X
Click here to CLOSE & redirect to GOOGLE

Film

April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month

Please click below for a pdf version with all links needed for registration:

ZCenter SAAM Events 2022

*Standing Silent Witness at our Dempster Street location has been cancelled for 4/22/22, due to rain.

* Please note that the webinar for 4/20, Talking about Safety with Kids, has been cancelled.

 

 

 

It’s Just a Bunch of Hocus Pocus (But is it feminist?)


It would be more than two decades before I would enjoy Disney’s
Hocus Pocus. I found it ridiculous. The last witch hanged in the Salem Witch Trials was on September 22, 1692; the film starts with Salem townspeople hanging witches a year later in 1693. I knew that no one in 17th Century New England wore the bright colors of the witches. I also knew that those hanged in Salem were the ones who would not admit to witchcraft, not the openly practicing witches, as in the movie.

I was always bothered by the stereotypes that the movie perpetuated. Witches harm and/or kill humans. Witches are ugly old hags. Magic is a means to cause harm. At worst, the film is complicit in the patriarchal notion that only Abrahamic religions are true religions, not earth-based religions like witchcraft. At best, it was goofy. Silly. 

But there is something magical about a Halloween movie that was filmed in Salem. There is something nostalgic about walking through the Salem Common and remembering where Max and Allison walked through the autumn leaves. The movie celebrates Halloween, with a cult-level following. As I celebrate Halloween with my own children and learn its joy all over again, I begin to see how Halloween allows us to break social norms, slip into different roles, bend gender norms, and face our fears. We connect with a child within us that we repress all other days. 

Also, who doesn’t love a witch movie with a talking black cat?

In the film, protagonist Max famously says, “It’s all just a bunch of hocus pocus.” But is it feminist? I’m not convinced that Hocus Pocus is a feminist film. The teen female protagonist is reduced to her sexual body parts. “Max likes your yabos. In fact, he loves them,” taunts Max’s little sister. The witches obsess over their appearance and beauty, succumbing to the societal norms about how women should look. All the harm that they cause is directly related to making themselves look younger. None of this feels empowering to those identifying as women.

As intersectionalists, we look to fight oppression of any kind. The film has a striking lack of any People of Color, though we know the town of Salem, Massachusetts is not exclusively white. We also see no LGBTQIA individuals in the film; everyone is defined by heteronormative and cisgender characteristics, though I know for a fact that Salem has Pride events. As feminists and sex educators, we also question the use of virginity in the film. A virgin lit the black flame candle, bringing the witches back from the grave. But we find this problematic as we look at the patriarchal use of virginity to oppress women. When does one’s sexual journey begin? Must we define our sexual journey by the first penile penetration? Why does virginity even matter unless women are property?

But again, my heart swells to see Salem in the fall. Bette Midler sings I Put a Spell on You. It’s very hard to love Halloween and not love this movie. These witchy women, as despicable as they are, are defying social norms, despite the many threats to their safety. They have no dependence on men and they do as they please. The teenager Allison has choices about dating the protagonist; she decides on her own time about romantic entanglement, even after rejecting him at first. The young sister Dani speaks her mind and asserts her needs. 

Hocus Pocus would be quite a different film in 2021, in the time of the #MeToo Movement, the Women’s Marches, and Black Lives Matter. Is there hope? Let’s see when Hocus Pocus 2 comes out next fall. In the meantime, don’t light any black flame candles.

 


Written by Kristin Jones, PhD, EdM, Outreach Supervisor

All ZCenter blog posts are written by state certified staff, interns, and volunteers. For questions on authorship or content, please email kjones@zcenter.org.

Boil, Boil, Toil, and Trouble: Nothing is Practical about Practical Magic

The Owens House

I have had a Pinterest board dedicated to Practical Magic since I saw it many, many years ago. The fashion, the hair, the HOUSE, I wanted that life. It was my dream to live my life on an island off the Massasschust coast, in that house, brewing and gardening. 

