A month ago, people were abuzz about the new Britney Spears Documentary. “Framing Britney Spears” was made to address the star’s conservatorship, but it started another important conversation. Across the country, people were surprised at how rampant misogyny had been in the media in the 1990s. In the documentary, we see Spears being asked invasive questions about her sex life and the status of her virginity, how the media ridiculed everything going wrong in her life, and how her character was watered down to a wild and dumb party girl. In fact, the media’s portrayal of Britney is an important factor in why she ended up in her conservatorship.

But Britney’s experience was nothing new. Many women, from various walks of life, were harassed, degraded and ridiculed by the media. Another woman who, like Britney Spears, had details of her private life lambasted in the media was Monica Lewinsky. Lewinsky became a subject of national discussion when it came to light that she’d had an affair with President Bill Clinton when she was an intern at the White House. The media ignored the complexity of the power dynamics in the situation and the fact that Monica was just a 22-year-old intern. Instead, Monica was attacked in the media as a slut for well over a decade. Years later, Monica would reveal that the humiliation had resulted in her having suicidal thoughts.

When these instances of blatant misogyny are brought up, the excuse is always, “Well, times were different back then.” And that is true to a degree since a lot of past headlines about Monica or Britney would result in public outrage should they be printed today. But to be clear, just because the media isn’t as misogynistic as before does not mean that such misogyny is not still present.

In the last decade, we saw the media and the internet work to shame and exploit various women. Tabloids fed people gossip about celebrities and their sex lives, and social media delighted in the rumors. Artist and businesswoman Rihanna was often slut-shamed for her private romantic relationships. Taylor Swift has also been fending off attacks on her romantic life since the early 2010s. In fact, Swift hit back against a sexist joke made at her expense on a Netflix show just a few days ago. In 2012, Kate Middleton was photographed nude by a paparazzo while on private property, and a French magazine eagerly published the photos for the world to see. Almost a decade later, the media picked apart Meghan Markle’s every move, ridiculing her with headlines like “Prince Harry’s girl is (almost) straight outta Compton”. Another newspaper invaded her privacy by publishing her private letters for the world to see.

In 2013, when Beyonce released “Partition,” she was shamed as a woman, as a wife and as a mother. Various talk shows took turns discussing whether or not it was acceptable for her, as a mother and a wife, to shoot a sexy music video for a sexually explicit song. The same thing happened to Cardi B in 2020, when the rapper teamed up with Meghan Thee Stallion to release their hit song “WAP.” For months after its release, the artist was fending off attacks. Various different media outlets uplifted conservatives who were outraged by the song. Then, in January (nearly 6 months since the song’s release), the media highlighted a video of Cardi turning off WAP when her daughter entered the room. This led to another bout of slut-shaming against the rapper.

During this Women’s History Month, we, as a society, all have to reflect on how women – regardless of their fame, wealth or privilege – face abuse at the hands of the media. Sure, things have gotten better, but that doesn’t mean that what’s being done today is acceptable. Just because things were once worse doesn’t mean we should turn a blind eye to misogyny in the media now. As we spend this month honoring women who made a difference before, we have to look at how we treat the women making a difference today.

Last week we saw singer-songwriter Sia make her directorial debut. Instead of fanfare, she was met with outrage — and rightfully so. The film follows Kate Hudson’s character Zu, a recovering alcoholic charged with taking care of her neurodivergent younger sister after the unexpected death of their grandmother. The sister, named Music, is played by Dance Moms’ Maddy Ziegler. Ziegler has worked on many projects with Sia, with “Chandelier” and “Elastic Heart” being their best-known collaborations. It is important to note that Ziegler was cast by Sia to play an autistic character, though Ziegler herself is not autistic.

That neither the lead nor the director were autistic or had any professional experience with autism troubled many people when the film was announced. Instead of taking in the criticism, Sia fought back on Twitter. One autistic actress explained in a tweet that several autistic actors – including herself – could have acted in Ziegler’s place and further criticized the fact that autistic people were excluded from a film about autism; Sia responded by tweeting “Maybe you’re just a bad actor.” Many members of the neurodivergent community chimed in, talking about how damaging and hurtful these portrayals of neurodivergent people can be, with most criticisms falling on deaf ears. Ironic, given the fact that the film was supposed to be Sia’s love letter to caregivers and people with disabilities.

