Edrees Kharzai
Caitlyn Mcloughlin
English 2367.02
28 March 2018

The Dark Knight is a movie taking place in Gotham City, where a huge crime wave is hitting the city that only Batman can fix. Joker becomes the primary antagonist throughout the movie, pushing Commissioner Gordon, Batman, and Gotham District Attorney Harvey Dent to the absolute limit to fight him off. For Harvey Dent, the fight against Joker leads to a path of insanity and a life he was fighting so hard to rid the world of.

Joker is a criminal mastermind, taking control over Gotham’s underworld with relative ease. It’s what puts him on the radar of Commissioner Gordon, Batman, and Harvey Dent who have teamed up to take him down. But it all goes haywire after Joker finds out that Racheal, is a woman that’s very close to Harvey. What he also doesn’t know is that Racheal is also very close to Batman’s alter ego, Bruce Wayne. We see this during a party that Bruce had, where Joker comes and threatens Racheal, although originally came to go after Harvey who attended the party. Batman is able to mitigate the attack by Joker, but it leads to further conflict down the road. Later in the movie, both Racheal and Harvey get kidnapped by the Joker, who are strategically placed in two different buildings surrounded by explosives. When Batman and Commissioner Gordon get the directions to both their locations after interrogating Joker, they arrive too late. Racheal dies, and Harvey is left with permanent scars on his face after it was soaked in lighter fluid.

We see in Alison Bechdel’s Fun Home, how Bruce was someone that was always on the edge. Arguably that his divorce from his Wife is what lead to his eventual madness and death. As his marriage was his last bit of happiness that he contained, and we see that parallel with Harvey Dent. Harvey was in love with Racheal, conforming to his gender, he saw Racheal as someone that could get him through the dark forces he faced at work. After seeing the scars on his face and finding out Racheal had died, this hyper masculinity seems to ensue Harvey, and he goes crazy. Kidnapping Commissioner Gordon’s family and threatening them at gunpoint, it was up to Batman to save them.
What Batman did was try to find reason within Harvey, to see if he could bring Harvey to understand the wrong of his actions. Yet it was far too late, regardless of Batman trying to remind Harvey of who he was, Harvey had felt he lost his identity when Racheal died.

We this as well in Celeste Ng’s Everything I Never Told You, of just how powerful relationships to another person can be. We had James and Marilyn who came from two vastly different backgrounds to fall in love and start a family. The tension it eventually caused really broke out after their daughter died. Causing James to also have a wave of hyper masculinity and think it was ok to cheat on his wife. Harvey’s conformity instead turned him into a killer that wanted to avenge Racheal’s death.

Ultimately, we see how Harvey, James and Bruce acted when they were pushed too far. It lead to a destruction of relationships with those close to them, and having severe repercussions that followed.

In this Youtube video, Bret Weinstein, an evolutionary biologist, states that marriage is an evolutionary adaptation that stems from a behavior known as mate guarding. The phenomenon of marriage is obviously far more elaborate, filled with symbolic gestures. At the beginning of the video, Dr. Weinstein suggests that we could “repurpose” some aspects of marriage that evolved as gestures that an individual, either male or female, could contribute to providing offspring. The implication here is that because people now have a say over whether they will have kids and if so, when they will have them, we have the freedom to construct marriage in a different light.

He goes over the different types of marital/sexual relationships that have existed throughout history. He summarizes these as monogamy, polygyny, polyandry, and promiscuity/polyamory. He proceeds to discuss how delusions about what marriage is supposed to be like leads many people to condemn the concept of marriage as a whole. One primary error comes from people confusing infatuation and love. While society does sometimes have the wrong impression of marriage, there are people who don’t want marriage out of life.

Later, at around seventeen-and-a-half minutes into the video, he says more, I guess, controversial, things regarding differences in men and women. He states the pretty well known biological fact that males have a much higher variance in the number of offspring they can produce. However, he goes on to say that as a result, females evolved to develop a kind of far-sightedness into the wellbeing of the population at large while males have developed wisdom regarding risky (high risk, high reward) situations. He then talks about how though society should make both forms of wisdom accessible to everyone, he is skeptical as to whether or not all men and all women will choose to “pick up” the other form of wisdom right away.