This is the story of a long line of witches. After being exiled to this island with her unborn child, Maria — an ancestor of the Owens sisters who are the main characters of the movie — casts a spell to stop herself from being able to fall in love because her lover never came for her. Shortly after, Maria falls dead from heartbreak and the curse is passed on through the generations. The men that the Owens women love are destined for death. 

The story picks up with the introduction of Sally and Gillian Owens. The two sisters  have recently moved to their ancestral house with their aunts because their father has suffered the fate of the curse and their mother has died of heartbreak. In this house, they are encouraged to do their magic, eat chocolate for breakfast, and to feel things profoundly. 

One night, a very upset woman comes to the door. She says that the love of her life loves another and she wants the aunts to cast a spell to make him love her. After watching this, Sally and Gillian react differently. Sally says that she hopes never to fall in love whereas Gillian can’t wait to fall in love. 

Flash forward and Gillian goes off into the world, leaving behind a string of broken hearts. Thanks to a boost from her aunt, Sally who vowed to never fall in love, but with a boost from her aunts, she falls in love with a local man and they have two daughters. Unfortunately, Sally is not immune to the curse; her husband ‘Michael dies and Sally moves back into the aunts’ house. 

Meanwhile Gillian is partying in Arizona, where she meets Jimmy Angelov. One night Gillian calls Sally in a panic; Jimmy has been abusing her and she needs Sally to come. Sally slips him too much Belladonna, and he dies. Rather than LEAVING HIM DEAD, they decide to cast a spell that tries to revive him (SPOILER: it does not work), and then the real antics begin. 

So what does it all mean? And how in the world is Practical Magic related to feminism and ending sexual violence? I think the best way to start is with the chant that is almost like a nursery rhyme in this town. It is so common that a group of elementary school students are singing it….“Witch, witch, you’re a b***h. To which Sally says, “You’d think in 200 years they would have time to come up with a better chant.” It shows that women outside the norm are typically viewed as witches, seductresses, and dangerous. Women who are strong, women who may not want children, women who love freely are viewed — and have been viewed through much of history — as witches and have suffered such fates as being burned alive. 

This movie clearly passes the Bechdel test, which determines how feminist a movie is. This test has three basic rules: it has to have at least two women in it, they have to talk to each other, and they have to discuss something besides a man. It seems like a pretty simple task, but you would be surprised by how few movies actually pass this test. 

As well, it shows us that there is more to being a femme-identifying person because you have the Aunts: one kind, one mischievous; you have Sally, calm and powerful; and then you have Gillian, liberated and loyal. This also works to create a movie of empowering female relationships. It is not that these women do not fight with each other (oh, they do). Rather than this movie making you go “ah women, so petty,” it shows you how strong the female-identifying bond can be. 

This bond is so crucial to the movie that when Gillian becomes the victim and survivor of Domestic Abuse, it is the sisterhood and the coven bond that protects her. And as October is Domestic Violence (DV) Awareness month, it is important to showcase how DV truly affects women. Practical Magic highlights this experience and shows Domestic Violence survivors who experience more than just physical abuse. 

So, where does this leave us? It leaves us with a movie that praises sisterhood and female bonds. It leaves us with hope that the magic inside of us does not make us evil or outcast, but rather we must find our own coven that respects and honors our magic. 

 


Written by Cassidy Herberth, Prevention and Education Specialist

All ZCenter blog posts are written by state certified staff, interns, and volunteers. For questions on authorship or content, please email kjones@zcenter.org.

 

https://www.stylist.co.uk/long-reads/practical-magic-sandra-bullock-nicole-kidman-feminism-90s-films-movies-witchcraft/187283

https://hellogiggles.com/reviews-coverage/movies/6-reasons-why-practical-magic-still-resonates-with-women/

https://www.brightwalldarkroom.com/2018/10/30/feminist-seductions-practical-magic/

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/practical_magic

Love is Stronger than Witchcraft: A Feminist Critique of 1942’s I Married a Witch

Author’s note: Although I refer to characters as men and women or male and female, I do not intend to uphold the false binary of man/woman. This is only a stylistic choice based on the beliefs and cultural milieu of 1942.


