...On Moses from Liberty's Kids

Today is the 4th of July, also known as Independence day in the United states, and like most people I know I'm sitting at home and playing a rousing rendition of "Firework or Gunshot!"

Pictured: An accurate representation of my face with each explosion outside

Beyond the discomfort presented by the cacophony of barely controlled explosions in the world beyond my walls I find the weight of history and my own awareness of it bearing down upon my mind and twisting my emotions in ways both painful and cantankerous today. This day has not been one of unadulterated celebration for me since I was a child and spared from the sobering understanding that this holiday, this "Independence Day" was not in its inception or its character, meant for me. I suspect that I've struggled with this truism for some time whether I was cognizant of it or not. For many years I just saw this as another day in the year, rather than battle with the intense melancholy the day brought about, and yet today the full force of the aforementioned truism is inescapable.

Current events have exacerbated this truth for me by orders of magnitude unfathomed, and this meditation on the interwoven knots of fact and fiction associated with this day has only had its difficulty enhanced.

And through all of this a single character has been running through my mind today. A character by the name of Moses.

No, not the Moses of the Bible or the Ten Commandments but Moses from the PBS show, Liberty's Kids. 

"I am a free man–in the employ of Benjamin Franklin"

Liberty's Kids was a show that took a rather unflinching look at the American Revolution and for a kids' show it did a number of things that still amaze me to this day. While not perfect, it examined the plight of the Native Americans in the war effort, examined the merits of both sides of the revolution (the colonists and the loyalists) and most pertinent to this post, didn't shy away from the issue of slavery, nor the uncomfortable truth of many of the founding fathers as slave owners. At the center of a great deal of this unflinching take... was a former slave and self taught engineer by the name of Moses.

As a young man Moses may have been one of my favorite characters I'd ever seen. In many ways, he was the first black man in fiction who behaved in a manner worthy of the black men I knew personally, rather than the stereotypes oft presented to the masses for consumption, especially in historical fiction. A former slave, brought in chains from West Africa to the United States he taught himself to read and write, and became a blacksmith of considerable skill. It was with that skill he purchased his own freedom and in that I have always seen an example of Liberty's kids forthrightness and power. Moses was not "rescued" from slavery. As a kids show, this would have been an easy route to follow. Moses and the leading child characters were fiction. Fabrications purely for the needs of the show and as such any number of watered down narratives could have been used for Moses, including the white savior narrative so commonly trotted out as a way to do a "not all white people" lesson to help the audience not feel so bad about Moses' plight.

Instead they chose a backstory where Moses' freedom was not granted to him, but rather he seized it for himself and that boldness shined through in Moses consistently.

 Moses was kind, compassionate and wise as a caretaker for the main characters. Yet far from being the safe and neutered "Magical Negro" trope often seen in fiction where the black character only serves to pass folksy wisdom to the white characters, Moses had a will as sturdy as the metal he taught himself to shape. Though there was only so much he could get away with (the show takes place in the 18th century and is trying to be as accurate as it can be within the bounds of a children's show) he was still righteously intimidating when he had to be and had to fight and scrape for every ounce of respect he ever had. Even in a time when the white supremacy of the U.S. was so formidable, and people would attempt to intimidate the man, Moses refused to cede his ground.

More than once Moses would show his freedom papers, to another character and declare with great solemnity and pride "I am a free man–in the employ of Benjamin Franklin," and though had he been an actual figure in history, it is his employer who would likely have been his greatest protection from the injustices of his age, the pride in the voice actor's delivery at the line, "I am a free man" is always what was emphasized.

The most memorable and powerful line that cemented Moses' place as a character of unmatched strength and intensity was in a scene where he confronted a man in support of the institution of slavery. Moses, who towers over the other man and tells him in no uncertain terms...

"You are entitled to your opinion sir... just know that in its exercise, you would deny me mine!"

He manages this feat with a combination of dignity and barely suppressed rage I have rarely seen since and never in a children's show.

And so today I consider Moses. I consider how a fictional character, living in the 1700's manages to be so relevant to me today in the wake of the horrors of current events that swirl like the most turbulent of waters all around my life. Today I consider a man that had he actually lived, would have seen the signing of the Declaration of Independence for which we celebrate today, and would have to recognize that he was still not truly free. I think about the actual freedmen and women of the day who would likely look at their papers and have to wrangle the cognitive dissonance of knowing that a man heralded as one of the greatest of his age, a man who wrote: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal..." could write those words as a slave owner.

