Misogyny and "The Room"

Bad film is awesome

I love bad film. I don't know why, but there's something really fascinating to me about failed attempts at art. Late last year, a friend introduced me to a movie called 'The Room'. This movie is the perfect balance of terrible probably because it takes itself so seriously. The tagline is "A film with the passion of Tennessee Williams", but has since been rebranded a 'black comedy'.

'The Room' and casual misogyny

There are a lot of reasons why 'The Room' is terrible. The timeline makes no sense, the acting is terrible and way over the top, the last half of the movie has so many establishing shots it's confusing and the list goes on. One of the constants of the movie is misogyny. The movie is so casually misogynistic that it's absurd. The female characters are portrayed as shrewd, manipulative and inferior. The female lead Lisa, played by Juliette Daniel, is told by her mother that she should marry a man that she doesn't love by saying "you can't support yourself". She also suggests that Lisa should stay with the male lead, Johnny, because he is getting a promotion and he has bought her a lot of things in the past. Lisa's mother also provides us with this wisdom: "Men are assholes. Men and women use and abuse each other all the time, there's nothing wrong with it. Marriage has nothing to do with love". Lisa eventually decides to take advantage of Johnny by staying with him for financial reasons even though she doesn't love him and is sleeping with his best friend. (I feel like this post has done the plot of 'The Room' more justice than it deserves). The most disturbing example is when one character tells a story about a woman that was involved with a dozen men at the same time and was put in the hospital after one of them found out. Johnny's reaction to this story is to chuckle and say "Great story, Mark". I attribute this to terrible acting rather than genuine amusement at the story, though.

Anyway, what I'm attempting to show is that there are myriad examples of misogyny in 'The Room'. They are so overt and absurd that the natural reaction is to mock them. The characterization of women leaves you wondering what terrible experience Tommy Wiseau (writer, director, executive producer and star of 'The Room') has had in the past to make him so jaded.

Showings of 'The Room'

Part of the fun of 'The Room' is attending a showing. The audience mocks the movie the entire time and it's pretty hilarious. The Drexel in Columbus, Ohio shows it one weekend every month and my friends and I attend regularly. "The Room" contains many drawn out sex scenes that are absurd because there is some attempt to make them romantic, but there is way too much awkward thrusting to be romantic. I normally shout out things like "ugh" and "make it stop" during these scenes. After lines such as Lisa's mother telling Lisa "you can't support yourself", audience members shout "Because you're a woman!". I see this as a response to the casual misogyny that runs throughout the movie. I was operating under the assumption that everyone in the theater uses this line to point out the ridiculous portrayal of women. After the last showing, I'm starting to have my doubts about what others are mocking.

Are other people missing the joke?

At the January showing, there was a group of people that were so obnoxious that they ruined my experience, which is tough to do because normally more audience participation means more hilarity. This group of people attacked Juliette Daniels' physical appearance throughout the entire movie, but especially during the sex scenes. Their comments included weight jokes, as well as remarks about her being ugly. I certainly don't think it's appropriate to marginalize people based on physical appearance and the movie doesn't really need help objectifying Juliette Daniels and the character she portrays. So, this experience brings me to my doubts about what other movie goers are seeing in 'The Room'. I see an absurd portrayal of women and romantic love, so I mock that. Either this group of people has missed that or they see it, but cannot see that their marginalization is just as bad.

An oblivious group or hipster sexism?

So, now I'm left questioning my participation at these showings. Did I run into a group of people that just doesn't get the joke or am I one of the few people seeing something else in these jokes? Which also leads me to consider whether the jokes are appropriate even if they are just jokes. Maybe I'm caught in some kind of hipster sexism (see hipster racism, for an example of what I'm talking about) and I can't see it. I'm definitely left with a sense that I should have pointed out that this group was being inappropriate. Unfortunately, I did not.

Thoughts?

Non-Vegan Food: Choose not to or can't?

A Disclaimer

This is a post about how veganism affects vegans. There are some advocates that would probably claim that I am wasting time by writing about a nuance of human interaction rather than advocating for non-humans. However, I think this is a particularly interesting nuance.

Can't eat there

It's a common experience of mine to have food described as food that I can or can't eat. This happens a lot when my friends are discussing restaurants. If that restaurant doesn't offer vegan food, normally someone will say something like, "Oh, but you can't eat there". If you're lucky to be one of my close friends, I may say something like, "I choose not to eat there". (Aren't they so lucky?)

I choose not to

I prefer to point out that I have the ability to eat anywhere, but I choose not to because I am a vegan. However, a vegan friend of mine pointed out that he doesn't feel that he can eat non-vegan food. In fact, he said that as much as he can beat his own mother he can eat non-vegan food. This led me to the realization that there are many things in our power that we say we can't do because of some objection.

Deficit thinking

Given choices, I can say that I can't eat non-vegan food. (That qualifier is for my friend, roommate and fellow vegan, Josh. He likes to remind me that if I was starving in the wilderness, I may feel differently.) My preference for pointing out that it is my choice to not patronize particular restaurants or eat certain foods is to avoid deficit thinking. I think many people see a vegan diet as a heavily restricted lifestyle and listing things that I can't do only adds to that. Claiming the restriction as my choice gives me back the power (or at least makes me feel that way).