I Married a Witch (1942) is a rare fantasy/romantic comedy that gives us a glimpse of the patriarchy of the time alongside the agency of two female characters. We meet Jennifer,* a 17th Century witch, killed in a witch burning by local Puritan authorities. She and her father remain trapped in a tree’s roots for nearly 300 years, only to escape and meet Wooley, the descendant of the man who murdered them. Jennifer tries to seduce Wooley for payback, knowing his wedding is the next day. In a mixup with a potion, Jennifer becomes the one enamored and falls deeply in love with Wooley. Estelle, Wooley’s fiancée, ends up leaving Wooley at the altar after her father attempted to force her into the marriage; Jennifer wins her man only after her own father tries to interfere.

“Any man who marries, marries the wrong woman.”

What struck me initially about the film was the patriarchy bordering on misogyny. Daniel, Jennifer’s father, claims that “Any man who marries, marries the wrong woman.”  We also see that Wooley’s fiancée, Estelle, is labeled as a shrew for not smiling and not being complacent and weak; she also asks Wooley to stop smoking and drinking at various points in the film, obviously not the actions of the ideal meek and complacent housewife. Both female characters are told by their fathers who they can or cannot marry; Estelle is nearly forced to marry Wooley and Jennifer’s father takes away her powers to stop her from marrying him. Women are the property of men, whether it is their father or their husband, and that property is only referred to as girl. Wooley himself refers to both Jennifer and Estelle as girls

“That’s a good girl … Poor little girl, all alone in the world.”

Is the patriarchy just a sign of the times, a leftover from when the norm was to see women as second-class citizens? I don’t think we should overlook the patriarchy, nor the oppression, not when so many lives are impacted. The only person of color in the entire film is a slave from a flashback to the Revolutionary War. White privilege is normalized and never questioned. There also is no responsibility taken for generational oppression. Wooley is portrayed as “the good guy” with no acknowledgment from his character nor the film about how his ancestor burned witches. All of his wealth and socioeconomic status are built on the oppression of others.

Despite this context, we do see some agency from the female characters. In a world where white men hold all political and economic control, where women’s lives are controlled by men’s decisions, the two female characters still find some agency. Jennifer and Estelle’s fathers both try to control who they marry, yet both women are able to forge their own matrimonial path. Estelle walks out of her own wedding ceremony and Jennifer chooses to marry Wooley despite her father’s meddling. By the end of the film, we see Jennifer’s ultimate act of agency; she traps her father’s spirit in a bottle while she enjoys building a family with Wooley.

But we also see that Jennifer and Estelle internalize this oppression. Jennifer’s immediate concern once she is back in a human body is her appearance. She wants to make sure her appearance pleases Wooley. In the final scene, Jennifer and Wooley’s daughter plays on a broom, much to the disappointment of the housekeeper. Jennifer says, “I’m afraid we’re going to have trouble with her someday.” She herself had agency to make her own choices, but chastises her own daughter for claiming that same agency and finding joy in a tool of witchcraft. The film ends with Jennifer knitting while children encircle her. The acceptability of a powerful woman into fine society comes at a price. She must trade in her broom for needles, serving those around her as she knits them sweaters rather than flying through the night sky.

“I must start learning to be a good housewife … I’ll try so hard to be a good wife.” 

In a rare moment of clarity, the film hints at the importance of consent. Wooley forces water into Jennifer’s mouth when she has passed out and his friend offhandedly comments that “You should never force liquids on a person who is unconscious.” Writers were 80 years ahead of the tea video.

“You should never force liquids on a person who is unconscious.”

Jennifer gets what she wants in the end: marriage, children, and domestic quietude. But at what cost? She repeatedly claims that “love is stronger than witchcraft,” but it was her witchcraft that allowed her to have agency, powers, and choices. She could speak her mind as a witch. She could fly on broomsticks and light fires merely by speaking. She gave all of that up to “be a good housewife.” 

Had I been alive at the time, would I have gone to opening night of I Married a Witch on October 30, 1942? Of course. I would have made it a date night too, because love is stronger than witchcraft. But if there is a love that confronts oppression, racism, patriarchy, misogyny, and lack of consent, then maybe I’d rather have that love.

