This entry is not for actual analysis, it's a list with a function. If you do not know that function, i.e. you didn't land here for that reason, well then, you are not meant to know, and you must accept that.
Stereotypes that have already been "called" (that doesn't mean you can't do it, but try to think of something else):
- a Frenchman from the early 50s (hyper cheeseball style)
- hippy/flower child
- backwards Muslim/Arab woman
- over-the-top metalhead
- wannabe goth
- skinhead
- dumb blonde (not technically taken, but you know someone is coming as that)
Stereotype Ideas:
- Catholic schoolgirl = little skirt, big cross wedged in between breasts pushed up by unbuttoned blouse, socks, "cute" shoes, acting sweetly and yet naughtily
- that Christian girl that comes on campus = conservative clothing, Bible, proselytizing
- Frenchwoman = dressed immaculately and in black, beret, cigarette in holder, nihilistic and cynical attitude
- academic nerd = big backpack loaded with books, glasses that constantly need adjusting, use of only big words
- geek, Internet version = Mountain Dew, Twinkies, unkempt look, obscure reference on t-shirt, sloppy, socially inept yet obviously horny
- geek, super version = snorting noises, D&D, Magic cards, acts as if in a fantasy film or video game
- emo kid = depressed, scars on wrists, hair over face, glasses, whining, Chuck Taylors, skinny jeans
- grunge kid = flannel, apathy, long nasty hair, muttering, Chuck Taylors, love of Nirvana/worship of Kurt Cobain
- over-trendy Japanese = weird-colored hair streaks, liquid eyeliner, absolutely ludicrous and costume-like clothing
- delicate Asian flower = sweet and feminine demeanor, very conservative but girly clothing, lots of giggling, clutching at a stuffed animal
- wannabe G = bling, grillz, hos, 40s, rimz, misogyny, etc.
- wannabe rapper = old school baggy clothes, athletic wear, pretentiously expensive sneakers, talks constantly in rhythm and thyme
- uber-Feminazi = mannish clothing, solid shoes, loud and rough-sounding voice, hatred towards all men and males, disdain for sexually liberated women
- fraternity guy = loud, raucous, beer-drinking, hits on all "hot" women, annoying, douchey
- sorority chick = slutty, fake, pretends to like everyone, overly "spirited" about school/her particular affiliation
You get the idea. And if you get a brilliant one you are not going to use, comment if you have an account or email me if you don't.
Showing posts with label beauty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label beauty. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Sunday, November 25, 2007
why Bollywood does suck
Last weekend, I watched a Bollywood movie (this one is called Fanaa) for the first time in four years or so. The last movie I'd seen before that was Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham, during the summer in which I spent a month in London with relatives. Not only did I fall asleep three quarters of the way through it, I only saw the part of it I did because I was resting in the room in which the other girls were watching television. The last movie I'd seen before that was probably sometime during early childhood.
So, it goes without saying that I am not exactly a big fan of Bollywood movies.
Firstly, they're all inevitably musicals. I hadn't developed an enjoyment of Western musicals until my senior year of high school, and then I quickly tired of the clichés of musical theatre. I do like some musicals now, but I'm quite picky as to the ones I'll sit through with any measure of enjoyment. Bollywood musicals are even worse than Western ones as far as clichés go. For example, each song must include scene shifts that incorporate the Swiss Alps (although that might presumably be due to the fact that the Alps are less troubled than the similar-looking Kashmir), many outfit changes, and endless posing, culminating with what a friend of mine once dubbed the infamous "affectionate hug:" where a Hollywood film would put a kiss between the leads, Bollywood uses its supposedly-chaster substitute. At least in Fanaa, the movie was set in Kashmir, so the gorgeous setting (if actually the Tatra Mountains, not Kashmir itself) was justified plot-wise.
The hug brings me to my second point: the seemingly arbitrary censorship of sexuality in the films. Fanaa's pivotal love scene involves a lascivious (no other word will do) dance in the rain, followed by a scene where the hero and heroine kiss each other all over the neck and shoulders and then are seen lying in bed together. It's obvious what has happened, especially considering the fact that they essentially agree to no-strings-attached love in the scene before and they agree to marry in the scenes to come (not to mention the kid she has later on, but that's not the point). Aside from the very sexy dancing that occurs in Bollywood films, the costuming is quite sultry as well. Fanaa's heroine is a blind Muslim girl and so is usually quite conservatively attired, but in other movies, skimpy attire is often the rule rather than the exception. Here's the kicker: kisses on the lips are not considered "decent" and so are almost banned from Indian cinema. So, writhing around in revealing little outfits is OK, but not even a brief liplock is allowed (of course, all this is changing)? Mmkay.
