Film Review: Man of Steel

Role of Women: To be honest, it's hard to tell where the portrayals of women in Man of Steel were flat or stereotypical because they were women, and when they were just flat and stereotypical because they were characters in Man of Steel, since one of the main criticisms I have of the film as a whole is the one-dimensional, underdeveloped characters. They had the usual suspects of hardboiled/tough girls-- Captain Farris, Faora, Lois Lane (who claims she gets writer's block if she's not wearing a flak jacket)-- and tender, motherly types-- Martha Kent, Lara-- none of whom ever really did anything to catch you off guard. The angst, suspense, and tension mostly lay between male characters. Clark's human father teaches him to believe in but also hide himself, leading to a relationship with currents of respect and resentment mingled; Clark's human mother gardens and has dogs and believes the best of Clark no matter what. Jor-El gets all the action in challenging the Kryptonians' self-destructive genetic selection and pointing out the end of the world, while Lara gets to be indecisive and mostly passive/background; do you really think she went through a natural pregnancy and childbirth because she was sort of thinking maybe Jor-El had a point about the end of Krypton? I have a feeling she would've needed a lot more courage and conviction than portrayed. It would've been pretty awesome if Lara had've been uploaded onto the ship as well as/instead of Jor-El, and really there's no reason why she needn't have been. Just Hollywood defaults.

Sexualization of Women: Why do filmmakers insist on putting women who need to run in ridiculous platform heels? Don't they realise that in real life either the heel would break, or the character's ankle? Other than that, though, they did fine on this front, with one exception-- when they had Captain Farris remark with a girlish smirk to her commanding officer that she thought Superman was "kinda hot". Considering the grit and dedication she would've had to display to get to her current position, is that really the sort of thing she would be likely to say to an authority figure in her job? Even if she did think that, I humbly suggest she would've had the self-control to keep it to herself. It just made her seem like a silly schoolgirl instead of a hardworking woman. 

Bechdel Test Pass/Fail: Iffy. Lois and Jenny have an exchange ("Why is the printer out of toner?" "You have got to come see this...") which is not in the strictest terms a conversation; more just two unrelated sentences tossed at each other. Given the relatively higher number of female characters in this film, you'd think they could've managed to give at least two of them meaningful dialogue that didn't directly involve a male. 

Male:Female Ratio: In terms of presence of women, this film did pretty well (especially compared with its counterparts in the same genre which often feature only one or two token females). Pretty well all the male main characters had a female counterpart-- Zod and his second-in-command Faora, Clark and Lois, Jor-El and Lara, Clark's parents,  Perry and Jenny, General Swanwick and Captain Farris. It is telling, however, that every single male main character holds the role of authority or action, while the females really are 'counterparts': second-in-commands, supporters, love interests, and underlings.

So, overall, not awful like some superhero movies can be (don't get me started on Iron Man 3...) but by now means a shining star either.

Elementary-School Girls and Math Anxiety

Just read a really interesting article in the Smithsonian on how math-anxious, female, early elementary school teachers pass on their math-anxiety to their female students. It's a really short article, so why don't you click through and read it?

I'm particularly interested in this as I begin researching how to homeschool my children. Up until about a year ago, I would've fit the definition of math anxiety given in the article: "When someone has math anxiety, they can master mathematical concepts but tend to avoid the subject and perform more poorly than their abilities allow." I'm a fairly intelligent human being, passed my SATs no problem, and generally was able to find most subjects interesting and engaging, from different types of genetic mutations to how to write a sestina to basic CSS, and everything in between. Why did math feel like such a brick wall to me?

There were probably a lot of things at play, but two points stand out to me as notable:
1) My own math teacher (my mother) was and is pretty math-anxious, while my dad is pretty good at math. Of my siblings and I, only my brother came out of secondary school feeling mathematically adept. I'm not trying to blame my parents at all, but I do think it likely that some of the subconscious stereotyping as described in the Smithsonian article was playing out in our family. Obviously, as with the teachers in the article, there is no intention of raising girls who performed worse in math than the boys, but I think it's reasonable to suppose some of those preconceptions about girls being worse at math than boys were communicated through my own parents' educations (after all, when they were being educated in the seventies and eighties, it was by teachers who would've been educated even earlier-- at a time when girls and STEM studies were pretty well considered totally incompatible.)
2) The other skill-area in my life where I felt that notion of a brick wall and not being able to improve myself was sports. I always thought I was just bad at sports, but that it didn't matter because I was a girl and didn't need to play sports-- that was for boys. As an adult, I am much more able to see the joy and use of using your body well, and once I'm not pregnant/recovering from a pregnancy anymore, I do hope to engage in sports much more. So I definitely think I was self-stereotyping, discouraged in what could've been of great interest and benefit to me by pre-conceived notions of what I could and should be good at.