I don’t think that men and women are identical, so I think Weinstein is correct when he makes a claim that society pushes the message that for women to enjoy the same freedoms as men, they have to be exactly like men. However, I don’t know how I necessarily feel about his claims when he states that society has failed to democratize the “virtues of masculinity.” He definitely has a point when he says the form of masculinity promoted by society now is not the best form of masculinity. He believes a more traditional, responsibility-oriented form leads to a much healthier society when compared to the far less mature form promoted now. I would agree with these claims as well as the more basic biological statements he makes at the beginning of the video.

A lot of Weinstein’s arguments stem from his own hypotheses and speculations based on research in evolutionary biology. I really liked his personal opinion on the difference between infatuation and love. Unlike infatuation, love is a sustainable state because it is based off placing one’s partner on a level playing field. Towards the end of the video, he speculates that the kind of polyamory we see today will devolve into polygyny, where few people are actually happy.

I thought it was incredibly thought-provoking, but it is important to remember that it is speculation as to what might be the case. Overall, it was a great video because it featured a biologist talking about various forms of gender and sexuality, topics we have discussed in class. Though at times he sounds like a traditionalist, I think he is actually addressing misconceptions people have about the causes of gender expectations and various forms of sexuality. To my knowledge, he has the same goal of using what we learn from evolutionary biology to make a world that is more free for all people. However, that doesn’t certain groups of people must be exactly the same. It just means they have to respect each other as equals.

Works Cited

“Marriage as an evolutionary phenomenon.” Youtube, uploaded by Bret Weinstein,

21 Dec 2017,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zg7iBAgMT5Y

“Megg & Mogg in Amsterdam” by Simon Hanselmann is first and foremost a comic depicting Megg, Mogg, and Werewolf Jones a.k.a WWJ (a witch, cat familiar, and werewolf respectively) avoiding any type of responsibility however they can, while generally trying to make the life of the one productive figure (Owl) substantially worse. The story is presented in nonlinear vignettes, with some only going about a page long, but its probably safe to say that they all include some form of illicit drugs, callous pranks, partying, general debauchery, depression, all of which accomplishing absolutely nothing. Really, it’s a good time, I promise.

Alright, so a trashy comic about drugs, sex, and terrible people probably isn’t going to lead into a presentation of a healthy relationship. Don’t worry, I’m not going to throw a curveball and say it does; of course it doesn’t. The main relationship presented, that of the titular Megg and Mogg, consists of the core tenants the comic lives by.

The two are in a sexual relationship where the entire dynamic is that they get high, play pranks, and generally fuck around with nothing of any importance beyond what they feel like doing at that very moment. The main story presented is that they go off to Amsterdam for couples time, the entire plan boiling down to smoking in weed cafés and getting high on pills. In typical fashion, they fuck up and leave behind their luggage that contained not only their clothes, but their anti-depressants. Owl has to head over, give them their luggage, and pretty much just babysit the two. By the time he comes, the two have already freaked out, and subsequently decided that its out of their systems and toss their anti-depressants before roaming around Amsterdam (high). Megg has another breakdown, decided she still needs them, and retrieves them from the river she tossed them in to take all of them at once. They head home after a binge to WWJ taking over their home for a “Fuck Zone”, Megg and Mogg decide they can’t stand each other alone anymore, and the relationship is left ambiguous by the end.

Like I said, it’s not a healthy relationship built on love/trust/stability, it boils down to sex and drugs. While the two are high at any time, they get along fine. When sober, their interactions are awkward and generally dismissive of each other. This is exemplified in the main “Amsterdam” story arc, but even more details come out in the other stories included.