Like I imagine many a person of color before me has done and I know many are doing today, I wrestle ardently with the bones of this dissonance. I struggle with the fact that today celebrates the independence of a nation from what they considered cruel tyranny and yet in turn would have kept my ancestors as beasts of burden for its use in ways too gruesome to contemplate for long. And though the sting of knowing that history has been dulled by learning the lesson countless times, the matters of the present day make it clear that the idea of some, that we had banished racism to the four winds, is a delusion both entrenched and dangerous in the extreme.  My nation's racism is not a skeleton, long dead and rotting. How can it be when in my own life I have known men and women who saw the tail end of segregation with their own eyes?

How can it be when I have had teachers and colleagues across the spectrum who attended the civil rights marches of the 1960s?

How can it be when my own mother, as a young girl in Mississippi, was not allowed to read the books she desired because they weren't in her section and as a young adult was chased from a party at which she was the only black attendee by the site of a burning cross on the yard?

So I think about Moses and by extension the real freemen and women whom his story stands as representative for. I am once again drawn to a cartoon character from one of the most unflinching shows for kids about history I've ever seen. It didn't shy away from the ugly truths of the founding fathers of this nation as slave owners, not did it pretend that life was easy for black folks once they were off the plantation whether they were in the south OR the north (much of the show's bits with Moses take place in Pennsylvania).

And in the end I think about a simple fact: we have come a long way in this country... but when one considers the issues still before us, one and all, and the terror that still seeps deep into the bones of me and those like me, for whom, due to the color of our skin, this world was not built for us, this country has a long way to go before it can live up to the truth of its ideals, rather than the mere sentiment. It's what's owed to the real men and women who's stories Moses represents.

... On the Need for Representation in Comics

Originally, the plan for this week was to talk about a pet cause of mine: how Frozen could have been a better movie. That's on hold though. Why? Because things have gone rather crazy lately.

I'm not talking about the real stuff going on in the news. Frankly, this space is intended to be mildly comedic and those are all issues too heavy to touch on with any success here.

No, this week we're gonna talk about comic books. Specifically the news of Miles Morales becoming the new main series Spiderman and representation in media!

They say once you go black...

It's true, our new Spiderman is a black kid (yes I'm aware, bi-racial half black/half Puerto Rican)!

Naturally people were calm, shrugged their shoulders and decided to hold their opinions until they saw whether the books were any good and everyone calmly went on their...

Yeah I couldn't say that with a straight face either. No the actual reaction was something much more akin to... well this frankly.

I am gonna get SOOO much use out of this picture

The worst part is these reactions aren't even rare! This is the rule rather than the exception. Many people came out of the woodwork decrying the change. Folks claiming this was reverse racism, that this was just a publicity stunt, people asking why are they changing existing characters (almost always followed by the lament that "if you want black characters, make new ones and leave Spiderman alone!), or one of my personal favorites just because of how asinine it is: "if they want black characters why don't black people make their own!"

All of these are absurd for a number of reasons but as stated previously, happen frequently when creators try to change the race or gender of a character in fiction in general and in comics in particular. Remember this?

Falcon is Promoted to Captain America

Perhaps you also remember this one when Thor's mantle was taken up by a woman?

The mystery woman was worthy of Thor's Hammer... no not in that way you perv!

But perhaps the biggest and most ongoing one is the casting of Michael B. Jordan as the Human Torch.

I REALLY don't want to hear anything about his looks here. 

Perhaps this got the most flack because this isn't a new hero taking up the old one's mantle. This is a clear cut reimagining of the Human Torch and some people are demonstrably upset. Some fans feel like the lore is being disrespected, or like it was stuns casting. Some people feel like it doesn't make any sense. At the end though, all of these arguments ring rather hollow and like the complaining parties just either A. Don't want comics to change... or B. Are too racist to accept a black person as a super hero. So, in the spirit of craziness let's go through and dissect some of the arguments.