So coming back to the research I'm doing for homeschooling my own children: even before reading the Smithsonian article, I had come to the conclusion that believing your brain isn't capable of doing a certain skill is a fabulous way to cripple your brain in doing it, so I knew I wanted to pass on to my children the joy of math, logic, and analytical thinking as surely as my own mother did such a wonderful job passing on the love of reading, poetry, and music. I am more sure than ever now that I want to be careful not to let my (potential future) daughters think that math is for boys, and that one way I need to do that is by entering joyfully into math myself.

What about you? How do you think your math teachers affected your ability to learn math? Have you thought about how you will teach math to your kids (real or potential future)?

"Ladies' Man..."

This is another exhortation to think about how the language we use reinforces worldly views of gender versus Scriptural views; a bit of a companion post to my earlier post, "Ladies..."

Ok, well, let's start with some frank, if perhaps somewhat biased, opinions: I think my son is an absolute looker. I mean, he looks like his Daddy, and his Daddy is a babe, so how could he not be, but something about his fluffy blonde hair, bright blue eyes, and miles-long dark eyelashes seem to move other people to agree with me. People are always stopping us in the grocery store and such to tell him what lovely eyes he has. And hey, my mama-heart likes seeing my son praised, although I know his outward appearance is superficial and will in no way determine whether he is a man after God's heart-- which is what really matters. But it's nice to see my son making a favourable impression.

However.

There's something a lot of people (unfortunately, some of them believers) tend to say to him that really troubles me; something along the lines of, "You're going to be quite the ladies' man, aren't you?" or "The girls will just love you." Lest you think I've just misplaced my sense of humour over what people obviously intend as a lighthearted remark, let me unpack why this troubles me.

If this was an isolated cultural incident, maybe it could be shrugged off as 'no big deal' or 'just a joke'. But it's not; far from it. One of the most common ways our culture warps God's ideal of masculinity is by promoting the ladies' man as a paragon of manliness. If you need convincing that this is a culturally-prevalent attitude, check out two places where cultural norms are not usually challenged: superhero movies and TV commercials. Watch an Axe commercial*. Or a beer commercial, or a shaving commercial, or pretty well any commercial that airs during a sporting event. Picture Bruce Wayne or Tony Stark's glamorous millionaire lifestyle, traveling everywhere with a girl on either arm. Alternately, think of Steve Rogers (Captain America) prior to his enhancement: as a runty, unhealthy (i.e. not very masculine) guy, he can't get one girl interested in him, while his handsome, broad-shouldered friend can easily pick up two. The message is clear, and it is everywhere: if you're really manly, you can get lots of girls to sleep with you-- and you'll want to.

Is this what people are thinking when they compliment my son by predicting he'll be sexually appealing lots of women? I hope not-- I hope they're just not thinking at all, not realising that they're predicting my one-year-old will be sexually appealing to lots of women (because if they are thinking in that language, that's thoroughly creepy). But the fact that it's unthinking doesn't change the fact that they're planting those seeds in his mind, adding their weight to a cultural barrage that would push my son into thinking uncommitted, unchecked sleeping around is glamourous and desirable.

Now think of Christ. Think of his singleminded, self-sacrificing pursuit of his one Bride. Think of the sober, committed man of God called to lead the churches and how his faithfulness to his wife is among the first qualifications given in 1 Timothy 3. Think of Proverbs 5, pleadingly praising the blessedness of enjoying one committed relationship and using words like "scattered" "folly" and "led astray" in relation to this "ladies' man" ideal our culture promotes. Do we really believe that following God's statutes is a delight and "riches", as Psalm 119 puts it? Then let us not use the language of rebellious ignorance to God's way in our praise of little children!

What I would love is if people instead said, "You're going to make one woman very happy."** That's a goal I would like him to have. Here's the thing: there is absolutely nothing wrong-- indeed, there's plenty right-- with a godly man who chooses not to pursue any romantic relationship at all until he finds a woman who not only attracts him with her beauty, but also impresses him with her character, nothing wrong with waiting for God's timing, and most of all, nothing wrong with being a guy who just never really interests most girls he meets, until he meets the one woman whom God intended for him, who can see parts of him that others couldn't, and who will appreciate him as a whole man, body, mind, and spirit-- not just a hottie good for a one-night stand.***

I would like to talk at a later point about another harmful cultural warping of masculinity/femininity, in which purity is seen as a more feminine virtue, but for now I think I'll leave you with this plea: next time you bend down to a little boy's level and let him know you think he's great, can you take a second and check that that encouragement will help him think of Christlikeness as more desirable than being liked by lots of women?