Changing the language

Constantly pointing out that I choose not to patronize establishments or eat particular foods would make me sound like a jerk, though (and we certainly don't need another reason for people to think that vegans are stuck up assholes). So, my solution is to discuss food in terms of its veganness (veganhood? Whatever, I made up both words). So, when my friends are discussing a restaurant I might say, "Do they have vegan food?". The answer to that question will imply whether or not I am willing or able to eat there. When talking about a food specifically just saying if it is vegan or not does the trick for me. Problem solved. Now to just convince everyone else that this is the best way to do it...

Thoughts? Vegan or not let me know your take on this.

Dog fighting: moral schizophrenia

Michael Vick has returned to the news. The NFL is deciding whether or not he should be allowed to participate in the league. This, of course, is because of his involvement with dog fighting a few years ago. The public sentiment seems to be that Vick is an immoral animal abuser. I've written up a classic style proof as to why I think this is:

Proof: why dog fighting is immoral

A. The only reason for dog fighting is for enjoyment.
B. Enjoyment is not necessary.
C. Therefore, dog fighting is not necessary.

D. Abuse of a sentient being is immoral.
E. Dog fighting is abuse of a sentient being.
F. Therefore, dog fighting is immoral.

G. Activities that are both immoral and not necessary should be abstained from.
F. Dog fighting is immoral.
C. Dog fighting is not necessary.
H. Therefore, we should be abstain from dog fighting.

So, I have proposed that people are anti-dog fighting because it is an unnecessary activity that abuses a sentient being, which is immoral. Not hard to get behind, right? I oppose the use of animals by humans categorically, but I would agree that dog fighting is certainly evil based on these criteria.

Swap 'dog fighting' with 'eating animal products'
Is Vick really less moralistic than the general population? Let's replace 'dog fighting' with 'eating animal products'. That results in:

A. The only reason for eating animal products is for enjoyment.
B. Enjoyment is not necessary.
C. Therefore, eating animal products is not necessary.

D. Abuse of a sentient being is immoral.
E. Eating animal products is abuse of a sentient being.
F. Therefore, eating animal products is immoral.

G. Activities that are both immoral and not necessary should be abstained from.
F. Eating animal products is immoral.
C. Eating animal products is not necessary.
H. Therefore, we should be abstain from eating animal products.

The logic is the same, so I need only defend my assumptions. Assumptions b, d and g remain unchanged, so I will assume that we are still on the same page with those.

Assumption A: For most people, meat eating is not a dietary necessity. We are raised to believe that we need meat and dairy to live. Outside of people with allergies or other medical conditions, a well planned vegan diet is healthy and complete. This could (and should) be extended to use of animal products or animals as test subjects. A leather jacket is not a necessity and I use safe cosmetics that were never tested on animals.

Assumption E: Anyone that has seen evidence of factory farm conditions should know that those animals are being abused. Think about if the legal definition of animal abuse that applies to dogs and cats was applied to farm animals. It makes sense. I would argue that breeding, capturing, employing, killing (and so on) an animal for human purposes is abuse. That requires a lengthier discussion about animal rights, though. Anyway, from an animal welfare or animal rights perspective, the current conditions of farm animals is abuse.

What makes Michael Vick different from everyday omnivores?
Following from this argument, it seems that people partaking in animal products commit a similar injustice to Michael Vick. However, most people would argue that this is not the case. Why is that? I can think of a few reasons:

Michael Vick personally abuses animals. Most omnivores would not be willing to abuse animals, despite eating them on a day to day basis. Clearly, Vick is willing to abuse animals with his own hands for his own enjoyment. Some people may argue that this reveals personality defects and he should be removed from society for these dangerous defects. This line of reasoning would implicate all of the workers in the animal business. So, by this logic, we should throw them in jail alongside Vick. This would, effectively, make raising animals for food illegal. Bringing about the end of the food animal industry.
This line of reasoning bothers me on another level. Paying for the enjoyment of watching dog fighting should not be moralisitcally different than performing the act oneself. The same should be said for personally abusing for food animals and paying for the products of that abuse. People should stop passing the buck in a moral sense. They do this by pretending that they are removed from the immoral act because someone abuses the food animals, instead of them. The continued purchase of animal products creates the demand that fuels this industry. The industry is able to pay its workers to do this because omnivores are giving them money.

Moral schizophrenia
So, where does that leave us? Why are omnivores in a furvor about Vick? The only reason I have left is moral schizophrenia. Dogs are cute and cuddly. We let them live in our homes. Cows, chickens, pigs (amongst others) are perceived as ordinary animals, but dogs can be considered members of family with near human level rights and priveliges. We have given dogs a moral standing that other animals are not granted. I believe this distinction is based upon arbitrary and ethically unjustiable grounds. However, the discussion about this attitude should be the subject of a longer post.

(Removed a sentence about prison, as I am rethinking my stance on that entire system) There should be a public outcry about his actions. It should be accompanied with an outcry to end other forms of animal abuse. Animal abuse that 99% of Americans personally fund through their dietary choices.