1. It's disrespectful of the lore/This is reverse racism. 

This argument falls apart for several reasons; among them being that in 3 of the 4 cases stated above the transitions are merely mantle changes. There have been at least 4 Earth based Green Lanterns, multiple Flashes and Batman's protege's have stood in for him from time to time. Not to mention the LONG list of Robins. Mantle changes are a big part of comics and have been for a long time. The second part of this is that reverse racism isn't a thing. Prejudice can swing both ways but black folks don't have the systemic power necessary to enforce the sort of violent, virulent and destructive racism that we've suffered on other groups in the U.S. Losing a single comic book character in one adaptation of a movie does not make this racism or even prejudice against white people. If for no other reason then there are still an innumerable number of white characters around. The pickings for POC's aren't anywhere near as common.

The counter to this is, "why is it okay for a black person to take on a role historically done by white actors, but it's not okay for white people to take the roles of POC's? Fair is Fair right? You're being a hypocrite and using a double standard!" Usually once again, accompanied by this face. 

Told ya I'd get a lot of use out of this.

This fails on two levels. The first being false equivalency. The fact is there are, historically a dearth of roles for POC actors of all ethnicities. White actors receive the vast majority of roles and most characters are written and concepted as white. This is especially true in comics when many of the most enduring characters were created in a time long before the civil rights movement. The second issue is one of erasure. People get mad at white washing, especially in historic films because historically it's been used to undermine and erase people of color from impressive things that were part of their history. Exodus: Gods and Kings and the Ten Commandments, both films set in Egypt (what many scholars now believe was probably a multi-ethnic society) featured either few or no POC's or, in the case of the former, all the white actors as royalty and the black actors as background characters, servants, soldiers or slaves. Basically anything but royalty and folks in charge. Think about that for a minute. A movie set in an African nation, and the brown people aren't even in charge there! 

Not only does this take away from POC actors but it's a tool to subtly reinforce cultural stereotypes about how things are "supposed to be" and reaffirms, intentionally or not, whiteness as the default setting for western society while also saying, "POC's don't get to be heroes." 

2. Don't change my characters/If they want POC characters they should just make new characters

This one can almost be grouped with the others at the top but was different enough that it deserves its own shredding. Both in the case of Miles are complete idiocy. Miles IS a new character; as new as Jason Todd was from Dick Grayson in his day. He's his own person with his own issues, fears, foibles and problems. He just happens to use the same mantle. And once again, this only seems to come up when a straight, white, male character changes to a non-white male of any persuasion.

That leads into the next problem. When people say new characters they don't mean new characters. They mean new heroes. On the one hand this CAN be a valid complaint. Some people say that black folks shouldn't just get white hand-me-down characters and that it's insulting. On the one hand this sounds reasonable. On the other hand it's often not used that way. Often it's used as a "you can't play with my toys and should have your separate heroes over there where they won't mess up mine!" This seems predicated on the I believe highly erroneous idea that if a hero is made black they're somehow lesser. 

Sadly, if the comics companies didn't get black characters into circulation this way, there's a great fear people wouldn't buy them. Comics is a business. They need to make money to survive. In a community that fears any change they make like the plague, comic publishers just don't see it as being worth the risk of creating a new character when they can explore new things and have the name recognition of an old one. Especially when in the recent past, comics fans went with their old security blankets rather than try the new toys set out for them.

3. Why change existing characters!

This has been sort of touched on already. Even Stan Lee doesn't like the idea of just redoing or changing old characters. And of course he doesn't! Stan Lee's a creative. He LOVES coming up with new heroes. (Nobody pick on Stan. He's NOT a racist, nor is he the problem here). 

As has been stated though... comics fans seem reluctant to open their wallets for anything new these days. With the wide range of choices, why try anything new when you know you'll like the old stalwarts?

With most of the cases here, that's not what's been done. Peter and Spidey are not the same character. One writer online pointed out that he doesn't want Peter changed because as a white, cis-heterosexual male, his privilege and behavior all make perfect sense with his character. And that's true. Nobody's talking about changing Peter... it's SPIDERMAN who's changing. Nobody suggested making Peter a black kid. Spiderman on the other hand... well that's a whole other issue. What many ignore is that this is a way for the creatives to have their cake and eat it too. A way to explore new ideas, new stories and new concepts with the safety net of name recognition without fear that the property won't be interesting to readers. It also allows comics to do what they need to do to grow. As a medium for some people, the lack of diversity can be off putting. It makes them feel as if they're not welcome in the genre. But these changes give people a sense that they're welcome in the genre, not second string characters or people but that they too can be full fledged heroes in their own right.