*I was going to link an Axe commercial but they are just too offensive, especially coming from the same company who owns Dove and purports to be promoting respect for women and their natural beauty. Basically, picture dozens of stick-thin but busty girls in the tiniest bikinis possible, fighting and racing each other to get to one man. Tagline, "Spray more, get more." Phallic symbol duly included.)
** Or, even better, left his future sex appeal off the table entirely?
***This works the same way for girls, by the way. I wish there was a way to reassure all the single girls I know that it doesn't matter two straws if there's no one interested in them right now. I was never the object of much male attention before I caught Steven's eye, and darned if I can think of one way that has made our love the less sweet or our marriage the less wonderfully fulfilling.

Femininity and Artifice

Have you seen any of the coverage of the debacle surrounding comments by BBC's John Inverdale about Wimbledon champion Marion Bartoli's appearance? He basically said she was too ugly to be anything but a scrappy fighter, actually suggested that her father probably told her she was ugly. This was immediately following Bartoli's celebratory hug with her father and former coach, and was a shameful, demeaning way to approach both her victory and her relationship with her father. 

Sadly, Inverdale was not alone in thinking that Bartoli's physical appearance was somehow a relevant factor in her being an athletic champion. Public Shaming (warning: link contains plenty of strong language) condemned a whole string of tweeters who used a far more offensive tone than Inverdale to do the same thing he did: sexualise her. Remember the first condition of sexualisation from Wednesday's blog post? Sexualising is happening when "a person’s value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or behaviour, to the exclusion of other characteristics."

I read a thought-provoking quote from Rebecca Hain's blog post called "When Women Look Strong: The Sexism At Wimbledon" (emphasis mine):

"The tamest of the twitter comments said that she “didn’t deserve to win because she is ugly,” that she is a “pig,” and that she “looks like she’s a cross between a man and an ape.” Why did so many comments fixate on suggesting Bartoli was an animal and/or a man? Well, as Judith Butler argues, femininity is not naturally occurring; it is a performance. It requires artifice and careful planning: pretty makeup, coiffed hair, stylish clothing, and a body that is controlled–slim and slight but curvy. In today’s world, people expect that any self-respecting woman will make being feminine a priority at all times. (Think about how many women won’t leave the house without makeup on, lest people judge them negatively.)

Bartoli, on the tennis court without makeup, was not performing femininity. She was being athletic: running, sweating, driving her body to function at its peak. She looked strong because she is strong–and because our culture associates strength with masculinity, it’s really hard to appear strong and feminine at the same time. Hence, the ape/pig/man comments."

The part I found particularly interesting to think about is why our culture's trappings of female attractiveness (stylish haircuts, hair dye, mascara, foundation, shapewear, plastic surgery, laser hair removal) are artificial when the cultural trappings of male attractiveness are fairly natural (a man with tousled hair and 5 o'clock shadow in jeans and a tee, for example, is perfectly acceptable and attractive). It harks back, for me, to one of my first blog posts, You Don't Have To Be Pretty. In it I quoted a man (a pastor, sadly), who said parents should tell their athletic daughters, "Sometimes you are going to act like a girl and walk like a girl and talk like a girl and smell like a girl and that means you are going to be beautiful. You are going to be attractive. You are going to dress yourself up." 

So, just some food for thought here: does God intend that part of being womanly is being committed to covering up or changing our bodies and faces-- the natural beauty of a his good creation? If not, what can we in the church do to encourage women not to buy into a commercially and sexually driven stereotype of femininity? On the other hand, why do we associate a human being using their body-- their muscles, their endurance, their endless hours of training to get their body to respond intuitively-- to the fullest with maleness? Does God intend that part of being womanly is not pursuing physical excellence-- the enjoyment of the natural performance of his good creation? If not, what can we in the church do to encourage women to use and enjoy their God-given physical strength and abilities without worrying about whether it jives with society's ideas of walking and talking and smelling "like a girl"? 

(One final note-- it's interesting that "feminine beauty" as suggested above often involves putting weird chemicals onto or into your body, eating in an unsustainable way (i.e. not enough), or subjecting oneself to physical pain, whereas "masculine ability" as suggested above involves eating good fuel and exercising, things that contribute to long-term health. If that's our definition of feminine versus masculine, can I humbly suggest we're doing it wrong?)

Define: Sexualisation

In preparation for an upcoming blog post discussing issues surrounding how modesty is taught to girls, I wanted to give a quick definition for "sexualisation," so there's no confusion as to what I'm talking about. 

