In honor of the Clothesline Project, the Office for Violence Prevention and Victim Assistance (VPVA) transformed the Campus Quad into a memorial ground on September 21, 2023. Shirts of various colors hung from clothing lines strung between wooden poles, each emblazoned with a message handcrafted by students with the victims of interpersonal violence in mind. The Clothesline Project, which began in the 1990s on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, is a visible display that honors survivors and victims of sexual and/or physical violence. As a national event, the project also raises awareness about the various types of violence that people in campus communities have experienced.

“The Clothesline Project can be very healing for survivors, and I’m open to any way in which I can offer healing,” says Laura Luciano, Director of Rutgers-Camden’s VPVA since 2017. “[It’s] understanding that there is a process to healing, and if you’re a survivor, you can make a shirt one year, and what you put out then might be very different from the next year because you’ve changed and grown, and you’re in a different place with it.”

Each shirt color—white, yellow, red, pink, orange, blue, green, purple, and black—represents a group of victims. Yellow, for instance, represents victims or survivors of sexual harassment, while green speaks to victims or survivors of military sexual trauma. These shirts are arranged in piles on tables, alongside fabric-compatible gel paint that students then use to write messages of support, either to themselves or to a victim or survivor they know. One red shirt cries, “BELIEVE AND SUPPORT MALE SURVIVORS,” while a blue one tells survivors, “Don’t feel shame.”

Luciano notes that, occasionally, she’ll have a student who’s eager to write a message, but secretly. In such instances, she lends a shirt and some paint supplies to them, so long as they promise that they’ll return the supplies once they’ve completed the project. She tries to make it accessible to everyone so “people can participate in a way that feels most comfortable and safest for them.” All students are invited to make a shirt, though Luciano admits that this open policy runs the risk of attracting students “who just want to have an arts and crafts moment,” consequently undercutting the project’s mission of honoring survivors’ voices as such students often produce “generic messages.” Moreover, information explaining the project’s purpose is clearly displayed for anyone who would prefer to simply observe the display.  

“It’s powerful for the community and also survivors, who recognize that they aren’t alone,” says Luciano, speaking on the project’s impact. “Every shirt is different, and every shirt can have an impact on someone. Some shirts are very angry, some are very sad, and some are hopeful—there’s a message for everyone and the potential to be impacted.” 

The project has been consistently observed on the Rutgers-Camden campus since 2014/15, two years before the VPVA was established on campus. Prior to 2014, the clothesline from Rutgers-New Brunswick—where Luciano initially worked as Assistant Director—was transported to the Camden campus each year. Per Luciano’s testimony, it was the Student Nurses’ Association that began hosting the project before the VPVA’s institution on the Camden campus, pointing again to the legacy of student self-advocacy on the Camden campus. “It was consistent because people wanted to host it,” says Luciano.  

Kaseem Edwards, a business management major with a Spanish minor who volunteered to set up the project with Luciano, underscores the importance of this project being planted on the Camden campus, too. “I’m glad they’re doing it at RU-C [Rutgers-Camden], because stuff [interpersonal violence] like this exists, and I’m glad that the university recognizes there’s a support system on campus to help you with whatever you need for situations like these.”

Indeed, Luciano highlights that the VPVA exists for such a mandate—to support survivors in whatever ways they need. Through the facilitation of on-campus events, the VPVA strives to prevent interpersonal violence by raising awareness—educating students on what healthy communication in healthy relationships looks like, for example—and encouraging bystander intervention through Up2Us, a community-based approach to stopping crimes before they happen by empowering students to safely interfere if sexual and/or physical violence occurs while they are witnesses.  When violence cannot be prevented, the VPVA also provides direct support to students who have had such traumatic experiences through a 24-hour crisis response, ongoing counseling and support, and both legal and medical advocacy. VPVA exists, as Luciano stresses, to help students make “informed decisions” for “what makes most sense in [their] lives.”

“My hope is that survivors know they will be believed and supported, and there is a place for them to come for support,” Luciano expresses. “My hope is that I am not the only support person—that if you tell a friend, a peer, or a professor, you will be met with the same support and care wherever you go.”

If you have experienced violence of any kind in your relationships and would like to speak with someone, call 856-225-2326 or make an appointment at vpva.camden.rutgers.edu.

Happy

0 0 %

Sad

0 0 %

Excited

0 0 %

Sleepy

0 0 %

Angry

0 0 %

Surprise

0 0 %

WARNING: Spoilers ahead!

It all began with a doll in a bathing suit. 

