XXL: Larger Than Itself

I’d first like to point out that I really liked all three writers and their points when talking about the film. While I was very impressed with all 3 and I loved the laid back vibe Sophie Gilbert presented, I have to disagree with her. I do feel that music, art, and movies all coincide. Even accidents can create strain in many things, so accidents can also project positive messages.  She states that Magic Mike is nothing deep or intellectual, “It’s a movie that celebrates the fact that it doesn’t want to make you think—there’s nothing to pick apart”, but many issues in the world are brought up in the movies, which coincidentally allows it to be analyzed. Even if it is just a bunch of guys, making a movie about guys, who dance around guys, for the pleasure of girls. Actually that sentence contradicts the image of males in reality already. Also there wasn’t much more than her opinion in her writing. It felt like it flopped as she commented on the movies viability to be bigger than itself.

I can say that I did really enjoyed Spencer Kornhaber’s opinion on the movie and its speculation on male and female stereotypes and gender as a whole. Kornhaber says,” One thing that’s not traditional about the guys is their utter lack of gay panic”, which made me realize that these guys were actually comfortable in their own skin and didn’t put a negative stereotypical face on the very large body called the LGBTQIA community. He then goes on and uses the example about the vouging scene in the movie. Even though I have never seen the movie, I looked this scene up. I got from it what he said, a very close group of friends just hanging out at a drag show, not making a fuss, not going for something “new”, or going to some out of the ordinary or “exotic” place. They are just hanging and enjoying themselves in a community. I felt his comment on the male image, out of all three critics, was most creditable and accurate.

Pretty Boy Bodies :))

I have not seen the most recent Magic Mike, so it was kind of difficult to follow what the critics are talking about, but not too hard for me to get the gist. When I watched the first Magic Mike, it seemed to me like it was just a big please to the “female” gaze, which is pretty cool since “pretty boy body” movies come out once every blue moon. While this newest one, MMXXL, was not only appealing to the female gaze, I hear that it also hinted a lot on feminist conversations. While Spencer and Megan left me kind of confused, I felt like Sophie Gilbert had the strongest argument because she tied all her ends and left me feeling satisfied, as if everything she had just said was true. I felt so conflicted when she said that woman seem to be able to “appreciate men as bodies and souls together rather than pieces of meat” because I feel like that it very possible. Why is it that men cant do this? Why when gagaing over someone’s body, we forget that they are human? (Idk mann, just some shit that gets my blood boiled) She hinted on key feminist points and got to the bottom of the conversation when saying “If the film were just about greased-up Adonises showing off their abs, it wouldn’t be half as affirming, but the sense throughout that female contentment and pleasure is the ultimate goal makes it infinitely more engaging.”. She points out that the movie puts a lot of focus into the hopes and dreams of the characters, rather than just their oily bodies. Thus, I guess making it like any other chic-flic? I guess my question is, since I havnt seen the movie, what are some specific feminist points that the movie touches on? I get that the directors did a good job of showing the equality of woman and men, hints the woman boss in a pantsuit, but what else is there about this movie that is really pushing the feminist movement? Because honestly, it just seems like another chic-flic to me.

But maybe im wrong, how do yall feel?

Magic Mike

I’d like to just start off by saying that have haven’t even seen this movie, what kind of girl hasn’t seen magic Mike yet? I know.

I would probably have to say that the third interpretation, done by Sophie Gilbert would had to have been the most informative for me personally. I feel like she had a lot of positive things to say throughout her review, in fact she loved the movie. She laid it out plain and simple, it was easy for me to literally picture the movie. I also like how quickly this interpretation grabbed my attention, especially because it was the last one I was reading, and by that time you’d think I’d be tried of it, aha not in this case. I agree with her in the fact that these men weren’t only SO appealing off their looks but off the fact that they were putting “what women want” into consideration. Yes, I feel that a LOT of Sophie’s review was her opinion, and I know Shiloh says that opinion isn’t evidence, but that fact that I could really picture the movie reading this one is what got me. Her positive feedback was just more appealing to me than the actual informative interpretations, ahah who would have guessed?