(It should also be noted that when they did the reimagining of the DC verse as if Stan Lee created it he did some interesting things with Batman, Wonderwoman and the Flash among others. It was called Just Imagine looks interesting). 

4. If you want POC led comics go make your own.

Newsflash... We do! I assume the people who make this claim haven't heard of the Milestone or Dakotaverse. I hadn't until I was older but it was an imprint especially created to add some diversity to the comics world. 

From left to right: Icon, Rocket, Static, and I think Hardware is the last guy's name

Beyond that there are innumerable indie creators out there slaving away to tell great stories. But comics are a hard medium to sell at the best of times even with the recognition of big publishers. Most indie guys have a hard time getting into large retailers where people can see them. That includes online where the name recognition of a publisher can really impact your distribution. 

Most of the asinine arguments out of the way, one moves on to tackling the arguments that actually do have something going for them. 

1. This is stunt casting/Tokenism

Too often, this has been painfully true. Usually the company gives the mantle to someone new, only to return to the status quo and nothing really changes. Then there's the change only to sell books. The LGBT community sees this a lot in media with "queer bating" when a show teases same sex attraction subtext with no intention of delivering. There are arguments that it also does nothing to change the larger trend against diversity in the genre i.e. that characters of any group other than white are still much less common than planetary diversity would suggest. 

2. This doesn't address the real problem which is hiring practices and visibility in the industry!

This is a loaded one used for good and for ill. When used for good it's a call for cautious optimism. A "good, but do more," deal. It's been used equally often as a dismal tactic which is kind of shameful to say the least. Stuff like this is baby steps. But they are steps. While black creators will always create our own infrastructure, characters and heroes we control, these kinds of things are good steps forward as well. Someone has to kick down the walls of the opposing citadels while we build our own with open doors. Some kid who may need to see a Miles or a new Thor or a black Captain America might get the push they need to become a creator themselves out of it. There's no reason both can't be done.

As for the hiring... that is a truly legitimate grievance. Stepping back to Fury Road for a minute George Miller brought in one of the writers of the vagina monologues and a noted outspoken feminist to help check his work when dealing with the interactions of the survivor women in the movie. As stated before, it got a lot of good press for its treatment of the women. As the OTHER comics related thing that blew up recently shows... that was probably a good thing as the all male team for the Furiosa comic delivered scenes like this:

Here we see Furiosa doing to the survivors what the comic does to the movie

Now, having women do writing may not have solved the problem of the rampant sexism reviewers noticed in the book (more on that here). After all, Twilight was written by a woman and we all know how that turned out. And it's not to say that black people aren't capable of internalizing the general racism of the country either... but some people are rightly concerned about the fact that we have a  story with a black lead that black people don't necessarily control, when historically speaking, that hasn't gone well. That said, the team in charge of Miles seems to have done a good job so far from what I've heard and read. 

This brings us back in some ways to the nature of these changes. The final and most egregious thing that usually gets trotted out by detractors of these things is "I'm all for changing the race of a character if it makes sense..." That phrase at the end there is the crux as well as absolutely, mind numbingly absurd. Why does a POC character have to be justified but a white one doesn't? Historically, the only reason white people were the primary ones making comics at the big 2 was due to discrimination in everything from education to hiring. Short of rare exceptions, the creators of the time and their bosses couldn't conceive of heroes being anything but white. Now writers are trying to adjust that as the times change.

For example, the Bruce Banner is fine as he is... BUT could he be even more interesting as an asian guy? There's an article here that makes a compelling case. The gist of the argument is that for the sake of drama, it makes a certain amount of sense for Banner to be as far from his dangerous Hulk side as possible. Since we don't typically expect extreme emotions from men of asian descent it would make for some compelling explorations and surprise factor. 

It's also a similar logic as to why Hulk is one character who probably shouldn't be black. At last not right now. The stereotype of the angry dangerous black man is low hanging fruit. It's easy, insensitive and boring as a narrative device even beyond just the racist attitudes embedded in the trope. 

Similarly, does Iron Fist NEED to be a white kid to be the fish out of water type character he is? The undertones of the white savior always seemed highly uncomfortable to me. I love the Last Samurai for example and even I have trouble with the fact the movie uses the trope of the white guy coming in and somehow, in a matter of months, being better at being a samurai than the guy's who've been training as samurai their entire lives. This article makes a solid case for the Immortal Iron Fist to be played by an Asian American and even tackles the pesky, "all Asians know martial arts" stereotype well. 