At least, that’s what Barbie tells us. 

In a fictional retelling of the history of playing with dolls, Stereotypical Barbie, played by Margot Robbie (Harley Quinn, The Suicide Squad) is beamed down, like an alien, from the sky. In the classic striped, strapless bathing suit, she instantly disrupts the girlhood tradition of playing with baby dolls. Thus, a new time is born—and out of it, Barbie Land, a fictional utopia where Barbies of all kinds live in peace and harmony. There’s President Barbie, played by Insecure creator Issa Rae, and Nobel-Prize-in-Physics-winner Barbie, played by Death on the Nile’s Emma Mackey. In this matriarchy, everything is ruled by the Barbies.  Angsty and always competing for the Barbies’ attention, the Kens, an array of beefed-up men, exist solely on the sidelines, cheering on the Barbies when the latter play volleyball. As the film’s tagline says, “She’s [Barbie] everything. He’s just Ken.” In Barbie Land, everything is perfect (and pink).

However, trouble looms. The typically joyful Barbie is struck by thoughts of death during a dance party. The next morning, she awakes with bad breath. Her heart-shaped toast is burned. Even her perfectly arched feet become—gasp!—flat. Recognising that this issue is greater than even the smartest Barbie, Robbie’s Barbie visits Weird Barbie (played by Saturday Night Live’s Kate McKinnon). There, she’s charged to return to the Real World to find the source of her problem—the girl who’s playing with her. 

 Following a superb marketing campaign that will be studied for generations to come, Barbie has become the highest grossing film of 2023, raking in $1.36 billion—thereby making it the most successful female-directed film. Why has this toy-based film dominated box office screens since its release in late July? 

Firstly, Barbie is smart! Before watching it, I wasn’t quite sure what direction Greta Gerwig, the film’s captain, would go in. Would it be like the animated Barbie films, where the humans didn’t matter? Or like Transformers, where the Hasbro toys were non-existent? With its mix of fantasy and realism, Barbie successfully merges these two visions. Like a human, Barbie is conscious and can feel a limited range of emotions, from joy to panic. However, she and the other Barbies are aware of the Real World, where they are played with like dolls—though she turns on her shower, no water comes out; when she tips her milk carton over her cup, no milk comes out either; and walking on her tiptoes is part of her characterization. 

Secondly, Barbie is fun! Barbie lives in her quintessential Dreamhouse, and everything in her world is a riot of posy pinks, bright blues, and gregarious greens. She and the other Barbies have dance parties to hits by Dua Lipa at night, because “every night is girls’ night”. Their mornings are filled with a chorus of “Hey Barbie! Hey Barbie!” as she and her fellow Barbies run into each other, supporting one another in court and at award shows. And everything is over-dramatised: when the Barbies discover that Stereotypical Barbie is malfunctioning, they scream “Flat feet!” before miming a cacophony of retches. Beach Ken, played by The Notebook’s Ryan Gosling, is ridiculous: overdrawn in his pining for Barbie, he repeatedly insists on a “beach off” with Simu Liu’s (Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings) Ken; and, in embracing U.S. American patriarchy, he parades around in a huge mink coat and a tasselled leather waistcoat.  Then, following his journey of self-discovery, he wears a tie-dye hoodie that says, “I am Kenough” (pun intended). 

However, Barbie is also profound. Barbie Land is a dream for women’s empowerment. Everything is possible for women in Barbie Land, because “what can’t Barbie do?” The Barbies own their accomplishments, instead of shying away from them as women in the Real World are wont to do, and they own their emotions, too, something that women in the Real World are condemned for showing. As Lawyer Barbie (played by My Mad Fat Diary’s Sharon Rooney) says, “I have no difficulty holding both logic and feeling at the same time. And it does not diminish my powers.” Women hold each other up, instead of tearing them down. Finally, there’s a Barbie for everyone. 

Happy

0 0 %

Sad

0 0 %

Excited

0 0 %

Sleepy

0 0 %

Angry

0 0 %

Surprise

0 0 %

By Jochebed Peace Airede

It was the beginning of Spring Break. Though the chill of winter lingered, students were excited to sink into what should have been a restful weekend away from the demands of weekly assessments and readings.

This tranquility, however, was soon shattered by news of trouble brewing in the Rutgers-Camden Student Governing Association (RUCSGA or SGA), the official body for student advocacy on-campus.