Thirdly, in spite of the implicit (if flexible) ban on displays of consensual affection, the thwarted rape scene is a standard of Bollywood cinema. It goes something like this: a girl is nearly raped by the villain and is saved by some male hero bursting in. She usually falls in love with the man who saves her. A woman screaming for help as she is about to be violated by a mustachioed man leering over her nubile form isn't obscene, but a kiss between two happy people in love is?
I'm sorry, I was puking a bit there. Onward, since I think the point is made.
Stereotyping is the fourth reason I dislike Bollywood films. Hollywood does this too, but in the flat fantasy world of Bollywood films, it seems more heavy-handed somehow. Suketu Mehta writes in his article:
As many a sociologist has pointed out, even a "good" stereotype is actually bad. The harm in stereotyping is not so much that it casts a particular ethnic, racial, religious, or other group in bad light, but in that a stereotype is an over-generalization that can be true or untrue depending on the individual. Additionally, the descriptions that Mehta describes are all of minority groups within India; the majority group in India in general is Hindu. Thus, Hindus are cast as the norm whereas minorities have labels thrust upon them, similar to the way in which white heterosexual maleness is the norm in Hollywood against which all difference and deviance is measured. Fanaa, for all its flaws, doesn't seem to do this much. The demureness of the heroine is more attributable to her blindness and sweet nature than to her religion, and, oddly enough, her father is portrayed as a drunk (or at least a drinker) in the latter half of the movie.
Fifthly, the sexism inherent in the Bollywood film industry is unsettling to me. Siliconeer put it very well back in 2001:
Shahrukh Khan, an actor who's been in the industry as long as I've been alive, still gets cast as the "hero" in recent films, whereas older women in Bollywood (as in over twenty five) are left, as this blogger says, "playing elder sisters or spinster aunts, relegated to the background where younger (but talentless) leads steal the limelight. Roles for women are much better now than they were a decade ago, but sexism and marginalization still exist." It's a reflection of unfortunate reality: women are valued in Desi society mainly for their beauty and youth prior to marriage, since such attractiveness leads to marriage and motherhood (i.e. further propagation of the culture).
Last, but not least, I dislike the sheer predictability of the movies. Their plotlines are as follows, according to this Facebook group:
Pretty accurate, if you ask me.
BS Factor:
All the back-up dancers that no one ever sees again (pretend Aishwarya Rai isn't there)
Coming soon: a response to a conservative Muslim's criticism of Fanaa and, by extension, other Bollywood portrayals of Muslims or why Bollywood doesn't suck
So, it goes without saying that I am not exactly a big fan of Bollywood movies.
Firstly, they're all inevitably musicals. I hadn't developed an enjoyment of Western musicals until my senior year of high school, and then I quickly tired of the clichés of musical theatre. I do like some musicals now, but I'm quite picky as to the ones I'll sit through with any measure of enjoyment. Bollywood musicals are even worse than Western ones as far as clichés go. For example, each song must include scene shifts that incorporate the Swiss Alps (although that might presumably be due to the fact that the Alps are less troubled than the similar-looking Kashmir), many outfit changes, and endless posing, culminating with what a friend of mine once dubbed the infamous "affectionate hug:" where a Hollywood film would put a kiss between the leads, Bollywood uses its supposedly-chaster substitute. At least in Fanaa, the movie was set in Kashmir, so the gorgeous setting (if actually the Tatra Mountains, not Kashmir itself) was justified plot-wise.
The hug brings me to my second point: the seemingly arbitrary censorship of sexuality in the films. Fanaa's pivotal love scene involves a lascivious (no other word will do) dance in the rain, followed by a scene where the hero and heroine kiss each other all over the neck and shoulders and then are seen lying in bed together. It's obvious what has happened, especially considering the fact that they essentially agree to no-strings-attached love in the scene before and they agree to marry in the scenes to come (not to mention the kid she has later on, but that's not the point). Aside from the very sexy dancing that occurs in Bollywood films, the costuming is quite sultry as well. Fanaa's heroine is a blind Muslim girl and so is usually quite conservatively attired, but in other movies, skimpy attire is often the rule rather than the exception. Here's the kicker: kisses on the lips are not considered "decent" and so are almost banned from Indian cinema. So, writhing around in revealing little outfits is OK, but not even a brief liplock is allowed (of course, all this is changing)? Mmkay.