 


Written by Kristin Jones, PhD, EdM, Outreach Supervisor.

All ZCenter blog posts are written by state certified staff, interns, and volunteers. For questions on authorship or content, please email kjones@zcenter.org.

 

*The name Jennifer was not in use in the 17th Century, but we will forgive the writers who did not have Google at their fingertips in 1942.

A Nightmare on Elm Street … from a Feminist Perspective

Let’s face it. It is spooky season. Spooky season differs from fall since it doesn’t focus on apple picking, cozy outfits, and green leaves turning orange giving us that Halloween Town vibe. Instead, spooky season focuses on scary corn mazes, experiencing terror, and temperatures dropping while the sky becomes more and more gray. Overall, fear becomes heightened, yet exciting. The most popular part of spooky season is Halloween movies. We are not talking about Edward Scissorhands, Corpse Bride, Casper, and Hocus Pocus. The Halloween movies we ARE talking about are those such as Halloween, Friday the 13th, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Exorcist, The Amityville Horror, and so on. These movies are truly horror.

Why are horror movies created? What is the point? Believe it or not, we the people love horror. In fact, we turn to horror movies for many reasons. First, whether we know it or not, we love experiencing fear and disgust. Second, it gives us control over our anxiety. We get to choose to feel anxious and shift away from the anxiety we can not control. That is why horror movies were created and why we turn to them. It helps benefit us while entertaining us.

One of the most iconic horror movies of all time would be A Nightmare on Elm Street. This movie will forever be a classic since the plot is so original. It is not about a typical ghost, witch, or monster. Instead, it is about a child serial killer that preys on teenagers as they sleep, and in addition is able to kill them in reality. What makes this movie even more dreadful is that the serial killer, known as Freddy Krueger, is a burnt and disfigured man that has a hand with blades for fingers. 

A question that isn’t asked is how do we interpret this film from a femininist perspective? From a woman myself, this film is indirectly feminist. Though the film focuses on a “group” of teenagers, it really focuses on one particular character which is Nancy. Nancy doesn’t play the typical fearful and fragile female character. In fact (spoiler alert!), Nancy is the only character that is able to defeat Freddy Krueger and survives. Just like the famous Survivor slogan, Nancy was able to outwit, outplay, and outlast. Though Nancy was scared throughout the movie, which you can’t blame her for when you keep on experiencing abnormal encounters with this evil child serial killer in your dreams, we the audience are able to see her become more brave than her peers, which include your typical strong and courageous males, and become the leader. This contradicts society’s gender norms and stereotypes, and it is for that reason, this movie supports feminism by ending the film with a final girl who was brave enough to face her perpetrator. 

Now I don’t know if you have caught on to some of the words and expressions I have used before. For example, why do I keep referring Freddy Krueger to a child serial killer when he is killing teenagers? Why did I recently refer to Freddy Krueger as a perpetrator instead of a killer? The truth is (again spoiler alert!), Freddy Krueger was not only a child serial killer, but a child molester. Krueger had molested this group of teenagers when they were young, and as a consequence, the parents of these children sought revenge by burning Kreuger alive. Since such trauma had occurred during a young age, the parents all decided it was best to not talk about what had happened to their children with their children which then led to repression of those memories within the teenagers. At first the teenagers don’t understand why they are being tormented by Krueger and what made them deserve it. However, throughout the movie Nancy and friend Quentin unravel the truth that Krueger is not taunting them for no reason, but is seeking vengeance for what the parents did to him by killing their children one by one. 

For that reason, it leads us to ask the question of how does the film portray consent and/or sexual assault? In the 2010 version of A Nightmare of Elm Street, both consent and sexual assault were taken very seriously. Consent can not be given if one is younger than 17 years old, and in this case, they were definitely not in high school but in preschool. What also angered the parents is that the sexual assault came from a man they thought was trustworthy. Krueger was the preschool’s groundskeeper that was loved and adored by many of the children. No one would suspect he had a dark, sinister side to him. Due to that, the parents took this situation seriously. I mean they literally tortured the man by burning him alive because he broke their trust by intruding on their children’s innocence. Regardless of whether the child was a girl or a boy, social or shy, rich or poor, sexual assault is sexual assault in the eyes of these parents. Now when it comes to the parents handling the situation correctly, that’s a different discussion. 