Sexualisation is not a synonym for sexuality. Sexuality is a good gift from God, natural and normal. Sexualisation it is an external imposition of sexual characteristics in places where they don't naturally exist. 

The American Psychological Association defines it as follows: "Here are several components to sexualization, and these set it apart from healthy sexuality. Sexualization occurs when

• -a person’s value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics;
  -a person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) with being sexy;
  -a person is sexually objectified — that is, made into a thing for others’ sexual use, rather than seen as a person with the capacity for independent action and decision making; and/or
  -sexuality is inappropriately imposed upon a person.

All four conditions need not be present; any one is an indication of sexualization."

So, for example, on the movie poster for Now You See Me that I reviewed in a previous post, Henley is sexualised by the first condition because she is not shown as a person with purpose and drive as the other characters, but simply as a sexy person. Bikinis and heels for toddlers, or baby onesies with slogans like "Hung like a 5-year-old" (They exist. Much worse slogans exist.) sexualise children by the fourth condition. A lot of advertising in fashion magazines (cologne seems to be a particularly bad offender) sexualise women according to the third condition by displaying women as sexual accessories (often in vulnerable positions). And the effects of the second condition are all around us.

These are just a few examples of a widespread problem, and I could easily give dozens more, but the definition is the important part, the part that I would like my readers to be carrying with them whenever I do get around to finishing the mega-post on modesty that I've got brewing...

True Courage

I've been very busy (a new house, stomach flu, pregnancy, you know-- just life) and so haven't had much time to post, but I was very moved by a specific part of the sermon on Matthew 27:32-44 at our church this morning: 

"Here we see Jesus refusing to stop the pain and suffering that he is offering to God on our behalf. It is this strand in particular that should move our hearts to trust in Christ with our entire lives. In verse 34, he is offered wine mixed with gall. The practice of offering a pain suppressor to dying people is founded in the pages of the OT: "Give strong drink to the one who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress." (Proverbs 31:6) So this was probably a narcotic to dull pain. But based on the verse that it fulfills from Psalm 69, it may have even been a poison to stop the pain permanently: "They gave me poison for food, and for my thirst they gave me sour wine to drink." (Psalm 69:21) Regardless whether it was a narcotic or poison, Jesus refuses to take it. He will not give himself relief until the full price for our sins in paid-He has determined to pay the full price of every ransomed sinner."

I can't even begin to imagine the kind of courage and conviction Christ displayed. My pastor, Tim, went on to talk about how those mocking Christ also suggested he come down from the cross to prove he was the Son of God. Jesus could've easily come down, but he chose not to; he chose to hang there, shamed and discredited in the eyes of the watching world, because he had his eyes on a greater prize than vindication in the eyes of the world, and he had in his heart a greater love than the love of his own reputation. Christ endured his excruciating pain and the mocking barbs of his killers to save his people. To save a wretch like me!

What a different picture Christ presents of godly manhood than the media of the world-- where advertising and film present a version of "courage" that is full of aggression, swagger, self-aggrandisement, physical strength, and earthly rewards, Christ's courage was in just the opposite: meekness, silence, shame, physical torture, and eternal rewards. In light of the love and sacrifice of my Saviour, I pray that I can display this kind of humble courage myself, and teach my son that this is true manliness, not the picture the world presents.

Dr. Amy Cuddy on "Power Posing"

Last night Steven and I watched this TEDTalk on "power posing" and how it reconfigures the hormones in your brain to be more powerful-- in the sense of authentic, engaging, confident, and passionate (not in the sense of lording it over others or being the alpha dog).

I thought it was fascinating as it relates to my recent post on canting. Dr. Cuddy describes how a person who is insecure or feeling weak "collaspes into themselves" with head down, arms down and towards the torso, and feet and knees together. It's certainly not identical to canting, but it bears some striking similarities: the tendency of the head to be angled downwards, of the arms not to lift above the shoulders, of the feet or arms to be crossed. As well, both feature an off-balanced positioning. Both serve the same purpose, though for different reasons: to persuade onlookers that the poser is not a threat.

Now, the low-power postures Dr. Cuddy describes are an instinctual, emotionally-hardwired way of reacting to feeling weak, while canting is a culturally-learned way of responding to peer pressure (i.e. canting is seen as how feminine and desirable women pose in our culture, and most women would like to be seen as feminine and desirable.) But I wonder if the reaction of women's bodies to canting is the same as the reaction of our bodies to low-power posing; I wonder if canting actually causes us to be more easily stressed, more likely to hide our true passions and personalities, and less confident. I can only speculate, since that wasn't within the scope of Dr. Cuddy's study, but certainly it's a point worth considering. It makes me want to stand a little straighter and square my shoulders when I face the world-- what about you?