On Friday, March 11th, Taylor Godfrey—former Treasurer for the SGA—released an impact statement on Instagram that detailed the breakdown of relations within student government since Fall 2021. This eight-page document, which was rapidly shared by multiple Rutgers-Camden students on social media, alleged that she had been emotionally abused by current SGA President, Sydney Johnson, while the pair had been in a romantic relationship. Accusing Johnson of “using their mental health to constantly manipulate” her, Godfrey details how she felt increasingly “trapped” in a relationship that had become “unsafe” for her. Following an especially heated argument with Johnson, (who uses they/them pronouns), Godfrey alleged that Godfrey had even contemplated suicide.

Godfrey’s statement continues with descriptions of how the lines between the personal and professional began to “blur,” and claims that Johnson held her to a different standard, to the point that it was suggested she resign if unhappy with the President’s expectations of her. Tensions continued after Godfrey had dissolved their romantic relationship in November 2021, following a public argument over her request to change seating arrangements and distance herself from President Johnson. It was at this time that Godfrey said she felt unsupported by administration, specifically the SGA Advisor Patrick Wallace, who encouraged Godfrey to leave the room rather than criticize President Johnson.  Also named in Godfrey’s statement were Dean of Students, Alison Wisniewski, and Vice-Chancellor of Student Affairs, Mary Beth Daisey. In an email response to a request for comment by the administration, Vice-Chancellor Daisey wrote that the administration would not be commenting,  citing a desire to “ensure [student] confidentiality, respect [student] privacy, and allow [students] to access the resources and processes that they choose to utilize.”

Since the statement’s publication, President Johnson has made no public refutation of the allegations, citing an ongoing Title IX investigation that Johnson launched immediately after learning of the statement. However, Johnson did provide a written statement to The Gleaner, speaking as Sydney Johnson, and not as SGA President. 

“I think it’s absurd that people have seen an extremely biased, one-sided story, with limited evidence and have come to believe that is the truth,” Johnson wrote. “There has been no pattern of behavior because the allegations are the opposite to who I am and what I stand for.” Additionally, Johnson challenged the former Treasurer’s decision to go public without first going through official channels, calling this “a continuation of psychological abuse to harm” them. Johnson noted that all disagreements that had arisen because of their professional conduct as SGA President had already been internally settled; they had “received consequences and apologized.”  Finally, Johnson stressed that the work done by the SGA to address student issues should not be overshadowed by the mixing of personal and the professional: “This year’s RUCSGA accomplished an immense amount of good which should not be discredited by my actions or allegations…We assisted in the moving of the Walt Whitman statue, added new language courses…and recognized our marginalized students. If you dislike me that is fine, but be upset with me, and not with the RUCSGA.”

Nevertheless, the spring semester has been a difficult one for the governing body. On January 11th, a petition was drawn up for Johnson’s removal, with eight charges against the SGA president, including failure to perform professionally on a consistent basis. Removal proceedings were conducted on January 28th, and the necessary two-thirds of the SGA, as per the SGA’s Constitution, voted to have President Johnson removed from office. However, following an appeal process supported by the SGA’s Constitution, President Johnson was reinstated on February 16th. (In her email, Vice-Chancellor Daisey reaffirmed that proper procedure, as was outlined by the SGA Constitution, had been followed in the impeachment trial of President Johnson.) In the following days, Godfrey resigned as Treasurer, followed by the Vice President, the Executive Representative, and the Executive Senator.  Since February 28th, at least five members of the SGA have stepped down. Save for the position of Treasurer, all vacancies have remained unfilled.

Former Executive Senator, Josefina Ewins, provided an insider’s perspective on the breakdown of relations within the governing body. Although she refrained from commenting on Johnson and Godfrey’s romantic relationship, she did recognize that Godfrey “was held to a different standard than the rest of us. The rest of us would pass by and there was lots of tension over promotions.”

However, Ewins also noted that discontent with President Johnson’s conduct existed long before Godfrey’s statement was released. 

“The President would make joking comments like, ‘If you write this, I’m going to veto it down and never look at it,’ almost discounting what we had to offer,” Ewins  said, adding that Johnson viewed themselves as “the Golden Child, the one who knew Patrick the most, the only person unanimously elected.” This contributed to a difficult work environment, according to Ewins, who said she resigned due to a lack of accountability. 

Meanwhile, students have made their feelings known in various ways. The student-led  Political Science Society released an official statement disavowing the alleged actions of the SGA and President Johnson. Meanwhile, less than 10 students have filed petitions to run for SGA positions for the Fall 2022 semester, which could point to a distrust in the student governing body and the administration’s handling of the situation. 