What does A Nightmare on Elm Street teach us about survivors? Well the film demonstrates the parents taking justice into their own hands. Even though survivors and those close to the survivor do deserve justice, one must achieve it morally and ethically, unlike what the parents did. The parents had the right intentions, yet killing someone is not the best solution. Also, trying to help your child repress their memory isn’t always going to give you as the parent the best outcome. You see when a person with repressed memories starts to think more and more about the past, the truth will slowly reveal itself, just like it did with Nancy and Quentin. The parents thought they were protecting their kids but really they are becoming traumatized. They are being traumatized by both having to deal with Kreuger and learning about the past. When it comes to repressed memories, it works in three ways: 1. If you don’t want to know more, you don’t think about it, 2. If you want to remember, you try to think more about it, 3. Some memories are brought up because the brain thinks you’re ready. This goes back to the first question which is what does it teach us about survivors. It teaches us to always put your (the parents, in this case) thoughts and opinions aside and put the survivor first. If the survivor doesn’t want to talk about it, then don’t force anything. Yet, if the survivor wants to learn more about what happened, which is what we see in the film, then you should be able to share with them. You can’t determine what is best for the survivor. If they are or are not ready, is it up to the survivor.

In conclusion, from a feminist point of view A Nightmare on Elm Street is a great horror film. It has characters that don’t follow the typical gender norms, parents that never doubted their children, and proves that facing your fear can be empowering. So the next time you watch A Nightmare of Elm Street, don’t focus on how scary Krueger was, but more how sick. Don’t focus on how scared these teenagers were, but how brave. It takes a lot of courage to face your perpetrator.

 


Written by Viviana Huerta, Advocacy Services Coordinator.

All ZCenter blog posts are written by state certified staff, interns, and volunteers. For questions on authorship or content, please email kjones@zcenter.org.

https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/spooky-season-is-here

https://nautil.us/issue/95/escape/why-horror-films-are-more-popular-than-ever

The Modern Person’s Guide to Rom-Coms: Can You Be a Intersectional Feminist Who Likes Romantic Comedies?

You may have heard the theory: If you think of a red car, you will start seeing red cars everywhere. Well, that is actually a psychological theory. It is called the Baader Meinhof Theory, and it has to do with frequency bias. This means that the minute you learn or think of something, your brain will start zeroing in on that specific thing. So, if you think of red cars, all the red cars that your brain that were blocked out originally, will now become the first thing that your brain picks up on. 

Now, what does this have to do with feminism and romantic comedies? My response to you is everything. How can you exist in the world when you finally become aware of all the problems and faults? This is a big question, so in today’s article, we are just keeping it to enjoying romantic comedies as an intersectional feminist. Can you, as a person who believes in gender equality, watch the societally proclaimed “chick flicks” that most times do not accurately represent the world? I doubt I will come to an answer in this blog, but there is some point in trying.

Let’s start with the statistics and facts so we know what we are up against. Romantic comedies tend to be extremely heterosexual. They often depict a man and a woman who adhere to the traditional roles of the gender binary. What this means is that gender non-conforming and queer people do not get to see themselves on the screen, or in love, or being a whole complete character. For example, GLAAD (the largest media advocacy organization for LGBTQ+ individuals) released a report that stated of the 118 movies that were released by what is deemed one of the major movie studios (think Universal Pictures, Paramount Pictures, Warner Bros. Pictures, Walt Disney Pictures and Columbia Pictures), only 18.6% of those movies had characters that identified as Queer. Now this includes all movies from all genres. Therefore, we can only assume how slim this percentage is in the romantic comedies section. As well, Queer folks in movies and media are still what society deems as conventionally attractive. They have clear skin, slim bodies, look high fashion, and most importantly many of these characters are White, which in effect, erases Queer People of Color. 