“Low Key Monday Night” shows them having sex and snorting lines of cocaine in a public bathroom, “IKEA” shows them having sex in an IKEA before drinking in a graveyard, “Thirty Seconds” shows Mogg pressuring Megg into analingus, “Twin Peaks” and “Sex Towels” show Megg in sexual situations with WWJ and their other mutual friend, Booger, a transgender woman made out of boogers (a boogeywoman, if you will) only for Megg to reveal in “Drama” that she may be in love with Booger, and confesses to Mogg that she has been sleeping with her.

No curveballs.

The relationship between the two is surface deep, and essentially comes down to what one can do for the other. However, with Booger, the two bond over their disgust with Booger’s sister and her friends, relating to each other more personal details. Megg is looking for more female companionship, as all three of her main friends are men, and Booger admires Megg’s ability to speak her mind, or more accurately, her lack of inhibition. The relationship is further supported in “Megg, Booger & Werewolf Jones” where Megg defends Booger’s gender identity in a clothing store, furthering Booger’s admiration.

Neither Megg nor Booger’s sexuality is given a firm label, but they don’t need one. The two get something personal from one another, and while it may not include anything more substantial than casual sex, they enjoy each others company sober, and maybe that’s enough. It’s certainly better than the forced sex with Mogg, being hit on by her therapist (“Megg’s Therapy” and “Drama”), and being lusted after by both WWJ and Owl (an overarching theme in the series). Whether it’s the desire for female companionship or just looking to have someone that values her above sex is left as ambiguous as her relationship with Mogg at the end of the book.

Either ways, don’t look to the comic for anything substantial in terms of relationship advice. It’s good for a few laughs, but if there’s any lesson to be learned here, it’s to avoid any and all choices that the characters would make.

The cinematic classic Breakfast at Tiffany’s, released in 1961, is not a movie I’d typically be interested in. I’ll freely admit that I’m not a fan of old movies, finding the antiquated social rules and styling to be frustrating and dull. However, Netflix didn’t get the memo, most likely because it’s a shared account, and suggested it to me about a year ago. Although certain elements date the movie (Mickey Rooney’s stereotyped Mr. Yunioshi for one), the overall character-driven plot is innovative and relevant. The central themes of money, prostitution, and love transcend an era.

Audrey Hepburn stars as Holly Golightly, a beautiful socialite with a complicated past. Her stark apartment is one of several in a beautiful New York City townhouse, containing the photographer Mr. Yunioshi and the newly arrived writer Paul Varjak. An unlikely friendship blossoms between Holly and Paul, rooted in the complex relationships they have with the opposite sex. Paul has published a series of short stories, and in the ensuing years, been taken under the patronage of an older, wealthy woman who pays for his room, rent, and suits, in exchange for his love. His writing has stagnated over the years, as he “saves himself” for the Great American Novel. His relationship with this married woman is not one we typically see in mainstream cinema, there are a greater number of examples of men in the position of dominance over a younger ingénue. This emasculation of Paul allows for him to be a nonthreatening presence in Holly’s world, stripping him of the need to inhabit the stereotypical gender role of a man.

In contrast, Holly’s life is defined by the men who inhabit it. Through a series of anecdotes and side characters, we get a clearer picture of the factual details of her past, although we rarely get insight from Holly herself. The first man to provide the viewer insight to Holly is a man who sidles up to Paul at a party to ask him, “Is she or isn’t she a phony?”  The man is O.J. Berman, her former agent, who reveals that Holly was a country girl discovered by Berman. He provided her speaking lessons before sending her out for screen tests for movies in Hollywood. Holly decides to move to New York on her own instead of sitting for the tests. She is also a frequent visitor to Sing Sing prison, where she sees former mob boss Sally Tomato. His lawyer pays her to visit once a week, in exchange for a “weather report” from the inmate. Sally has taken over as Holly’s accountant as well, and reads Paul her expenses, noting it was a sad story in the making. The lingering mentions of $50 from men to “go to the powder room” alludes to sexual encounters with these men for money. Paul later meets Holly’s ex-husband, whom she married at 14, in order to provide a place for her mentally-disabled brother, Fred. Her subsequent annulment from Doc Golightly still hasn’t registered with the man, but he eventually leaves with the ominous message that she must take care of Fred now. In desperation, Holly makes the decision to pursue a marriage with a rich Brazilian, José, who eventually leaves her via a letter delivered by Paul after her arrest in conjunction with a scheme from the aforementioned Sally Tomato. These men continue to impose their own image of Holly over her personage, trying to make her only one thing: a wife, a mother, a call girl. In their vain attempts to “tame a wild thing,” we see a person who needs someone to understand and love her true self, not a visage of perfect beauty or womanhood.