While no one can know the details of the personal relationship besides the two parties involved, many students believe administration should have done more. Was it fair to expect college students, who were juggling the stress of academics and their roles as leaders, to be perfect in all things?

“We must recognize that they [SGA members] are also students,” said  Alexa Nieves, Treasurer of the Immigrant Justice Association (IJA), “and they’re within very important, large positions of the SGA; and they didn’t feel safe communicating their needs. It was the duty of administration to step in at that point.” Ewins also called for a “more hands-on approach when issues arise,” considering how the hands-off approach contributed to an intense fallout that impacted the effectiveness of the SGA’s work and, as a result, the lives of Rutgers-Camden students. 

A regular participant at the SGA meetings, Nieves, who also serves as the Secretary of the Rutgers-Camden College Democrats, noted the  “lackluster” climate of these weekly conversations since the mass resignation of SGA officials. 

“You go to the GBMs [General Body Meetings], and you see how much smaller the SGA is getting,” she said. “As it becomes smaller, it becomes quieter, the meetings become shorter. A lot of members felt as unheard as students within the general body.” 

She noted that students who spoke up about the allegations were always answered in the same way: by Johnson’s assertion that law enforcement was now involved, which restricted them from commenting on the matter. 

“But it was always the alleged abuser speaking for everyone,” said Nieves, “we never heard the voice of others. The whole point of the statement was to address the administrative response, not to sweep it under the rug and pretend as if nothing needed to be done. Sometimes in conversations, after the meeting ended, and we were talking one-on-one in the room, they would personalize discomfort, and how they felt like they couldn’t do anything.” 

But this response, argued Nieves, was inadequate. “They represent us, and when we express concern, they should be able to address that in some regard.”

And with more than half the seats vacant throughout the Spring, Nieves said the board has not been able to address student concerns as effectively as they might have. 

“They didn’t get nearly as much work done,” said Nieves. “You’re piling on more stress on the fewer members, the individuals that are left.” 

Ewins agreed. 

“Nothing got done once everyone left,” she said. “It’s sad because I wanted things to pan out well for the end of the semester with mental health resources and funding for teachers.”

Meanwhile, the administration remains silent.

Graduation looms on the horizon, but the path forward remains unclear for more than the matriculating seniors. Questions remain about the SGA’s future and its place as a body for advocacy for all Rutgers-Camden students. Will the SGA be trusted again with handling student concerns? What steps, if any, is the administration taking to preclude such issues from arising again–thus ensuring that the campus remains a safe space for all?  

If you or anyone you know is facing a mental health crisis or is looking for someone to talk to, contact the Rutgers-Camden Wellness Center at 8562256005 to set up an appointment and/or enquire about walk-in hours.

Happy

0

0 %

Sad

0
0 %

Excited

0
0 %

Sleepy

0

0 %

Angry

0
0 %

Surprise

0
0 %

Monica Lewinsky, dubbed a “little tart” by the renowned Wall Street Journal, became the slut that everyone wanted to hate.

Britney Spears, the fast-emerging pop music icon from the 90s, had images of her experiencing a mental breakdown splashed across tabloid front pages alongside news of Kate Hudson and Owen Wilson’s exciting new romance. 

And, in response to the consensus that the press is to be blamed for Princess Diana’s death, one journalist almost suggests that it was the disastrous result of her playing both sides of the journalistic field. 

Sigh. Why, oh why, is it so difficult for the press to give women a break?

This might seem like a bold claim, a petulant whine, or even both. But one cannot ignore how the Western media relishes in the character assassinations of ‘bad’ women, all the while ignoring the wrongdoings of their male partners-in-crime. Take Monica Lewinsky, the media’s first victim. Following the revelation of her affair with then U.S. President, Bill Clinton, New York Times columnist, Maureen Dowd, took obvious pleasure in casting Lewinsky as the dangerous, Jezebel-like seductress who would stop at nothing to catch Clinton in her net—conveniently ignoring that Lewinsky was a 22-year-old and that said President was not only more than twice her age, charming and sophisticated, but was also viewed as the most powerful man in the world. Lewinsky didn’t exactly have all the bargaining power in the world, much less the seductive authority to force him into a relationship—but nobody was willing to see it that way. Instead, it was easier to crucify Lewinsky. 