What's frustrating about the continued pushback against non-white characters taking over historically white roles is that it's a pushback against creators trying something new. At this point, the all or majority white, cis, heterosexual male media landscape is a cliche and symptomatic of a larger problem of resistance to racial equality in the U.S. If we can't even have equality in fictional worlds how is it going to happen in reality? 

Another aspect of this is to understand that when someone decries a work as sexist or racist they aren't necessarily saying the work is a hateful or repugnant (though it very well could be). More often they're saying it uses tropes lazily. The idea of the white savior and that a white character doesn't need justification but a non-white one does are lazy ideas we should be past it and able to do more by this point. It's a call for the creators to do better and consider that there may be other avenues to take that are more interesting. 

Some argue that Captain America being black makes no sense with the country's treatment of African Americans. That ignores that 1. There's been a black Cap before AND 2. Black folks fought for this country in every war the U.S. ever fought. Dealing with how a black Cap handles being the symbol for a country that historically doesn't have a great track record for African Americans could make for some interesting and touching story lines with the right writer and one would never be able to tackle the stories in the same way with Rogers still toting the shield. 

The same thing can be said with an Asian Iron fist or Hulk... or yes, even a black Spiderman or Human Torch.

The goal is always telling more interesting stories and exploring where things can go. It bothers me in more ways than one that so many people who claim to love the medium of comics get so upset about more opportunity for non white characters and actively advocate for discrimination (it's like they never really absorbed the "discrimination is wrong" message from X-men). Furthermore, the ultimate argument that these people are making, whether they realize it or not when they oppose more black characters in comics or more fair and diverse hiring is that they can't identify with a non-white character or are afraid of being forced to face stories that might make them uncomfortable. 

I wonder why they have so little faith in their own empathy? 

Fwooo. Okay... that was... longer than even I planned on. Next time... I'll try for something a bit shorter. 

...On the Discussion of Feminism in Mad Max: Fury Road

Note: Originally, this was hosted on my Facebook page (which is invite only. Sorry folks. ;) ) However, since it's partially made me want to do this, I felt it only fair to share it here and do a little something special with it (since you can't really get pictures in a note on Facebook the way I want them.)

Disclaimer: The following is an opinion-based analysis ofthe discussion around Mad Max: Fury Road. The views expressed are mine and mine alone. I am not an expert nor have significant experience on film critique,feminist theory, general internet drama or any other subject unless I explicitly state as much and the following think piece is not intended as a value judgment on any other opinion relating to the movie or as trying to convince anyone of the correctness of my ideas or point.

Alright, all that out of the way...

Recently the internet did what it does best and got very excited over relative triviality: namely the release of Mad Max: Fury Road. More specifically, the internet community got excited over a laughably easy to lampoon diatribe from “Men’s Rights activists” claiming the movie was covert feminist propaganda. I personally like to imagine they looked something like this while spouting their nonsense...

Though admittedly babies might find being likened to MRA's in any way sort of insulting.
Babies do at least have SOME measure of class.

In a move that I’m sure actually did more to help the movie sell tickets than hurt, the crazies boycotted the film but got more people curious and provided more free advertising the studios could have dreamed up as a number of people went to see it just to spite them. But mostly because people were scoffing. This was freakin' Mad Max after all. This franchise was supposedly the ultimate guy movie. Explosions, fast crazy muscle cars, guns, more explosions, badass fight scenes and did I mention explosions? The testosterone was supposed to be so thick in the air of a Mad Max movie you could cut it with a knife and mere exposure to the film would make your testes drop. Nobody went in thinking much of the film on opening weekend I think. 

But ya know what? Turns out that even a stopped watch manages to tell the correct time twice a day and this time the trolls under the bridge may have had a point. Other than the one protruding from their sloped foreheads. The movie’s feminist bona-fides ended up being touted all over the place from lots of different groups.

Still, others were more skeptical and made the argument that a feminist film should be more than what we get out of Fury Road.

After finally getting to see the film myself… I can see quite clearly as to why.

Both sides make astoundingly valid points but the internet has this problem where it doesn’t handle nuance well and people think too often that can’t happen. That there is only right or wrong.