The concluding minutes fall into the classic romantic kiss in the rain trope, as Holly realizes that she’s in love with Paul after she releases her pet cat into a dirty New York alleyway. The cat comes back, and the theme song overwhelms us, as they walk off into the sodden sunset. The difference in overall feeling, however, between this ending and a Taming of the Shrew-type ending are prevalent in the equality of the situations faced by both Holly and Paul and their common ground in needing to see the other’s true self. However, the marriage proposal does some damage to the claim that they have transcended their time, because with marriage comes the aura of respectability, finally, for Holly. Do we see a fully realized Paul and Holly? Or do we see them falling into the relationship ideal for a man and a woman? If the prior hour and fifty minutes have taught us anything, it’s that this is a relationship built on mutual respect for the other person, under the layers of stereotypes and expectations.

In June 2017, Netflix released a new original series, titled GLOW, “Gorgeous Ladies of Wrestling” that illustrates feminism, empowerment, and sexism by following a group of women as they audition and prepare for televised wrestling. A group of previously unemployed actresses work under a has-been film director to create this dissident, wrestling project sponsored by a ‘too rich for his own good’ millionaire’s heir. The story is centered on a particular character, Ruth, who we witness as a struggling actress in LA and also as the engine that pushes the women on to complete the televised wrestling stint. Like many characters in the TV series, she is an untraditional woman and represents particular aspects of feminism that bring the concept to life. Through an engaging plot of overcoming physical struggles, mental blocks, and societal expectations the women come together in a man’s world to depict a message of rebirth in women’s roles.

The show GLOW does an excellent job of showcasing modern views that occur in 2017, while simultaneously displaying sexist views toward women in 1980. In modern culture, there has been a drastic shift toward creating dominant female presence in media. This includes giving females roles that focus on issues that don’t revolve around men and giving females a more ‘realistic’ portrayal in terms of body type and appearance. In the 1980s, women were commonly seen in media roles that made them appear insignificant or for the purpose of serving a more important male character. Essentially, females existed for the purpose of reacting to their male counterparts and were not to be seen as the lead role. GLOW is written for the purpose of serving both of these cultural ideals in the sense that it showcases the way that women are suppressed by men in the media during the 1980s, while providing a group of women that want more from their life than just to be seen as objects.

The very first episode of the show starts off highlighting the drastic differences between men and women in media roles. The show opens with the main character, Ruth, auditioning for a role in a movie and reading lines for the wrong part. She instead read for the male character because she thought the lines were better, and honestly, she wasn’t wrong. The male’s part was empowering and demanding, where the female character is a one-line role for a secretary. This scene is key as it exposes the submissive way that the media views the role that women should play, and translates the role that men at the time thought women should play in life as well.

The media portrays women as dismissible in their roles, only being drawn attention to when their reacting to a male counterpart. The treatment of women in media appropriates behavior in the real world where men are then able to identify as above females. In GLOW, the director of the show, Sam Sylvia, bases his decisions about casting on a girl’s obedience to simple direction and if he likes the look of their face. By casting females in wrestling roles based on their appearance alone discounts their credibility. Moreover, when the girls ask what GLOW is about, Sam describes the show as “wrestling like with men, but you know, girl on girl”. In saying this, Sam indicates that when men wrestle it’s a sport, but when women wrestle, it’s pornographic. The wrestling moves he describes are tit grabs and crotch punches. Overall, the show GLOW is created for the male audience to derive pleasure and to objectify the women involved. The role of Sam the director embodies the issues of male dominance at the time.

