the black kid saying, “oh, the white people didn’t welcome you with open arms?” That’s both an insult and a kind of warning.

B: Oh man, that’s deep! I hope that was intentional. I did kind of pick up on that, but didn’t think much of it.

K: I like that interpretation, E. I really do hope they explore that more in upcoming episodes

B: Agreed. I hope he is a recurring character.

K: Also because the actor who plays the black kid also has great comedic timing and some good zingers.

E: The “you’re at the bottom thing” seems so relevant to me re: the complicated history of black and asian political alliances. I mean the lunchroom is really political,

K: Yes! Can we talk about the lunch thing?

B: The lunchroom is always a symbol of social dynamics.

K: Because that — i.e. white people being repulsed by an “exotic” lunch — totally happened to me too.

E: It’s kind of a primal scene. It’s both racial and also just the complicated anxiety/dynamics of being a kid.

K: Yes, especially when the black kid says his best friend is a 40 year old man. On the one hand that’s played for laughs, but on the other hand it’s kind of also indicating how disconnected he is from his white peers.

E:  I hope the old man friend gets shown later.

K: Me too!

E: Maybe it’s his dad or something!!

B: Hahaha.

K: Speaking of which…I want to talk about Eddie’s brothers too. Because they are adorable but also great foils to Eddie. The running gag of how Emery immediately integrated into his surroundings was hilarious to me.

E: I think they did a really good job writing the dynamics between the mother and children too. Like I was so touched when Eddie and the mom went to buy the white people food for lunch, haha.

K: I totally agree — each of the brothers represents a specific attitude towards their parents.

E: Eddie’s “seat at the table” speech killed me, so proto-political.

K: Even the little things like Jessica asking Evan to “help mommy” when she’s getting into the house on her rollerblades.

E: It’s a real act of love to spend good $$ on a lunchable when the mom was calculating the cost of napkins.

K: It’s nuanced but so well-constructed.

B: Ah, so true! With the Lunchable. Those things are not cheap haha. And the pepper… oh man.

E: I hope they explore the parents’ dynamic more. That whole “I love you” thing was played for laughs but not really explored.

K: Yes, but to be fair to them, it worked well and was totally relatable.

E: Yeah for sure, I just want to hear more about it. Like I got the sense that the different attitudes on running the restaurant can also be read as different attitudes toward ‘integrating’ into white society.

B: Ahh, totally agree about their methodology with running the restaurant.

K: Yes. I don’t think one parent is necessarily more right than the other but it’s really touching at the end of the second episode when they try to compromise with each other. It folds family dynamics into racial dynamics.

B: Louis just seems much more assimilated than Jessica overall.

E: Or more eager to be.  It’s so funny that the restaurant is in Orlando though, rather than Texas, because then it’s less about being “authentic” American and more about performing Americanness. Orlando just strikes me as a really artificial place, like overdetermined by all the theme parks and entertainment industry.

B: Yeah, that’s a good point. Their comments about this being the “west” (like the theme of the restaurant) but how it’s really the “south” and they can’t afford California.

E: True, because the West…California…that would be more Asian,

B: The whole restaurant is a metaphor potentially… it’s like this contrived Western feel. Nothing authentic about it.

K: The restaurant commercial at the end of episode one…

B: OMG

K: …was probably my favorite moment from both episodes. I really appreciate how unafraid this show is of parodying white culture

E: My favorite moment was…”enjoy your stick, white friends.” I mean I think they handled that pretty well because it didn’t come across as like, “look at the Asian way of doing things, it’s so much better and will lead to more success.” It’s totally not a Tiger Mom mentality.

B: Yes, truly! That’s bold. And like Esther said, it’s playing off of the fact that white people see Asians a certain way and that they’re misguided in their views and THAT being the humor.

K: Yes, exactly, Belinda.

E: Misguided perceptions of all kinds are the joke. Like when Eddie was so surprised that the white kid knew who Biggie was…Although I hope that will come back later in a satirical/unsympathetic way.

K: I agree. I do want the show to examine more closely the potential white appropriations of black culture, and perhaps Asian culture as well, although that may be too heavy for a sitcom.