Our next, but equally as important problem, is that romantic comedies often have White men and women as the stars of the show. People of Color love too and they deserve to grow up seeing themselves on the screen that shows that love story. Movies like Love and Basketball, Tortilla Soup, Always Be My Maybe, Bend It Like Beckham, The Last Holiday, Queen and Slim, Malcolm and Marie, and so many more are movies that changed the genre of romantic comedies and yet we still only have a romantic comedy featuring People of Color every few years. It is very rare that People of Color are accurately portrayed in these movies because the people behind the cameras tend to be White people. 

Overall, story lines tell us that the only people who are worthy of having a romantic love like what we see in these movies are people who are White, Upper Class, Attractive, Skinny, and Straight, which pretty much erases a majority of the population. 

So, why do we keep doing it to ourselves? Why do we tear up when Julia Roberts stands in front of Hugh Grant and says “I am just a girl standing in front of a boy asking him to love her.” Why do we cheer when the cold, calculating businesswoman falls in love with the dog walker (nothing wrong with being a dog walker, they just always seem to be the main male character’s occupation). Finally, why do we root for a love that doesn’t actually represent us? Because the idea of love and being in love is something that is so universal that we seem willing to take it any way we can. So how can we, as modern, intersectional feminists, continue to watch romantic comedies while also being aware of all that they are? 

I love romantic comedies. It shocks a lot of people when I say this because I may not seem like the “chick flick type” but I do. In a world that is very unpredictable, the predictable world of romantic comedies soothes me. Or at least it used to. The more and more that I continue to learn about the world, the less I am able to enjoy things, albeit many things: music, movies, art, or anything. But as a product of the world, how do we take the good with the bad? The first step would be to continue to educate ourselves, so that we better understand the stereotypes in movies and how they harm us and the people we surround ourselves with. It is important to make sure we are continually addressing our own internal bias towards certain groups and recognize that the stereotypes in the film do not encompass all that a group of people are. As well, in a world that is constantly evolving we, ourselves must evolve as well. That means that we start to boycott movies that we just cannot stand for. For example, those movies that were directed by Woody Allen, produced by Harvey Weinstein, or acted in by Kevin Spacey. 

Like many things, it is our duty and job to help shift the culture so that it is more inclusive and more representative of the world that we are living in. So yes, as a modern, intersectional feminist you can enjoy romantic comedies, but you also have to be critical of them. Make sure that you are actively working to counteract the misogyny of many of these movies.

As Noah expresses in the Notebook, “So it’s not gonna be easy. It’s gonna be really hard. We’re gonna have to work at this every day, but I want to do that because I want you. I want all of you, forever, you and me, every day.” This is how I feel about romantic comedies as a feminist. 

 


Written by Cassidy Herberth (She/they), Education and Prevention Specialist.

All ZCenter blog posts are written by state certified staff, interns, and volunteers. For questions on authorship or content, please email kjones@zcenter.org.

 

“GLAAD’S 2020 STUDIO RESPONSIBILITY INDEX: HIGHEST RECORDED PERCENTAGE OF LGBTQ-INCLUSIVE FILMS BUT RACIAL DIVERSITY DROPS AND ZERO TRANSGENDER CHARACTERS APPEAR”. GLAAD, 2020, https://www.glaad.org/releases/glaad%E2%80%99s-2020-studio-responsibility-index-highest-recorded-percentage-lgbtq-inclusive-films.

 

Guzzo, Bianca. “The Modern Girl And Romantic Comedies”. 29Secrets, 2019, https://29secrets.com/pop-culture/the-modern-girl-and-romantic-comedies/.

 

Klooster, Grace. “How Modern Day Romantic Comedies Are Portraying Women”. Ncclinked, 2017, https://ncclinked.com/2017/09/15/modern-day-romantic-comedies/.

 

Rose, Sundi. “A Feminist’S Guide To Modern Rom-Coms”. Culturess, 2019, https://culturess.com/2019/05/28/feminist-guide-to-modern-rom-coms/.

Is This a Cat Fight?: Why is Hollywood always pitting powerful women against each other?

