Rashida Jones and Her Documentary "Hot Girls Wanted"

I haven't posted in over a year (I said this blog would be random -- I meant both in subject and time, apparently), but I feel this needs to be commented upon, so here I am.

I saw Rashida Jones​'s documentary "Hot Girls Wanted," and I have to say that I was not impressed. That said, this interview makes up for it. Jones makes some very crucial points here that I feel were lost in the process of the documentary production. It's definitely worth the watch.



The treatment of sexuality Jones gives in this interview is bright and accepting, but it also serves as a cautionary tale against sexualization and explains the difference between the concepts. I only wish that this message could have come through more strongly in the documentary, which to me came across a little too much like a conservative news piece about "the destruction of our country's morals," and unfortunately, I'm not the only one who has felt as much about it. This interview makes up for that and allows Jones to put much needed context to her work. I'm actually interested in rewatching it, now fueled with the director's perspective.

I do have one point of disagreement with something Jones says in this interview, however. Jones states here that we were basically presented with a new level of sexualization without first having a "conversation" about it. This -- her documentary, her interview, my reaction to it -- is part of that cultural conversation. We're having it now. Culture evolves through a push and pull between exportable thought and the people who utilize it. We're on the right track with this "conversation," I think, but there are a few points I'd like to make as an anthropologist about how I think we've arrived at this point which may help us direct ourselves in the future:

1. Feminism did it. I'd say that Jones is 100% correct in her assessment that the growth and normalization of the porn industry and the sexualization of popular culture is a direct result and outgrowth of feminism and the sexual revolution (a revolution that, I argue, is not a thing of the past but is something still happening, still active). This development, honestly, could have been predicted (and, in some cases, was) by observing trends in human behavior in the US across the last century. That's not a bad thing, just a predictable thing. As she points out, it was an inevitability, but I argue that the particular shape that this development has taken is due to a particular constraining factor that is still very much active in our culture in determining how we deal with the very concept of sexuality, which brings me to my next point:

2. Christianity did it. The part of the puzzle that many are missing is the religious angle. We live in a culture (the West) that was formulated by and continues to be shaped by Christianity. To ignore it's influence on our culture's attitudes regarding sex would be a mistake. So how does Christianity, with its rather prudish approach to sex, create the type of sexualization we are seeing? The somewhat oversimplified answer is that Christian culture has eradicated the tools we, as a species, need to cope with sex and sexuality. The active pursuit of dualistic and ascetic thought in Christianity created a culture which abhors the very nature of the animal, seeking "loftier" thought and action through negation of our baser instincts. By eliminating the mental toolset needed to process sexual thought and action, we've set ourselves up for failure -- for rape, the sexualization of children, and a further disconnect between our bodies and our minds. The need to understand the difference between sexuality and sexualization, between being a whole person and being an object, is paramount, and that brings me to by final point:

3. We did it. We have ignored ourselves for far too long. We ignore the basic reality that we are sexual beings and replace that understanding of ourselves with a sense of objectification and possession that is unhealthy at best. We infantilize our children -- it's a defining factor of Western culture -- actively denying their existence as human beings with developing sexualities and understandings of themselves, and yet simultaneously subject them to a sense of sexualization so disconnected from its nature that they are left feeling like objects, ashamed and confused over who and what they are. The truth we ignore is that even children are sexual beings. We don't like to think about it because of our aforementioned cultural hangups related to sex, but it is true. And instead of exposing our children to healthy attitudes regarding sexual thought and behavior, we teach them a duality of shame and abuse surrounding their bodies and sex, a system that encourages rape culture, objectification and possession of another's body, and a level of despondency and depression regarding themselves as sexual beings that ultimately results in the vast majority of body image issues we see afflicting our culture today.

So how do we fix it? We're doing that. It's not a quick process. This "conversation" is the method to achieve a better, more unified humanity. Our culture *needs* to talk about sex, not villainize the conversation (I'm looking at you, news outlets). We need to eliminate the taint of social conservatism that teaches us that sex is "wrong," that women are somehow "less," and that young men are beasts lacking self control. We must actively seek to change the status quo through acceptance and not shame, through education and not objectification, through sexuality and not sexualization. Our freedom as sexual beings depends on it.

Ruyn's Political Quip of the Day

Or not.

So, yeah... I just heard the phrase "environmentalist agenda" 4 times today. I'm not sure, but I don't think I've heard it before (at least not in that context). Maybe I've been living under a rock. I don't know. But here's my thing: environmentalism, conservationism, etc. should not be wrapped up in bipartisan shit. It's something everyone should support, regardless of politics. It's the realm of SCIENCE, people, not popular celebrity gossip or religious beliefs. If you CAN'T understand science, then don't TRY to understand it. I'm just saying you should know your limits. If the back of the cereal box is the most advanced literature you've read since the 12th grade (or in some cases, ever), then perhaps science isn't your thing. Scientific data doesn't need to be interpreted by the same people who watch Honey Boo Boo (much less the people actually on the show), but then again, neither does politics.