Before I delve into the meat of this let me make clear this is not a review of the movie but if you want my take: It’s a competently done action movie and a greatride but this was NOT a movie aimed at me. The high-octane world of car culture and car movies isn’t anywhere I’ve ever felt comfortable and contrary to popular belief it is possible to recognize a movie is well made and not enjoy it much. Beyond that, the feminist ideas in the movie (and yes there are unequivocally feminist IDEAS here) were about all that kept me engaged. That said it’s all stuff as far as feminism goes that I’ve already internalized so I’m doubly not the audience because there are some people who needed to hear what this movie is trying to teach. But as I’m about to elaborate on I’m not sure they end up being applied in the best way possible

Warning: I’m about to spoil pretty much EVERYTHING. 

The Feminist Argument

When people make the claim as to the feminism of Fury Road they admittedly have a lot to work with. The movie is not at all subtle in its desire to be a feminist action flick. The movie sets up its depiction of a harsh patriarchal world quickly with a number of powerfulscenes including one where women are hooked up to milking machines and exploited like cattle while another scene reveals the young men of the villain Immortan Joe’s military force known as War Boys feel utterly useless if they cannot go to war for a despicable old man promising them that if they die in battle they’ll be rewarded richly in the afterlife. All of this pales in comparison however, to the opening scene in which it’s revealed that Joe keeps the people he commands under his control by controlling the water supply and even telling them “do not become addicted to water.” Let that sink in a moment. Moving on, the film’s action is kicked off by the discovery Furiosa, Joe’s main general has absconded with a group of women he calls his “breeders.” The rooms of the enclosure in which these women were kept are scrawled with phrases like, “who killed the world?” and “we are not things.” The camera pans down to the floorwhere Joe sees “our babies will not grow up to be warlords.” 

Like I said, subtle this movie is not.

Pretty much the only tool it knows how to use.

The movie then becomes one long elaborate chase scene with Furiosa trying to get herself and the rescued women to safety with Max aiding but mostly along for the ride. Though the ‘wives’ are dressed rather skimpily through the film they’re never really sexualized in the way they would be in other action movies of this type. Much has been made of what’s been dubbed the,‘Max lusts for water, not women’ scene and the movie keeps away from the male gaze for the most part–though in the scene in question I wonder if the camera guy was following orders properly sometimes–and keeps an almost laser focus on the women’s faces in the film. 

That may not seem like a big deal but in a medium that pretty much codified the idea of the male gaze I assure you that kind of conspicuous focus is saying something. 

The survivors–the movie calls them Joe’s wives but other articles have called them what they in fact are in the story’s narrative and I will too: rape survivors–are not warriors but nor are they damsels in distress. Yes, they rely on Max and the much lauded badassery of Furiosa to survive and don’t really assert much in the way of separate character traits or personality, but nor are they the burdens they’d be in a lesser film. They don’t even flinch to help Furiosa in a fight against Max when they first meet, they’re not stupid and each pulls their weight in their own ways with one survivor, Splendid, even going so far as shield the others with her pregnant belly to assure Joe can’t take a shot that would have killed Furiosa (because he desperately wants the baby inside of her). They are different, but they are not less. They all contribute, which, if one understands feminism as the idea that women and men are inherently equal and should both be able to shape their destiny according to their own will without prescribed roles, is depicted rather gloriously.

The movie also takes aim at patriarchy itself in the cartoonish exaggerations of the villains. My girlfriend and I had a long conversation about what the three old, white, male leaders of the various towns represented in the grand scheme with us agreeing Joe represens the conflation of war and religion, the leader of Gas Town representing capitalistic greed and the leader of the Bullet Farm representing the dangers of gun culture and unrestrained violence. We’re expected to see these men as what they are: exploitative of women, who they see only as objectsof sexual satisfaction and for breeding, and also of other men for labor, the waging of war and aiding in the oppression of others. It’s more than a little telling that the War Boys are brainwashed to the point that they’re suicidally stupid and engage in ludicrously dangerous behavior in an attempt to go to ‘Valhalla.’ The movie makes no attempt to hide its disdain for that which Joe and the villains in this movie stand. A woman by the name of Rebecca Cohen notes here that “Our babies will not grow up to be warlords” demonstrates the desire of the survivors to be free of the power structure that “killed the world,” and break it for their children.

Pictured: The physical manifestation of a misogynist's soul

Then there’s the partnership between Furiosa and Max; probably the crux of the film as feminist masterpiece argument. They value each other’s skills and recognize where each is most useful. Nobody is inherently smarter or more badass than the other. Again, different but not less. 