Nicki vs. Miley. Katy vs. Taylor. Joan vs. Bette. Elizabeth vs. Debbie. These are only some of the more famous female feuds of Hollywood. It seems that one of the narratives that is constantly plaguing the women of Hollywood, and the rest of the female population, is the one where women are constantly pitted against one another. Their whole narrative is surrounded by the fact that there cannot be more than one powerful woman in Hollywood. Now, why do we keep pitting women against each other? Rather than celebrating the successes, tabloids and news sites keep talking about how these women “despise each other.” The answer is too long for this post, but the short quick answer would be misogyny, the patriarchy, and beauty standards.

Oftentimes, when asked about these “famous feuds,” Hollywood women tell us that they are simply stories written by tabloids who are trying to sell a product. When asked about her feud with Brittany Spears, Christian Aguilera said, “It must have seemed as if we were competing with each other, but, in reality, Britney is someone that I used to hold hands with.” It seems that oftentimes these feuds do not actually exist, but are rather there to remind women of their place in the Hollywood world. 

So, why do it? Why does this narrative continue to break through the feminism of today? Well one of the reasons may be the narrative that women are simple vessels of desire. Meaning, their importance goes only as far as their looks. Therefore, it may seem impertinent to be the most beautiful person in the room. The result of this is that other women are viewed as competition. Someone you must beat out for that product endorsement, commercial, movie, show, and award. 

At the same time, another reason could be that at one point, like with many marginalized groups, there was only allowed to be a certain number. You wanted to be the one woman in the office, in the movies, in the “boys club,” and you had to make sure that no other female identifying person could beat you out of the running for that. As argued by the Harvard Business Review, “women see that there is one spot at the table, and are willing to do anything to keep that role. This burden is doubled, tripled, quadrupled for women of color, who experience being marginalized because of their skin color and their gender identity, therefore often being looked over.”

So, what do we do now? Well the first step is to stop pitting famous women against each other. Brittany and Christina are two different people, so why do we keep comparing them? The second step is to recognize, as Forbes writer Shelley Zalis puts it, women have more power when they are in a pack. That when we are mentoring women, supporting women, and showing that women are strong, we increase the amount of women in the workforce and place them in jobs of power. 

It is important that young people growing up today have the chance to see that women have more narratives, stories, and interests surrounding them than whoever they are “fighting” with; that there is more to young women than just the looks and beauty that they offer. 

I guess, in the end, it isn’t a cat fight, just a dog-eat-dog world. 


Written by Cassidy Herberth, Education and Prevention Specialist.

All ZCenter blog posts are written by state certified staff, interns, and volunteers. For questions on authorship or content, please email kjones@zcenter.org. 

 

Kiner, M., 2021. It’s Time to Break the Cycle of Female Rivalry. [online] Harvard Business Review. Available at: <https://hbr.org/2020/04/its-time-to-break-the-cycle-of-female-rivalry>.

 

Mehta, D., 2021. Does Patriarchy Divide Women: The Importance Of Solidarity. [online] Feminism In India. Available at: <https://feminisminindia.com/2019/02/04/patriarchy-divide-women-solidarity/> [Accessed 26 August 2021].

 

Thrills, A., 2008. ‘Britney? I wish her all the best… honest!’ Christina Aguilera calls time on one of pop’s bitterest feuds. [online] Mail Online. Available at: <https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1083708/Britney-I-wish-best–honest-Christina-Aguilera-calls-time-pops-bitterest-feuds.htm> [Accessed 26 August 2021].

Zalis, S., 2019. Power Of The Pack: Women Who Support Women Are More Successful. [online] Forbes. Available at: <https://www.forbes.com/sites/shelleyzalis/2019/03/06/power-of-the-pack-women-who-support-women-are-more-successful/> [Accessed 26 August 2021].