Oh, and this (not that I always agree with Jon Stewart or anything, just thought it was relevant):

The Truth About “Merry Christmas” and “Happy Holidays” from a Non-Christian

Those of you who know me well know I'm in no way, shape, or form a Christian. It may surprise you to learn, however, that I really don't mind it when people wish me a “Merry Christmas.”

The media wants you to think that there’s a great deal of controversy over these two words, but I’m here to clear the air a bit. There’s not. The truth is, like most things in this country, all of the fighting is being done by extremists on both sides who together only make up approximately 1% of the total population of our nation. But that 1% is loud, obnoxious, and generally wealthy, no matter what side they’re on. So what is the result? A forced and imaginary schism formulated as a “War on Christmas.”

I apologize in advance to the “War on Christmas” folks, but “Happy Holidays,” for me, at least, has never really meant anything other than a shortened version of “Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.” These are the “holidays” that are represented in that statement for me, not some sort of “inclusive statement of the liberal agenda,” whatever that means. “Happy Holidays” has been in existence for at least the 27 years of the last 30 that I can remember, and that’s what it has always meant to me. It’s not ANTI-Christmas; It IS Christmas.

So now we get to the heart of the article: How do I feel when people wish me a “Merry Christmas?” It doesn't bother me at all. 99.9% of the time, when people say these two little words, it's a completely innocent, truly joyous wish for you and yours. They aren't being maliciously inconsiderate, and knowing that, I never take it that way. They generally just don't consider that you may not celebrate the holiday, but that’s not so surprising when you examine the statistics.

While only 78.4% of people in the US identify as Christian, 94.6% of Americans celebrate Christmas. Consider those numbers for a moment. Now consider that only 48.7% of those that actually celebrate Christmas attach any religious significance to the holiday. That means that the general assumption from a holiday well-wisher can be that, if you’re American, you celebrate Christmas. From the point of view of the recipient of such holiday greetings, there's less than a 50% chance that the greeter meant anything religious by their greeting. There’s no real reason to get visibly upset or, even worse, violent and abusive when someone wishes you a “Merry Christmas.”

While I understand for the small minority of us that don’t celebrate Christmas and also celebrate other winter holidays that the Christmas season can feel a bit isolating, it isn't fair for us to expect the Average Joe to ask each and every person they meet “what holiday are you celebrating this winter?” Equally so, for those of religions that, like my own, follow a lunar calendar, if someone goes through the effort of wishing you a “Joyous [insert lunar holiday here]” and the holiday has passed or is a month away (which is the nature of lunar calendars), don’t get upset that they got it wrong. Be happy they made the effort. I don’t expect people to tell me “Mo’ed ha’Urim Samecha,” because, let’s face it, even if they knew to say it, they probably wouldn't know how to say it, much less on what days it fell. So even though I don’t celebrate Chanukah, when people wish me a “Happy Chanukah,” it’s close enough, and I’m happy they made the effort.

Now the question is: Should you correct them in any case? It depends on how well you know them and how you do the “correcting.” If you’re going to correct someone about the holiday you celebrate, remember: They intended no malice. If you come back at them snappy or angry, you’re more likely to seriously hurt their feelings, which isn’t fair considering that they only accidentally upset you. Instead, if it’s a stranger, just say “Thank you. You too.” Simple as that. Sure, maybe you don’t believe what they do, but it’s a hell of a lot better than making your entire religion look like a bunch of oversensitive delicate flowers or a bunch of intolerant totalitarian assholes. If you know the person, then I’m sure you can think of a way to handle the situation delicately, so as to not hurt their feelings. Just keep in mind, most people don’t want a detailed description of, for instance, why you celebrate Yule and not Christmas and that are a Germanic pagan and not a Christian or why you celebrate Mo’ed ha’Urim and not Chanukah and how you’re an orecha and not a Jew. The average person probably doesn't even see the difference. Don’t get offended, as I said; just be happy they made the effort!

Realistically, you can wish people whatever you want to wish them. If you know their religion, it should be easy. If you don’t, then do an assessment of the area. If you’re in a predominantly Jewish area, like the Toco Hills area or Atlanta, GA, for example, then more than likely you’ll do well with “Happy Chanukah” during that season (which was around Thanksgiving this year). If you’re anywhere else, “Merry Christmas” is probably the statistically appropriate choice. Equally so, you could always just wish them a joyous whatever holiday you celebrate. It’s an interesting conversation starter if you follow a more rare religious tradition. The other alternative, and one I happen to prefer, is simply to wish them a “Happy Hunger Games, and may the odds be ever in your favor!”