The World We Live In

When we think of personality traits, we find a gender divide in the words most often used to describe typically cis-male and cis-female people. In terms of positive adjectives, men are strong, confident, competitive, brave, unrelenting, stoic, and unemotional. Women are soft, kind, nurturing, compassionate, empathic, sensitive and modest. Obviously these are not universal characteristics, and certainly not truly gendered, but they fit a stereotypical and traditional value system.

The trend in women’s liberation has been to get women to embody more of the typically male positive traits. We encourage women to show less emotion, to be more confident, and to be more physically aggressive. This is, naturally, what women must to do succeed in a male dominated world. In order to play with the boys, you have to be able to act like them. In order to impress your male boss, you need to behave like an aggressive, hyper confident male. Men who embody more of the feminine characteristics, on the other hand, are expected to fall into the “nice guys finish last” bucket.

Let’s think for a moment about the world we live in, and the type of world we’d like to live in. Overall, the trend in human society has been to expand the segments of society to which basic human rights are granted, and then to expand the definition of basic human rights. These days, the only type of violence allowed against another human being is in the name of war or law. Even rape is (mostly) illegal, when once it was a natural spoil of war, much as slaves were.

Civilization is gradually moving from valuing “male” attributes to “female” ones. While we still place great emphasis on certain male traits, how much of that is due to the fact that men dominate the power structures of the world? As women gradually intersperse themselves into executive positions, and I do expect this to take centuries, perhaps we’ll come to live in an ever more compassionate, violence free society. In this future world, empathy and sensitivity are not bad words, and women and their “female” ways are valued as much as their male counterparts. In other words, it’s a world where nice guys and girls can succeed in life.

May The Fourth Be With You

I cannot count the number of times I watched Star Wars and its sequels when I was a teenager. As a girl who was also a fan, I took it for granted that women were not a major part of a science fiction narrative. Back then, everyone knew and accepted this. For a movie series that began in the mid-1970s in the USA, it’s not surprising that the movie is white male dominated, and features an archetypal hero story. If anything, much praise could be given to how progressive its treatment was of Leia in letting her participate in her rescue, and in giving her some power and agency as a political figure.

Nearly two decades later, George Lucas released the prequel trilogy. Once again, the primary characters in the story were white and male, but there were token figures of varied gender and ethnicity in the background. It was a step in the right direction. This week, the major stars of the next movie in the franchise were announced. A hue and cry instantly went up at the once again male dominated cast (at least this time one of the major players isn’t white). As always, there is one woman in the sea of men.

The cast list is definitely disappointing in its lack of women, but let’s pause for a minute and speculate on the plot. What if Daisy Ridley gets to play the protagonist of the new movie? In a post Buffy, CSI, and Katniss world, it’s clear that audiences are ready to watch women take the lead in fantasy, action, and science-fiction stories. J.J. Abrams himself delivered us Sidney Bristow, a character who could kill and cry and party with her BFF. Perhaps he will give us a pleasant surprise with his treatment of women in Star Wars: Episode VII, one which he has spectacularly failed to do with his reboot of the Star Trek franchise.

Another point of hope is that Star Wars is now a Disney franchise. Frozen is now the top grossing animated film of all time (not adjusting for inflation), and its protagonists are two sisters who end up saving each other. If we’re lucky, the studio has taken away the lesson that all audiences, boys, girls, men and women, will flock to a good story - even if it turns out to be all about girls. If we’re even luckier, this will influence the characterization and remaining casting of Episode VII.

Here’s the thing: in the rules of the Star Wars movie universe, the Force is the source of great power. There is absolutely no need for a person to be physically large or strong in order to prevail in combat (witness Luke Skywalker’s stature next to Darth Vader, or Obi-Wan next to Darth Maul). This begs the question, why couldn’t a woman be the strongest Jedi in the universe? Why couldn’t women be the principal actors in the story?

There are usually two types of responses to these questions. One is, “Who cares? It’s entertainment.” The other is of the, “Stop whining, girls. Be glad the boys are letting you in the movie at all,” variety. To the latter, I have no response because, well, I can’t think of how it deserves one.

To the former, however, I say that entertainment in the form of stories always sends a message to the consumer. People have been telling stories to each other, and especially to children, as far back as we know. Whether you like it or not, the Star Wars stories have become an iconic part of our cultural narrative, and they are sending a message to the audience that the story is never about the girl.

By now, the script is complete, and a major rewrite is unlikely. Switching the gender of the protagonist, especially after casting the role, is even more unlikely. All I can do is hope that the Force is strong with J.J. Abrams, Lawrence Kasdan, and Michael Arndt, and they have given Star Wars the heroine it deserves. The new movie is due out in December, 2015. Isn’t it about time we get to see a woman in the fullness of Jedi power?

Less Is More

Ah, suburbia, that wonderful invention for the average American which has gone so terribly wrong and yet so many still embrace. At a time when we are worrying about the future generation’s digital overload, we’re making such little effort to move away from this living structure that only perpetuates our physical isolation. Urban planners and visionaries have created some incredible ideas for solutions, but none seem to stick. We need to find a way to break free from the false promises of a home and a yard of one's own.

The people who fall the hardest for the suburban dream are usually families, or couples planning to start a family. If you’re going for the trifecta - a baby, a dog, and a lawn - the suburban tract home is still your easiest route. As someone with two of the three, however, I can tell you that this checklist is misleading at best and outright counter-productive at worst.

What families really need to raise strong, resilient, and independent children is a neighborhood and a sense of community. It really does take a village, and not necessarily one with separate, isolated huts fenced off from each other. The modern village would be a place with open, natural space that’s accessible by foot without having to navigate the same streets as cars driving 40 MPH. It’s a place where parents can be at home with their windows open to hear if someone’s child needs help. It’s a place with common areas for dogs to run, for people to grow flowers and vegetables and fruits, and for people to gather socially.

This might seem like too much to ask, but this was the original intention and promise of creating a suburban landscape. Along the way, however, we traded prestige in the form of ever more magnificent homes for land and community. We traded open spaces for giant roads. Even in planned neighborhoods with amazing parks, most people have to get in a car and drive their children or dogs to reach them. It’s quintessentially American to think that Bigger is Better, but perhaps it’s time to redefine that aspect of the American dream before we’re lost in a nightmare.

The digital world, which is the latest scapegoat for What’s Wrong With Kids Today, may end up being our salvation. If the promise of virtual reality can be translated to the working world without the pitfalls of the uncanny valley, parents could work effectively from home. This would alleviate traffic and the need for ever larger roads and faster cars. We could turn that extra space into communal open spaces for play, exercise and gardening. Always-on communication can ease the modern fears of sending children out on their own. It isn’t the same level of risk/reward that kids used to have, but at least they could be free to play without the immediacy of adult eyes.

We are in the middle of a great social experiment, and the coming decades will show us the consequences of virtual versus physical socialization. More than likely, the kids will be alright no matter what path we take, and humanity will survive because we are an inventive species with a great tenacity for life. That said, the increasing signal in the noise of the internet indicates a dissatisfaction with suburban family life in its current form. If change must come, let it be in a direction that brings us closer to each other even as we find it ever harder to tear our eyes away from a screen.