The worst out of the three, I would say, would be the very first, written by Spencer Kornhaber. Now I might have disliked this one the most because it was right in the beginning and I didn’t feel like actually doing this assignment but, the more and more I began to read the more I realized, “wait, huh?” He kind of, in a way, made me feel like I didn’t know anything. “Yes, there’s this.” And “Yes, there’s that.” Almost in the sense that someone was doubting him? I’m not really sure, honestly. He is informative but boring, and I didn’t like that, I made me want to just scroll right past his little argument. Like I said, Sophie did a good job catching my attention, and as a reader, that’s really important to me. So maybe a little extra opinion is what this case was missing.

Magic Mike The Feminist

Reading this article was weird, because I’ve never seen, nor do I have the desire to ever see these movies, but looking at them in a social activist light its cool to hear about political movements within what seems like the shallowest movie ever made.

That being said I feel that the weakest argument in the article was Megan Garber’s and I don’t know if its just because I thought he whole argument was a little petty and almost seemed like she didn’t want to have too many positive thoughts about the movie. So every positive she ended up backing it up with three negatives. She basically said “Hey I like that they are paying attention to women but they are not doing it good enough” which while true just gets confusing and contradictory at times, and it results in a weak argument. I did like her tag line about the second movie “This one struck me as a commentary about feminism… in the guise of a movie about strippers.” I think it was cool that she saw that, but personally her section seemed the weakest.

I feel like I should at least mention Spencer’s portion, while good, it wasn’t my favorite, however I really liked the voice and humor in this part, so that’s worth saying I think.

The strongest argument in my opinion is Sophie Gilberts, and again this may just be me, but I enjoyed reading this one the most and that means she played to her audience well and that’s what you are trying to do in any argument. She got me to read more and actually pay attention to what she was saying, and while yes it had a lot to do with my own preconceived notions it also has a lot to do with what she was saying too. She points out that its pretty black and white. And she gave praise where praise was due. She pointed out the strength of the women instead of the weakness of the men. Her argument focused on positives of one party instead the negatives of the other which isn’t really done in this article so it was a really nice way to end the article.

Arguments in articles like this are always cool because its almost like you are reading “The View” and you get more than one view point in one area, and just like “The View” different people are going to agree with different people. You wont get the exact same opinion anywhere on this blog, every ones mind works differently, if even just fractionally, so its cool seeing all these different view points in one place.

Just for fun

 I saw this meme on Facebook and thought it was relevant to our conversations! What do you think?

There. Fixed it *properly*
Posted by Rob Wynne on Monday, February 1, 2016

The Norm and Gender

As far as history can tell gender norms have always existed. During the era of Ancient Greece,  boys were sent off to military school at an early age to learn about swordsmanship and battle strategies for war while girls would stay home to master the arts of cooking, sewing, and other household activities needed to sustain daily life. Though they play a factor, who created and when the norms of being boy or girl were created are much less important than why these norms exist today. There are multiple reasons why gender norms exist, however I believe the main one is because society cherishes tradition. When trying to persuade a person on a new belief system or idea it is almost certain that you will cross paths with many who will ask, "Who are we to change that belief system our fathers and father's fathers were raised on?" or state, "If it was good enough for them (ancestors) it's good enough for me!". And we can tell from past even tradition is hard to break, it has been over 150 years since the abolition of slavery, yet we still have people who believe in white supremacy and segregation. In “Learning to Be Gendered” an essay written by Penelope Eckert and Sally McConnell-Ginet, we are taught that from conception we are raised to become either boy or girl depending on our sexual anatomy. One of the main purposes of gender norms in society is for socialization. As a boy the norm teaches me I should hang around guys most of the time so I can do things that guys do such as watch sports, play video games, ect. The norm also teaches me that I should abhor activities that girls enjoy such as talking about fashion, doing make up and playing with EZ bake ovens. In "Learning to be Gendered" Eckert and McConnell-Ginet claim that we cannot connect, collaborate or even judge one another unless we can first tie a gender to that person. Life would be very different with out the use of gender roles, and with the new acceptance of transgender identity in 36 years we might be calling ourselves zhe, zher, and zhim.