And one might counter this point with the fact that the President himself was lampooned by many at the time—but he remained President until the end of his term in 2001. Lewinsky, on the other hand, found her life defined by the affair, struggling to get jobs because her name was (and is) always linked to the illicit affair. Yes, the media were not the only ones to put Lewinsky through the wringer—the Presidency and its enemies did that, as well. But, since when was describing a young intern as “ditsy, predatory” Pulitzer-prize worthy? (Apparently, when Dowd won it for her coverage of Lewinsky.) Would it be a stretch to assume that if the New York Times had divested their energy into questioning whether the President was out of order rather than tearing Lewinsky’s reputation to shreds, her story would have been different? Even a little?

And the unequal moral war waged against women continued in the pop world, as revealed by the New York Times Presents documentary Framing Britney Spears, which investigates the highly-documented rise and fall of teenage pop star Britney Spears. As highlighted by The Guardian and The Atlantic, the media was more than cruel to Britney—they were vicious. Swarms of paparazzi followed her every move, hounded her into having a breakdown, then captured every moment of it on-camera. Writing for The Atlantic, Sophie Gilbert reminds us that a writer once wondered—in print, for New York magazine—if Spears would overdose on drugs or kill herself, as Marilyn Monroe did, as if he were betting on her odds of survival in life’s gladiatorial game. 

Moreover, the media’s (and society’s) obsession with Spears’ sexuality bordered on paedophilic and disturbing: in the documentary, a male Dutch interviewer informs Spears that her breasts were all the rave; Spears’ former famous boyfriend, Justin Timberlake, freely discussed their sexual history on radio programs when he was freely asked; in fact, Timberlake was even declared forgiven for all his “sissy music” because he had “got into Britney’s pants.” But Spears does not get the same dose of mercy—instead, a Governor’s wife expresses her desire to shoot Spears for failing to be the perfect female role model. In a now-infamous interview with Diane Sawyer, the focus is on Spears’ body and relationship with Timberlake from start to finish; in a continuation of societal double standards, Spears is eviscerated (by Sawyer and others) for breaking Timberlake’s heart, though the rumors that she cheated on him are never confirmed. However, this matters not—everyone remains firmly on Timberlake’s side. So, whilst Spears is on track to suffer a mental breakdown and the destruction of her perfect image, Timberlake emerges as a superstar, the guy’s guy—after all, he’d scored Britney Spears, right? 

Again, the problem lies in the relish with which all this was done. The relish with which Sawyer, then in her late 50s, took in digging the knife into Britney and ripping her apart. The problem is the jovialness with which people discussed her mental health and the frenetic, predatory energy with which photographers surrounded and chased her and Princess Diana, denying them their moments of privacy. It is in the callousness of the paparazzi who demanded that the “b*tch” Diana give them a photo to feed their families; the aloofness with which one journalist suggests that Diana bit off more than she could chew by establishing relationships with loose-mouthed journalists when nobody can be blamed for wanting to control the narrative for once in their lives. No matter where you stand on these women and on the lives they led, it must be clear to you that there was injustice in the way Timberlake was given a pass for being sexually active, whilst it was not so for Spears; or in the way that it was easy to toss Lewinsky to the dogs, whilst Clinton was left standing (barely, one could argue); or in the way that some think that Diana could have changed the press’ dogging of her life by keeping her distance, though they refused to give her just that. 

And we must also reckon, as a society, with the attitudes that allow such media treatment. Why are we so obsessed with getting the latest celebrity gossip that we do not care how the information is retrieved? Why would we be quick to shame Spears, but praise Timberlake as a stud? Why would we snap a quick picture of a broken-down celebrity, if we could, instead of helping them up? Because the media does not exist in a vacuum—everyone wanted a piece of Diana, even if only on a newspaper front page, so the press did everything to get news on her. Maybe this truth, that the media is only an unchecked manifestation of our own desires and beliefs, is the scariest part of it all.

Happy

0

0 %

Sad

0
0 %

Excited

0
0 %

Sleepy

0

0 %

Angry

0
0 %

Surprise

0
0 %

By: Jochebed Airede

It should be no surprise that Grease, with its upbeat musical numbers, fast cars, and hair gel (so much hair gel), remains one of the highest-grossing musicals and a favorite of many American households over forty years after its release. However, the film has recently caused a furor over scenes which viewers have cited as “sexist” and “rapey”—criticism that has since been dismissed by the film’s leading lady, Dame Olivia Newton-John, who played Sandy Olsson. Newton-John insists that the movie was meant to be “fun” with no meanings attached to the plot or characters. Having barely watched the film some years ago, I decided to re-watch it and see what I thought.  