E: Yeah. Well they’re kind of getting into that already, in very subtle ways. The whole lunchroom dynamic was a total “we are all oppressors” moment.

B: “A white dude and an Asian dude bonding over a black dude. This cafeteria’s ridiculous.”
E: Like, we are all complicit in white norms at times no matter how much we strive not to be.

K: Very true.

E: Hopefully we’ll meet his family or something? Though I do think the Orlando setting kind of precludes any comprehensive representation.

B: True… that’s probably the point. So you think Eddie and the white kids liking Biggie is appropriation of black culture in a sense? Did the black kid not even like hip-hop or identify with it?

E: Idk, we didn’t see enough of him to say, but yeah I think it’s definitely pointing us toward the idea of appropriation. Like, Eddie doesn’t just espouse the ideas/philosophy of a certain kind of black masculinity–he literally wears it over his body.

B: Eddie made a comment about how if you’re an outsider, hip hop is the way to fit in.

K: Yes, and I loved the boombox scenes with the grandma!

B: Those were so funny. I like that she only speaks Chinese.

E: I hope they will do more with her character.

B: Maybe at this point it shows the generation gap there…like look how far removed Eddie is from her. He basically uses her as a prop and there is no relationship dynamic between them thus far.

E: Yeah, although the mention of their practicing together for Eddie’s entrances was really sweet.

K: I loved when she said to the taxidermied rabbit, “You were too slow.”

B: YES! The you were too slow comment had me in tears.

K: Yeah, Belinda, I agree about the generation gap thing. Right now the grandma is kind of a bit part. We don’t even know whose mother she is. But other than that aspect, I think that so far, the family dynamics between the Huangs are playing out nicely.

E: Yeah, I’m excited to see the rest of it. I was almost giddy with relief that I don’t have to schill this show JUST because it’s about Asian Americans, haha. Like, it’s actually funny enough that I would watch it even if I didn’t care about APIA [Asian/Pacific Islander American] representation.

K: Right. I hope it does get more attention beyond the APIA community, because it’s a genuinely funny show.

B: I completely agree! I would watch this regardless, but it’s nice to be like, “Oh, that reminds me of my own experiences.”

E: The fact that it’s a 90s nostalgia show might also help it along. Like, even if you don’t necessarily identify with the particular Asian American aspects of the experience, I think it’s effective as nostalgia

K: Yeah. Also, these two episodes made me belly laugh more than any recent sitcom.

B: Agreed! The ending of the second episode with the sticker system…

How did you guys feel about this quote: “We showed our love through criticism and micromanagement.” –Eddie

K: Again, not to whittle it down to personal experience, but that expression of “love” almost exactly echoes something my mom said to me once. So in that respect, I appreciated that quote.

E: Haha I mean I think it highlights an important element to keep in mind with this show: it’s easy to forget that this is still a particular story about a single family, and despite all our identifications with the show, it’s not claiming to represent all of Asian America. I know some people are mad because they think it’s very narrow in its representations, but to ask one show to represent all of Asian America would be impossible. So like, I identify with that quote in some ways but if other viewers don’t…that should be totally fine.

K: Yeah. I think back to Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s TED talk about the danger of a single story…Since this is the only representation of an Asian American family on network TV, people might take it to be THE representation.

B: Yeah, so that pertains to the Huang’s family dynamic — which is evident — but not necessarily all Asian Americans. And I think viewers do know that… if they know it’s based off of an actual memoir and real family.

E: I mean, you don’t see white audiences picking apart every episode of Friends being like, “it didn’t happen for me EXACTLY like that.” Yeah, most viewers know it’s based on an individual memoir but I think there’s still this impulse to put so much crushing weight of representation on it. Just reading the twitter feed about it, some viewers were like, “this show is racist, my family didn’t make us go to CLC and not all Asians do that”…which is besides the point, I think.

---

As a whole, we’re excited to see where this show goes and what’s in store for the Huang family as they navigate the humidity and microagressions of lily-white Orlando.

Authors: BC | KH | EY

Photos property of ABC