Ruth is portrayed as a woman that has a dream of becoming an actress and will go to great lengths to see that dream come true. It is in this drive that many of the other characters develop a dislike for her. Additionally, she does not have the typical appearance of movie stars at the time, meaning that she is not blonde, bodacious, or overly feminine; adding to the representation of poor appeal.  Because she does not align with the way that media thinks a woman should look or act, she is not able to be successful in the pursuit of her initial movie star dream. This shows that going against the grain at this time wasn’t necessarily the best route for women to take to get to success. However, Ruth was able to discover through uniting these women and looking beyond herself (as she even accepted the undesirable villain role) she found a greater purpose. This was one of leadership, empowerment, and creating a message. Feminism isn’t all beauty and it isn’t all success. It is a battle to be thought of as more than those 80’s social norms represented in this show and a way to give voice to show what is truly powerful about a woman, what’s within.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2018/03/19/queer-eye-can-netflixs-reboot-save-america-no-but-its-great-tv/428714002/

By Riley Adams

Rebooting an “oldie but a goodie”, Netflix has brought back the 2003 tv series Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. The show, as one might assume, assembles five openly homosexual men, called the Fab Five, and designates them to transform heterosexual men in different aspects of their life namely fashion, culture, grooming, food and design. The hosts of the show consist of Antoni Porowski, Tan France, Karamo Brown, Bobby Berk, and Jonathan Van Ness. The main hook of the show is that each of the Fab Five specializes in a life aspect that they focus on during the makeover. During a typical episode, the Fab Five are tasked with improving the wardrobe, outward appearance and lifestyle of the client along with clarifying ideals and instilling values about the LGBTQ community among the public eye.

While the show is heartwarming and radiant, it’s also doing a fine job of raising awareness for the LGBTQ communities. Tan France says “The original show was fighting for tolerance. Our fight is for acceptance”. In many facets the show does exactly that; the Fab Five are seemingly accepted at the end of every episode by the client and most likely the viewers as well but is this fight for acceptance alone sufficient for society?

I’m not saying society shouldn’t accept the LGBTQ communities. No. I’m saying while the fight is worthwhile, it should be for something much more. I’m referring to the terminology homonormativity. Rather than fighting for acceptance, shouldn’t we be fighting for normativity and inclusivity? A big reason for conflicts among social constructs like Race, Gender and Sexuality are because we either see a certain type as normal and others as abstract and there is so much exclusivity. Homosexuality is still perceived as abnormal, as something that is alien to our society such that there still is the unnecessary labeling present, which is exhibited in the episodes when a person would refer to the Fab Five as gay men, rather than just men. In the show, the Fab Five are constantly called and identified as gays and homosexuals by the people who surrounded them, which they are, but what they, and we for that matter, should be aiming for is the time when they no longer have to be labeled but be fully embraced by society that the need to label them as such will be no more. Granted, maybe I’m getting ahead of myself and as anything does, this will take time. The LGBTQ community had to fight for tolerance just so they could start being considered a part of society and now it seems our society is in the acceptance phase.

Stereotypes are a part of human nature and something we do as a sort of “primal” instinct. We recognize patterns and use the determination of the familiar and unfamiliar to protect ourselves whenever we encounter a scenario, no matter the context, with someone or something having certain physical or behavioral characteristics. Just because stereotyping could’ve been some adaptation use to aid in survival doesn’t mean it’s relative to humans today, just like the small toe.  Acceptance to me feels like all we are doing is putting a band aid over a broken bone and calling it fixed. To get to the heart of the issue, we need to think of addressing normativity and implementing it rather than just accepting

Throughout the last hundred years, among modern culture we have seen amazing changes in the way we treat and coexist with each other.  Hell —170 years ago women’s rights seemed unfeasible and almost 70 years ago our schools were still segregated based on skin color. My point is while we are not perfect, if we are heading in the right direction, we could all contribute to make the world better.