Jennifer’s Body and the Feminine Revenge Trope Hollywood Has Been Missing Out

In a small town in Minnesota, there lives a teenage girl named Jennifer Check. She is popular, attractive, and reckless. Her best friend, Anita “Needy” Lesnicki, is the opposite and serves to show just how wild Jennifer is. One night after a concert, Jennifer leaves with the band. The band wants power, fame, and riches. In order to achieve this, they agree to sacrifice Jennifer to Satan but not before confirming she is, of course, a virgin. She lies and says she is, which results in a catastrophe for the town. Now, possessed by a demon who is only satisfied by eating human flesh, Jennifer begins a rampage against the boys in her town by enticing them with sex and then killing them. Jennifer’s Body redefined the genre of horror, comedy, and what it means to be a young woman in the world. It only took 12 years, but this movie is finally getting the recognition it deserves. 

When Jennifer’s Body, starring Megan Fox and Amanda Seyfried, first premiered in 2009, it did awful in the box office. It had a budget of $16 million dollars and it made about that much. It was so awful, in fact, that the Chicago Tribune labeled it a “gruesome paint-by-bloody-numbers succubus story.” I was only nine years old when the movie first premiered, so I did not get to watch it. But I remember my friend’s older sister did. She loved it. We sat around the kitchen table as she recounted a story about a young woman who was sexualized and vilified (but of course being nine we did not know what this meant, rather it was her strength and sense of self), but rather than let herself be defined by others, she was reclaiming the labels of “slut” and “sex.” It would be another 6 years until I would watch the movie for myself, but it was everything I needed to hear at that moment. 

It is only recently that the cult following of Jennifer’s Body has grown. While in quarantine, many people have been going back and watching movies that came out in the early 2000s, such as Jennifer’s Body, and people got to talking about how overlooked it was. They realized that this movie was not awful; it was just marketed to the wrong crowd at the wrong time. And the actors knew that this is what the movie had coming. When asked about the movie Megan Fox said, “I am on display for men to pay to look at me.” Vox writer, Constance Grady writes that this was a movie that was targeted towards young teen boys by offering up sexualized images of Megan Fox on the poster and on the trailer. Rather than be a “sexy movie” for teenage boys, the director offers this as an explanation of who this movie is for and what it is about:

“This movie is a commentary on girl-on-girl hatred, sexuality, the death of innocence, and politics, in the way the town responds to the tragedies [of the bloody deaths of several young men]. Any person who dares to respond in an unconventional way is branded a traitor.”  -Diablo Cody

So what does all this mean? Why should we care that a movie like Jennifer’s body is finally getting the recognition that it deserves? Well, it shows us that we are not alone. That when a group of men want to sacrifice the body of a woman so that they can gain more power and sway, that we have the power to tell that story, when we want and how we want. That when men see women as disposable, as there for them to use and discard (like what we often see in Hollywood), there is a chance at a beacon of hope. It also shows how the movie industry works and who is dictating what a “successful movie” is. Because to 9-year-old, 15-year-old, and 20-year-old Cassidy Herberth, Jennifer’s Body is the movie that was successful. It was a movie that changed everything. It was a movie that said, “you know what, you are not alone.”

Jennifer’s Body tells the story, albeit a horror story, about a young girl who is discovering what it means to be both a victim and a survivor. It is a story that was ahead of its time, but it is still not as widely recognized as it should be. Jennifer’s Body tells the story of many people out there, and I, for one, hope there is only more to come.

 


Written by Cassidy Herberth, Education and Prevention Specialist.

All ZCenter blog posts are written by state certified staff, interns, and volunteers. For questions on authorship or content, please email kjones@zcenter.org. 

 

Peitzman, L., 2021. You Probably Owe “Jennifer’s Body” An Apology. [online] Buzzfeednews.com. Available at: <https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/louispeitzman/jennifers-body-diablo-cody-karyn-kusama-feminist-horror>.

Grady, C., 2021. How Jennifer’s Body went from a flop in 2009 to a feminist cult classic today. [online] Vox. Available at: <https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/10/31/18037996/jennifers-body-flop-cult-classic-feminist-horror> [Accessed 17 August 2021].

IMDb. 2021. Jennifer’s Body (2009) – IMDb. [online] Available at: <https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1131734/plotsummary> [Accessed 17 August 2021].

Hirschberg, L., 2021. The Self-Manufacture of Megan Fox (Published 2009). [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: <https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/magazine/15Fox-t.html> [Accessed 17 August 2021].

Translate »