In one of the most symbolically powerful moments in the flick; low on ammo and with villains approaching rapidly,Max takes two of their three shots and misses. Remembering that Furiosa is a master sniper, he hands her the gun, recognizing that she has a greater chance of success than he and prioritizes survival, even going so far as lending his shoulder to be Furiosa’s rifle stand. It’s a powerful metaphor about teamwork and lending what skills we each possess to the cause.

Teamwork. It's a beautiful thing

Then there’s the story of Nux, one of Joe’s brainwashed War Boys who’s arc frankly deserves a piece all to itself in my opinion and he may very well get one before this desire to write is burned out of me.

The counter argument

It might be a bit disingenuous to boil the entire critique of the side that isn’t sold on this being a feminist masterpiece to this single image... 

Sometimes a guitar is just a guitar. Other times... 

But it’s certainly not helping the other side's case! 

Some of those who argue the movie falls short of being truly feminist make the point that our society still equates strength and power with awesomeness and links those things with maleness almost exclusively. It goes out of its way to make the crazy warparties look cool. The film feels like the epitome of cool as defined by a fourteen year old boy’s brain.

By this logic one could argue that Furiosa is, intentionally or not, coded male. She’s relatively stoic save for a single moment of profound and utter anguish, hyper competent at dishing out violence and her short cropped hair and attire all downplay her femininity in favor ofher more masculine tropes. While this isn’t inherently bad in the least, it becomes worrisome if it’s seen as the ONLY way to make a woman badass is to make her “manly” for whatever value you put on that term. Furthermore this side of the argument goes on to make the point that the movie is rather uncritical of the violence throughout its run noting it to be largely violent spectacle that even with the answer to the question “who killed the world” asked repeatedly being men and the hyper aggressive militant patriarchy, the movie still resorts to violence to eliminate the problem. 

If I understand correctly, this side argues that there has to be a better way. They argue that feminism advocates not for women to be allowed to engage in the same violent, exploitative system men do, but to find a better path; one that recognizes the equality and dignity of all. They claim the Fury Road fails to provide adequate critique when it has the heroes solve their problem by simply lobbing the same violence at the villains. 

My thoughts

            

I do take some issues with what I currently understand the movie’s detractors points to be. The issues of violence strike me as odd partially because there’s an argument to be made that violence is inherently human, rather than gendered. I’ve trained with many women more than capable of dishing out plenty of damage and while violence is pretty much the favorite tool of patriarchal oppression, that doesn’t mean men have a monopoly on it. In fact in more than one species, the female is much more deadly than the male. Furthermore sometimes making the highly violent, sociopathic people the villains is enough of a critique itself. If you can’t see the villains as having some pretty distorted decision making processes, that might be a problem with the viewer, not the movie. 

Beyond that, violence as a tool of self-defense and of revolution is also tied almost intrinsically to human history and when all else fails I see nothing wrong with protecting oneself from destruction with violence. Even the women’s suffrage movement sometimes used tactics that weren’t exactly non-violent protest so it’s not like feminism is above violently throwing off oppression. And I’d argue there really wasn’t much of a different choice in the world we’re given in the film for the women to make. It’s not like the three war parties were particularly apt to listen to reason. They weren’t likely to be defeated with a stern talking to.

Even with all the violence in the movie and the women engaged in that violence I feel like some of the critiques of the film that call its feminism into question ignore the fact that the final decision in the movie’s climax to turn back and fight their pursuers isn’t made by Furiosa, the Vuvalini, or the survivors; it’s made by Max. He’s the one who makes the suggestion to fight. That’s the last thing the women want. They didn’t want to engage and that theme flows through the whole flick. Furiosa’s initial plan is to run from the citadel (under the guise of something she'd be doing anyway), eventually lose the War Boys who were sent out with her somehow, seal off the road behind her and book herself and the survivors into the safety of her tribe. She only engaged in violence when she couldn’t come up with anything better and originally, after meeting up with her old tribe, the women wanted to load up their supplies and keep running. 

Admittedly, that wouldn’t have made for as much of a satisfying ending though.

If I examine my own inclinations and beliefs I can’t be perfectly on board with the idea that this movie is not feminist. It desperately wants to be and it believes in the inherent equality of the sexes earnestly.