Whether Queer eye is implementing the proper techniques to better integrate the normalization of LGBTQ communities or not; the show itself shows heart, brings forth a wonderful attitude and may draw a tear (or two).

In Game of Thrones by George R. Martin (TV), the romance between Grey Worm and Missandei is fully expressed in season seven episode two when they get intimate. This scene shows how regardless of gender and physical status, physical and emotional attraction transcend what some people think of as viable. Grey Worm and Missandei’s relationship subtly address a unique, outside the male female gender norm romance. With no way to actually engage in traditional sex, Grey Worm and the Unsullied warriors are seen as gender-less, sexless, and without desire for anything carnal. The pair’s romance can be seen as an initiation for accepting this newer norm of gender acceptance.

When it is found out that Unsullied warriors are visiting brothels for unknown reasons, Missandei questions whether or not an Unsullied truly has no desire. Having these questions gives the audience a new perspective on the Unsullied as having a gender and carnal desires despite lacking the ability to act on them. In a way, this is representative of the struggle of someone who does not define themselves as a male or female or as strictly straight or gay. Without exactly knowing how to define their gender and sexuality, the Unsullied are removed from the romantic pool, much as a person who has an alternate gender is often removed from the ‘normal’ male female dating pool.

The progression of Grey Worm’s self-discovery about what and whom he is attracted to could be viewed as a discovery of his sexual orientation. When Grey Worm is caught viewing Missandei’s naked form while bathing, Grey Worm is clearly unable to tear his gaze away; this is his first step towards discovering an attraction to Missandei’s physical form. With this initial barrier of discovering Missandei’s outwards beauty, love can be partially defined as having a desire of one form or another towards a physical body.

With Missandei’s teaching of a new language to Grey Worm, Grey Worm’s and Missandei’s emotional attraction grows stronger. Missandei’s growing curiosity and attraction towards Grey Worm grow apparent when she asks whether or not all of the Unsullied’s privates were removed during their initiation as elite slave warriors. Despite having a differing physical state from an average male, Missandei’s desire is made clear when she and Grey Worm become intimate. She makes Grey Worm reveal himself as a way of accepting all of him as he is.

The interactions between Missandei and Grey Worm reveal insights into how love is defined and how sexuality and genders are perceived by others. Additionally, their eventual intimacy is both a comparison and hope for the future with regards to acceptance of unique genders and sexuality in actual, modern society. As the number of people who are accepting of outside the norm genders and sexuality increase, the importance of this episode and aspects of Game of Thrones (TV) that promote diversity and equality becomes greater.

Jack Erwin

Professor McLoughlin

English 2367.02

27 April 2018

Blog Post Assignment

https://www.netflix.com/title/70264888

“San Junipero” is the title of the fourth episode of the 3^rd season of Black Mirror. Like all episodes of this series, this utopian reality is set in a not too distant future. It tells the story of two women falling in love “living” in the nostalgic decade of the 80s. I quoted the “living” because this whole plot is taken place inside a virtual simulation. Shy Yorkie is visiting the popular town when she meets Kelly, another San Junipero visitor and total party girl. The two began to flirt and eventually fall in love and begin an intimate relationship. This seemingly simple love story is presented with a huge twist when it is revealed that San Junipero is actually a simulated virtual reality where elderly people can visit, and the deceased can go to live permanently. However, while in this simulation, they inhabit a younger version of themselves, one that is not sick or in pain and cannot die.

Back in the real world, elderly Kelly meets an elderly Yorkie, who has been on life support for nearly 40 years after running her car off the road the night her parents rejected her for coming out as lesbian. Yorkie very badly wants to die so she can go to San Junipero forever, but her family won’t agree to self-termination or euthanasia because of their religious beliefs. Kelly offers to marry Yorkie so she can make it her choice to decide Yorkie’s end-of-life plans, and Yorkie goes to live in San Junipero forever. Unfortunately, things become a bit more complicated for Kelly. She’s bisexual and has planned to die without her consciousness being uploaded to the San Junipero cloud. She always had this plan because both her husband and daughter had passed away before it even existed. Eventually, Kelly’s real-life health deteriorated, and she ended up choosing to be euthanized, having her physical body buried with her family and her consciousness uploaded to the San Junipero cloud so she could “live” with Yorkie for the rest of their “lives”.