Right off the bat? John Travolta was gorgeous in the 70s. 

But, seriously, Newton-John is right—Grease is fun. From the animated credits at its start to the flying car at its end, the entire film is a hilarious farce. The school nurse bemoans the loss of her castor oil; the boys play more pranks than they take notes (though they should be taking their senior year seriously, but okay); the Principal’s secretary is a chocolate-loving ditz; and, as she pleads for her students to show how “clean-cut” and “wholesome” they are, the Principal almost chokes on the tongue-in-cheek humor—it’s a shameless mockery of the American high-school life. Each character is an exaggerated archetype, with Newton-John playing the innocent, new in town, ‘goody-two-shoes’ and Travolta the resident ‘bad boy’ Danny Zuko. Danny swings his hips as if possessed by Elvis himself and Marty, Sandy’s friend, sprays her love letters with perfume. The film is unavoidably enjoyable, and its influence is clear on a modern-day film series like High School Musical, which I love.

Nevertheless, this doesn’t erase the film’s problematic areas—and there are plenty. Firstly, Danny’s friends equate women with sex. When he is goaded by them into regaling the tale of his summer fling with Sandy, one would think they were asking for the scores of a recent football game: they trip over themselves in their eagerness, desperate to know if he got into her “drawers” and if she “put up a fight.” They are crass and leering, their minds focused on Sandy’s bust. Though it’s never said in the film, I understand that we’re to accept this as part of the ‘boys will be boys’ rhetoric. Joe Hildebrand, an Australian journalist, writes in a semi-defense that they’re “confused adolescents, terrified of humiliation and desperate not to lose their friends.” While this rings slightly true, it doesn’t excuse some of the blatant acts of sexual harassment that they commit, like looking up a girl’s skirt—how is this to be explained away by mere teenage anxiety? Also noteworthy is how one of the boys spikes the punch at their school dance with alcohol. Again, we’re meant to view this as simple, adolescent rebellion—but, again, it’s difficult to accept, as a woman who’s often feared the moment when someone could spike her drink with alcohol or drugs. From a modern lens, these things are hard to excuse—and the question is, should I be forced to?

Some fans argue that the outcry is unfounded, considering that Grease was set in the 50s, a notably challenging time for women in America—and I disagree: a film set in a sexist era does not make the sexism any more acceptable than it should be now. It’s not about “political correctness” as a Yahoo! article suggests, but about basic decency—when is it ever okay to look up a woman’s skirt? In the 50s, which is reportedly “a time when political correctness definitely wasn’t what it is now”? Yes, it makes it understandable—but there is a difference between understandable and acceptable. Following this rationalization is a slippery slope: will we soon say that it’s all right that Roger Moore slapped Maud Adams, his female co-star, in The Man with The Golden Gun because it was filmed in 1974 (4 years before Grease)? 

Still, there are aspects of Grease that are revolutionary for its time. Take Danny, for instance. As a boy struggling to reconcile his love for Sandy with the conflicting tough-guy exterior expected of him by his friends, he typifies the overwhelming pressures of toxic masculinity in an era before the term was even coined. And, though he falters, he eventually triumphs, following Sandy’s chiding that he should do more than mock the school’s athletes and become one himself. In so doing, he leaves his friends and carefree leather-jacket days behind—something he couldn’t do at the film’s start when he pretended not to like Sandy to appear the ‘manly man’ before his posse. Plus, a whole song by Rizzo—Sandy’s tentative friend who becomes the talk of the school when rumors spread that she’s pregnant—highlights the judgment women face when their romantic history is made known, though “there are worse things” she could do. Although these subtleties aren’t developed for the sake of sustaining the film’s romantic focus, they are still there—thus, redeeming the film. 

So, my verdict? Grease isn’t inherently sexist—but it does have sexist elements that we shouldn’t ignore. Hildebrand dismissed the complainants by reminding them that the film asks us to learn to “loosen up” while British journalist, Andrew Pierce, simply asks the offended “woke warriors” to not watch the film—but this only reduces the validity of their argument and willfully rejects the truth that there are negatives to Grease. 

This doesn’t mean that I would never watch it again or impose the same limits on others—it just means that I understand that films, though beloved, can be both good and bad. That, though Grease is funny, some characters are questionable and shouldn’t be celebrated. Rather than silencing each other, we should be having a conversation about it. I hope this piece moves you to do so.

Happy

0

0 %

Sad

0
0 %

Excited

0
0 %

Sleepy

0

0 %

Angry

0
0 %

Surprise

0
0 %