And yet I also can’t be entirely onboard with those who believe this is a feminist masterpiece. I do in fact, believe that part of feminism is and should be finding another way rather than lobbing the weapons of oppressive patriarchy back at it. So I find myself stuck. Unwilling to side with the detractors but also, being unwilling to call this film – which is a great action movie, a powerful story and apparently fora lot of folks, a ton of fun – truly feminist.

Here’s the thing though, I’m not sure how much that matters. I like to consider myself a feminist and ally but I’m not trained in feminist theory and most of my knowledge is second hand from women I’ve listened to describe their experiences and ideas, or instinctive from growing up in a home full of intelligent, wise, strong and capable women. That however, does not provide me any unique perspective. I don’t get to be some arbiter of what is or isn’t truly feminist.

What I will say is that even if you’re not willing to call the movie truly feminist, I think the one thing that everyone can agree on is that the film is extremely ANTI-PATRIARCHY. After all, the film knows EXACTLY and without question who brought the apocalypse and killed the world.

Alright guys, that was fun. Definitely going to do this again. Hope to see you when I do. 

...On Introductions!

Hello one and all and welcome to my new blog: Don't Get Me Started. Here's where I'll blather on incessantly for anyone who'll listen about movies, art, literature, internet and pop culture silliness... basically whatever's come across my dash and pissed me off the most in a given week or something else I've been musing about. Usually it'll be something I could go on almost indefinitely about. Hence the title of the blog. I won't let things get too crazy... or at least I'll try to keep them from getting there but I don't make promises I'm not positive I can keep.

Regardless, this space is, as I said, one to discuss numerous things: art, music, T.V., Movies, silly internet drama, pop culture wackiness, books, comics etc, all that wonderful stuff we love as nerds. I do want to stress though, this isn't a place to look for movie reviews. I can't go see movies on a regular basis and there are so many people much better and much more entertaining at doing movie review than I am. That's not the point of this space. I will however, be analyzing various movies and other media I find interesting more often than not. Typically these'll be things that have either been out for a while but still have a loyal enough following that talking about them isn't going to leave people scratching their heads. But sometimes it'll be some relatively obscure thing I like a lot but maybe other people don't or haven't heard of. It is my platform. No matter what the thing is though, I'll be examining it, breaking it down and in many cases trying to put it into a broader cultural context.

What kind of context you may ask?

Well that's a tricky question. I'm not going to limit myself too much here as I have a wide variety of interests and ideas about a number of different things and there are a few that I feel I have enough knowledge to have an informed opinion on. Not an expert one necessarily, but an informed one. However, growing up in a house dominated by women and being a black man in the U.S., race and gender equality matter to me greatly and I cannot help but look at media through these lenses. It colors my experience of media and the way I think about it in ways I spent too long trying to run from and only recently decided to embrace and properly learn from.  As such will be a great deal of discussion about the intersectionality of race and gender in media as well as other concepts along those spectrums.

Other things you won't see talked about here much: Videogames.

Simply put, videogame is one of the nerd languages I understand, but don't speak. Oh don't get me wrong, I play them from time to time but it's not a passion for me and in general I feel I'd do the medium a disservice by commenting on it too often. It's not an area where I can have much of an informed opinion. If a story blows up and I have a strong and informed opinion on THAT then yes I'm going to reserve the right to talk about it... just don't come here looking for game reviews/recommendations or E3 thoughts or anything.

Things that I'll try to keep from getting too entrenched but it's probably a losing battle: Politics

Ooooooh, the dreaded "P" word. Politics. One of the three things you aren't supposed to talk about in polite company. The point of this space isn't for me to wax on about my politics. I'm not John Stewart, I'm not John Oliver and I'm not Larry Wilmore (I told you I lean to the left. Cut me a break. Of course these are my touchstones right now). You won't see election coverage here. You won't see my opinions on the candidates. You won't likely see much in the way of any real substantive political analysis here (though I reserve the right to make jokes about anything political that I actually find funny rather than utterly terrifying or worrisome).

That said one could argue politics are just ideas turned into action. Since I know I'll be discussing issues of race, gender intersectionality and other concepts of a similar vein in media, politics will inevitably encroach somewhat, if for no other reason than people politicize those issues. But we'll try not to let it in on the party too much. Politics is a bit more serious than I really desire to tackle here. Regardless if this sounds like fun, strap in and I hope you enjoy the ride with me as far as this will go.