This is a rather interesting take on a beautiful story of two women falling in love. It successfully blends this love story together with some important themes such as end-of-life decisions, ideas of the “afterlife”, and having more than one true love. The complexity of Kelly’s love life is the aspect that I think gives this story such a powerful message. She had lived most her life only showing the straight side of who she was, while locking away her intimate attraction to other females. It wasn’t until the end of her life, that she decided to finally let go of that lock she put on herself and could explore what it meant to truly be herself for the first time in the entirety of her life. San Junipero provided her with the opportunity to start a new life, one without limitations, not even death. Endless amount of memories and endless love she could spread, a perfect ending to this “forbidden love” story.

The element of this alternate afterlife is also as aspect I found to be very intriguing. It’s a version of the afterlife that I think is actually plausible. The technology-based simulated afterlife something that could make sense. With our steady advancements in technology over the years, who’s to say we won’t one day be able to create virtual realities that look and feel like reality? I think it’s certainly possible and might even go as far as saying it’s probable. However, some religious issues certainly come into play when considering this technology. Some could say this is performing the act of God, defying his word and breaking the cycle of life and death. Additionally, this would basically cause people to pick sides. You either stay with your faith and don’t get uploaded to the cloud upon death, or you take matters in your own hands and upload yourself to the cloud to guarantee your life in “heaven” by living in San Junipero. There is no right or wrong answer to this pressing question, but it definitely will make more people question their faith if this science-fiction technology ends up becoming real tech.

Calvin Owen

English 2367.02

Caitlyn McLoughlin

27 April 2018

Andy’s Manhood

Highlights referenced from this episode can be found by searching “Andy’s Erection Problem – The Office US” on Youtube.

“Andy’s Erection Problem” is an episode of The Office about a character, Andy, losing his job. Andy is a quirky, effeminate man who faces conflict when a woman, Nelly, wrongfully takes his manager position from him. After losing his job, Andy is unable to perform sexually that day. This episode suggests that Andy’s sexuality is dependent on his masculinity.

The day after the incident occurs, Andy becomes agitated when his girlfriend, Erin, tries to assure him that his impotence isn’t a big deal. Ironically, by telling Andy multiple times that it didn’t matter, Andy understands that it does matter to Erin. Nelly regrets taking Andy’s job when she learns that Andy has lost his sense of manhood as a result. Coworkers also quickly find out about the situation and try to make Andy feel better but it has the opposite effect; their sympathy makes Andy feel even more pathetic and frustrated.

The episode reaches a climax when Erin loses her temper and tries to stick up for Andy by yelling at the new manager. Similarly, this makes Andy feel even worse; he tells Erin, “I’m a man, and I can protect myself!” Following this outburst, Andy is fired but has recovered his sense of manhood and is able to get an erection after sticking up for himself.

Andy’s loss of manhood is contrasted by another character, Dwight. Throughout The Office, Dwight is depicted as a stern, masculine man. Upon hearing about Andy’s impotence, Dwight tells Erin that he has never experienced a problem getting an erection. Dwight is reinforcing the idea that a man’s sexuality is dependent on his masculinity.

Interestingly, Andy seeks validation from his coworkers and his father. After informing his dad about his demotion from manager to salesmen, Andy worries that he has disappointed his father. The first part of this phone call is contrasted by the second part. Erin’s outburst against Nelly interrupts Andy’s phone call and Andy stands from his desk to expresses anger and aggression marked by yelling at everyone in the room and punching a wall. During Andy’s fit of rage, he picks the phone back up and tells his dad to go to hell, signifying that he no longer cares for his dad’s approval. This is significant because it implies that Andy’s sense of manhood is related to his independence from his dad.