Thirdly, in spite of the implicit (if flexible) ban on displays of consensual affection, the thwarted rape scene is a standard of Bollywood cinema. It goes something like this: a girl is nearly raped by the villain and is saved by some male hero bursting in. She usually falls in love with the man who saves her. A woman screaming for help as she is about to be violated by a mustachioed man leering over her nubile form isn't obscene, but a kiss between two happy people in love is?
I'm sorry, I was puking a bit there. Onward, since I think the point is made.
Stereotyping is the fourth reason I dislike Bollywood films. Hollywood does this too, but in the flat fantasy world of Bollywood films, it seems more heavy-handed somehow. Suketu Mehta writes in his article:
Growing up in Bombay with the movies, I had come to understand Muslims as lovable, Christian girls as flirtatious, Sikhs as loyally martial, Parsis as endearingly cracked. The movies trafficked in broad stereotypes, but they were, for the most part, good-natured stereotypes.
As many a sociologist has pointed out, even a "good" stereotype is actually bad. The harm in stereotyping is not so much that it casts a particular ethnic, racial, religious, or other group in bad light, but in that a stereotype is an over-generalization that can be true or untrue depending on the individual. Additionally, the descriptions that Mehta describes are all of minority groups within India; the majority group in India in general is Hindu. Thus, Hindus are cast as the norm whereas minorities have labels thrust upon them, similar to the way in which white heterosexual maleness is the norm in Hollywood against which all difference and deviance is measured. Fanaa, for all its flaws, doesn't seem to do this much. The demureness of the heroine is more attributable to her blindness and sweet nature than to her religion, and, oddly enough, her father is portrayed as a drunk (or at least a drinker) in the latter half of the movie.
Fifthly, the sexism inherent in the Bollywood film industry is unsettling to me. Siliconeer put it very well back in 2001:
Bollywood is nothing if not sexist. Male stars can grow old but can still cavort with adolescent nymphets, but just let a female star get married and tongues are wagging. Some wonderful female stars have managed to buck this double standard with the sheer heft of their talent—Dimple and Rekha, for instance, but the double standard is well and truly alive.
Shahrukh Khan, an actor who's been in the industry as long as I've been alive, still gets cast as the "hero" in recent films, whereas older women in Bollywood (as in over twenty five) are left, as this blogger says, "playing elder sisters or spinster aunts, relegated to the background where younger (but talentless) leads steal the limelight. Roles for women are much better now than they were a decade ago, but sexism and marginalization still exist." It's a reflection of unfortunate reality: women are valued in Desi society mainly for their beauty and youth prior to marriage, since such attractiveness leads to marriage and motherhood (i.e. further propagation of the culture).
Last, but not least, I dislike the sheer predictability of the movies. Their plotlines are as follows, according to this Facebook group:
1. "I want to hook up with this girl but she's rich and I'm poor and our families hate each other."
2. "I want to hook up with this girl but she's Muslim and I'm Hindu and our families hate each other."
3. "I want to hook up with this girl but she's already in love with my best friend."
Pretty accurate, if you ask me.
BS Factor:
All the back-up dancers that no one ever sees again (pretend Aishwarya Rai isn't there)
Coming soon: a response to a conservative Muslim's criticism of Fanaa and, by extension, other Bollywood portrayals of Muslims or why Bollywood doesn't suck
Sunday, November 11, 2007
beauty is skin deep, ugly runs down to the bones
Scene 1: a young CHILD, probably a girl, is talking with her mother or some other older female figure (OFF) in her life
CHILD. I'm not pretty, no one likes me! I'm too fat and ugly.
OFF. Beauty is the eye of the beholder/plump is pleasing, more for squeezing/it's not what's on the outside, but what's on the inside/beauty is a fading flower/you can't judge a book by its cover/beauty is only a lightswitch away/beauty is only skin deep/beauty is a matter of taste.
Scene 2: CHILD is now confronting the BULLY that has been teasing her (or him, I suppose)
BULLY. Hahaha, you're fat and ugly and nobody likes you.
CHILD (more than slightly smugly, as she (or he, I suppose) has been waiting for this moment ever since Scene 1). It's not what's on the outside, it's what's on the inside!