Note: Moral schizophrenia is a term that I have picked up from Gary Francione. He is an author, blogger, public figure and abolitionist vegan. His blog is interesting and worth a read: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/

My long hiatus

I've been away from blogging for quite some time now. I've been focusing on other things in my life. I have a few blog posts in the works, though. I'm planning on publishing an important post soon, one that I promised to Kyle a while back: 'What Veganism Means to Me'. Look out, it's on the way!

Live Simply?

I'm a recovering consumer whore, or at least I'm trying to recover - I have lapses every once and a while. I have several issues with rampant consumerism including: environmental impact, accentuating material goods which should not be the focus of our lives and living in excess seems wrong when so many people struggle just to get by. That being said, I'm still living well (I'm no Gandhi).

I saw this sign in Target:



Upon first glance, I thought to myself, "That's a good mantra to live by". After a few steps I turned back for further inspection. It struck me that this reminder to live simply is a fancied up piece of department store art that costs $15. It seems to me that buying this reminder to 'live simply' violates that same tenet.

This brings up something that has been frustrating me more and more recently. It feels good to fill our lives with things that remind us of phrases like 'Live simply'. We feel like better, maybe even deeper people by surrounding ourselves with such pearls of wisdom and maybe people that visit our homes will think we are interesting after seeing it. Unfortunately, most of the time it's a facade. Some company has taken an idea that is powerful and important and mass produced it with some computer art. It's so frustrating to me that corporations have figured out how to play all of us. They know that some of us appreciate the sentiment, but don't embrace enough to resist spending $15 to have a decoration that states it. We are supposed to put this reminder on our walls and feel like we are good people for doing so and we don't have to change anything about our lives. It makes us feel good and takes almost no effort on our parts. I'm tired of being coddled like this, I want real change. I don't want my life to be an overpriced department store version of the change I want to see in the world.

Since I'm sick of corporations hijacking things that were once meaningful (see greenwashing), I made a DIY version of the sign:



It's made out of a piece of cardboard that was on its way to the recycling bin. I wrote the words with sharpee and tacked it to the wall in my bedroom. So, now I have a reminder that fits the "live simply" way of life.

Deal In Absolutes

Complete non-sequitur: (There's nothing really thought provoking about this post, just something that came to mind)

I don't know why this popped into my mind, I haven't watched Star Wars in a few months.

In Star Wars: Episode III, Anakin says to Obi-wan, "You're either with me or you're against me". To which Obi-wan responds, "Only Siths deal in absolutes".

In the original Star Wars trilogy, I believe in Empire while Luke is training under Yoda for the first time, Yoda says "Do or do not. There is no try." Now that sounds pretty absolute to me...

Not to claim that all of the other details in Star Wars are air tight, but come on George.

Revisit: My Formerly Vegan Cat

Since my post about my cat, Data, I have received responses in many forms (email, comments, facebook message, comments on my facebook note and status). I am simply floored by all of the things that people have to say about this issue. I have received over 5000 words in response to this post and I have provided about 2600 in response. Well, here's a few more. This is pretty much a series of questions that are still floating around in my mind. Comments are more than welcome!

I feel that, by feeding meat to Data, I am making other animals' lives worth significantly less than Data's. Am I degrading other species by making them lesser than Data? Does this mean that by allowing Data to eat meat I am reinforcing the speciesism that I think is prevalent in our society? (In this case I would be including companion animals in the realm of species that deserve special consideration)

I feel like if I were in one of the terrible, hypothetical situations, that seem to be so often contemplated in philosophy, my decision would be different. If I had to immediately choose between Data's life and the lives of hundreds of other animals and they were all right in front of me, I would reluctantly pick the hundreds of animals. I'm not sure that society would fault for me such a choice, either. What is it about the slow, hidden process of killing animals for his nourishment that makes it acceptable? How are these scenarios fundamentally different?

What philosophy is appropriate here? Clearly, I've abandoned utilitarianism. Is this some type of social contract between Data and I? I think the attitude that animals are ours and we can do with them whatever please would make this easiest. Unfortunately, I cannot embrace that. Not sure if there is a legitimate moral philosophy that supports that idea. Perhaps a Descartes or Kant idea, but I do not accept transcendentalism. I reject Descartes' separation of mind (i.e. soul) and body idea. He claimed that non-human animals lack mind and therefore only pantomime pain. I also do not prescribe to sanctity of human life. (A discussion of my rejection of these ideas will have to wait for another post)

Is it odd that our society would punish me for animal cruelty if I did not feed Data the proper food, which is made from animals that suffered and died?

My cat is not living a 'natural' life. Is it appropriate to use the argument that it is natural for him to eat meat? He is not hunting for his dinner, it is being delivered to him in an unnatural form. I do not normally fault animals for their nature because they lack the ability to think about the ethics of their choices, but I am making this decision, as well. I guess where this line of thought is going is: can I be an accomplice in the violation of animal rights by another animal? Animals cannot grasp the meaning of these rights and are therefore not bound by them, but I understand them. It could be argued that I am responsible for making the best choice for my companion animal, but where is my responsibility to the other animals? They don't get to live natural lives.