This episode relates to the course theme, gender and sexuality, and challenges the idea that gender and sexuality are independent because it suggests that the characters’ sexualities are directly dependent on their masculinity. This episode supports a common belief that masculine men are characterized by power and independence and that masculinity is necessary in order for heterosexual men to perform sexually.

Gender and sexuality are related to each other to some varying extent, but I believe this episode oversimplifies the relationship between the two. I believe gender and sexuality are too complex to be thought of as a direct relationship. Further, I don’t think that in reality a tough, masculine man is immune to impotence the way Dwight is characterized and, inversely, I don’t think a weak, effeminate man such as Andy is necessarily unable to perform sexually. I criticize this episode, but, extraneously, I enjoyed watching Andy’s character develop from needing approval to being independent.

Highlights referenced from this episode can be found by searching “Andy’s Erection Problem – The Office US” on Youtube.

Marina and the Diamonds’ “Sex Yeah” is from their 2012 debut album “Electra Heart”. The album as a whole addresses love and identity—sexually and personally—from a modern female perspective. “Sex Yeah” specifically addresses gender and sexualization and the taboo surrounding sex. Marina Diamandis, singer and songwriter for Marina and the Diamonds, focuses on proactivity, and the desensitization of sexual images in younger generations, which stems from the hypersexualization of men and women in media today.  She argues that throughout history this model has been shaped, it is not the advent of media that produced these expectations. In fact, the lack of religious recognition of women began was the true foundation of inequality between genders in terms of sexuality—“If women were religiously recognized sexually/We wouldn’t have to feel the need to show our ass-ets to feel free”. It is this frame of hypersexualization in media, which is ever-present, that establishes the model for the next generations—as stated in the song “if sex in our society didn’t tell a girl who she should be” and “if sex in our society didn’t tell a guy who he should be”.

From the introduction of this song, it is clear that this song is supposed to make people pay attention, to make people think about the lyrics and the argument it is making. By beginning by loudly and repeatedly singing “sex, sex, sex, sex”, she demands the attention of the audience. On the surface this is just a word being repeated in the beginning of the song, on the surface such a method is not particularly attention grabbing, unless the word is a “bad word”. Implicitly, this is the foundation of the argument for the entire song, that sex is a taboo subject, that sex is a “bad word”, and no one wants to talk about it or its effect on society as a whole.

In infusing her own personal experiences of sexualization in media, she uses word play to give the song a more personal and powerful note. Diamandis states “If women were religiously recognized sexually/We wouldn’t have to feel the need to show our ass-ets to feel free”. This can be interpreted in two ways. It can be interpreted as “we wouldn’t have to feel the need to show our assets to feel free”, and as “we wouldn’t have to feel the need to show our ass its too feel free”. This is a powerful use of word play, it connects two claims from her argument in one phrase, and adds a level of complexity to the lyrics, forcing the audience to pause and think critically about the song she wrote. On one hand, she argues that women, both in the media and in general, show their assets to feel free because the chains of the lack of religious recognition gives them no other option. Furthering this claim, she argues that it is the formation of this mold over time that began this behavior, that women showing “[their] ass is too feel free”. As a gender, women are tethered to this standard of sexualization that has been created. In the same verse she sings “tired image of a star, acting naughtier than we really are”, furthering the argument that the image created by media is a reflection of society’s expectations, it is not mirroring their own desired actions, much less the desired actions of the entire female population.

Diamandis also connects the effects of sex, history, and media to men as well. Throughout the song the phrases “if history could set you free from who you were supposed to be/if sex in our society didn’t tell a girl who she should be” and “if history could set you free from who you were supposed to be/if sex in our society didn’t tell a guy who he should be” multiple times. When addressing objectification, the objectification of men often fails to be mentioned. However, “Sex Yeah” argues that viewing all humans as sex objects is poisonous as a whole to societies, but also to individuals and their journey in finding themselves and their purpose. That history has created a script for men and women—who we are supposed to be—and in order to truly find oneself, one must fight against history and this script.