BULLY. That's what ugly people say. Haha!
Almost every single female on the planet (and maybe some males) has gone through a version of these two exchanges at some point in her (or his) lifetime. A peer teases you about being somehow unattractive, you cry to the OFF in your life, you confront the peer, and guess what? Your cliché of choice falls flat, and you lose respect for the OFF in your life, realizing on a childish level that she is out of touch with reality.
It's easy for the "hot chicks" to go around comforting the not-so-hotties with the same platitudes first heard from the mouths of OFFs. Maybe beautiful girls don't get everything handed to them, but they sure as hell get more chances. Metaphorically and literally, more doors are opened for them.
Ever notice how when men talk about a smart woman who is also beautiful, the monologue will begin thusly: "Oh, I know her. Beautiful girl, so articulate too! etc." as if "beautiful" is superior to the attributes for which she actually worked? No, it's more important to them that she won the genetic lottery for looks; anything else is peripheral. See how the focus on looks not only causes the not-so-beautiful to be ignored, but also trivializes the accomplishments of women who happen to be beautiful?
Needless to say, I am one of those young women in the not-so-hot crowd. Children are cruel, and my male cousins, as well as one of my aunts, were the first to taunt me about my weight. All the clichés with which my mother would comfort me would be met with the devastating retorts that were simply variations of "only ugly people say that". I had latched onto Judge Judy's book title, Beauty Fades, Dumb is Forever, as my personal platitude for a while, until I realized that there were plenty of intelligent women with looks to kill as well. Those women are the competition against whom women like me just cannot measure. I was to quickly find that it doesn't really get any better when you get older, either. People may not overtly call you a fattie or some other slur or be as relentless in their comments, but the abuse continues in other ways. Of course, the gems amongst women and men work on their ability to not judge superficially and to look beyond the surface of the individuals they meet. I am not denying that phenomenon and am appreciative of it. It's just hard to ignore the facts about beauty.
1) To men, just looking at a beautiful woman is like giving a puppy a treat. No wonder hot chicks get into places, whilst not-so-hotties have to wait their turn or fight their way in. If they choose the latter option, of course, they run the risk of not just being ugly, but an ugly bitch.
2) Attraction might grow over time, but what about those who are never even given a chance? Maybe behind that sad, plain-looking girl's expression is a brilliant brain and an even more brilliant smile, but most men wouldn't even bother to talk to an "ugly."
3) Don't blame the girl in #2 for not smiling more, as the statistics are behind her misery. People stop to help beautiful women who need it, "cuter" babies get more attention (which has longer-term effects than most people realize), and hotter lawyers get more attention at trials. (source)
4) Fatness only hinders women. Fatter women earn less, fatter men earn more. More generally speaking, prettier people earn more.
5) Judge Judy isn't that comforting, really. Not all beautiful women are stupid. In fact, some of them are really smart. That means that the smart but not-so-hot women have major, major competition.
I remember when the Samantha Runnion case was big news; another child was kidnapped around the same time but received no attention, presumably because she wasn't a blond little white girl. The same goes for the JonBenet Ramsey vs Sherrice Iverson kidnappings. The blond little Ramsey girl, as a participant in the child beauty pageants that serve as pedophile fodder, got more attention than poor Sherrice. Being pretty apparently can help your chances against an abductor --- a life-or-death matter. The sad part is that I can hear a deep voiced retort in my head already, as the more uncouth amongst males might deign this "natural selection" against "uglies". It's so ingrained of a response, to hear that voice, that I can't tune it out.
None of us really tunes it out, and so the human understanding of other human beings remains superficial.
This is one of the areas in which Myspace bulletins are actually right. There was a popular one called "I'm sorry" that I've seen make the rounds several times, and I'm inclined to actually agree with its message. Girls are forced to measure up against an impossible standard, leading to low self-esteem; boys are supposed to act macho and only go for "hot chicks," causing them to not pursue the not-so-hottie in whom they might be interested. Low self-esteem is not attractive, feeding the cycle; unhappy relationships with people with whom you have nothing in common but physical attraction gets in the way of building something more lasting and more real.
This is the world as I find it, not the world I hope is out there. Pretty people only dominate without breaking a nail or mussing that hairdo only because the not-so-hot let them do so. We're all guilty of it, hence its existence.
BS Factor:
18 political women judged for their looks instead of their ideas
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)