The release of the film was met with just as much outrage as the trailer. Firstly, the film itself was nothing to be proud of. The story is predictable, the characters are underdeveloped and the pacing is messy. The only time Sia’s talents shine is with the songs and set designs. And that’s not even addressing the myriad of problems in the film. The film, which is supposed to be about autism, does not follow Ziegler’s autistic character. Instead, it focuses on her older sister, Zu. The film uses a character from a marginalized group as a plot device to help the main protagonist get over her issues and overcome her past.

This tone-deaf decision isn’t even the most offensive thing in the movie. Lyrics about magic minds and failing bodies are incredibly offensive, since they perpetuate ableist rhetoric. The film’s upbeat and overly happy songs clash with the serious subject that it has taken on. Had the production team taken a more solemn approach in addressing issues in the film, the songs wouldn’t feel so insincere and out-of-place.

The most glaring problem of the film was the portrayal of autism onscreen. Ziegler’s portrayal makes the film almost unwatchable. Her character cannot speak more than few phrases, and Ziegler is always seen grinning widely or with exaggerated facial expressions. It’s incredibly uncomfortable to watch, since the exaggerated performance feels more like mockery than a portrayal. Ziegler clearly felt the same, since the teenager had a breakdown on set because she feared her portrayal was going to be seen as offensive.

Given all of this, it’s a little mind-blowing that the film was given a green light. The film industry as a whole must start doing better. Ableist portrayals of autistic people need to be retired. And most importantly, the industry needs to take into account the voices of people in the neurodivergent community, who, since the trailer dropped, have been adamant about how harmful this film actually is.

If you have been tuned in to current events these last few weeks, you might have heard about the electoral college. In all of the other democracies of the world, the individual who wins the most votes is the person who wins the election to become the head of state. Things are a bit different in the United States. We elect our heads of state using the electoral college. The electoral college is made up of delegates from each state, with the electoral votes representing the number of congressional representatives based on the state’s population, and two additional votes that represent the state’s senators. For example, Pennsylvania has 18 congressional districts, meaning that there are 18 house representatives.

If you add in the votes of the two senators, you can see where Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral college votes come from. The less populated a state is, the less electoral college votes it has. For example, Alaska has only one congressional district in addition to its two senators, giving it a total of three electoral college votes. When Americans vote on election day, they’re not actually voting for president. Instead, they are voting for the candidate that their state will vote for. And since most states — with the exception of Nebraska and Maine — opt for the winner-take-all method, the presidential candidate with the most votes in one state is awarded all of that state’s electoral college votes.

Here’s the thing: most Americans do not like the system and have openly supported the idea of replacing it for decades. The fact of the matter is that the electoral college has its issues. It’s the reason why, every so often, someone is able to win the presidency without the popular vote. The electoral college is also the reason why there are such extreme discrepancies between voters of different states. For example, a single vote from Wyoming is more influential than a single vote from California. In fact, many consider a vote from Wyoming to be 3.5 times more influential than a vote from California. Hence the reason why a handful of Americans don’t vote. They simply don’t believe that their vote will make a difference. And depending on which party they’re voting for in specific states, they might be right, considering that the winner-take-all method cancels out the votes of the minority party.

Many Americans often voice their displeasure with the fact that U.S. elections are seemingly decided by swing states. And that is understandable considering the fact that the majority of campaigning efforts are directed towards swing states, as opposed to the deep red or deep blue states. Swing states have changed over time, as a result of changing demographics, but regardless of which state is considered a swing state, it is undeniable that those specific states have way more influence over the elections than the rest. In 2016, the swing states Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida and Iowa all flipped red, giving Donald Trump the presidency. In 2020, we saw battlegrounds change, with Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan all flipping blue and winning the presidency for Biden. In the end, someone’s vote in PA did more to determine the presidency than someone’s vote in California.

The Framers of the U.S. Constitution created the electoral college with the intention of shifting power away from some people and pushing it towards others. True equality was not really in consideration, since by design, the electoral college handed power from the people over to the electors. The Framers created the electoral college because they didn’t trust people to make electoral decisions on their own. They wanted the president to be chosen by who they considered to be enlightened statesmen.

Of course, there’s a more sinister reason for the electoral college. Like most things, the electoral college comes with a racist past. But keep in mind that, unlike companies or celebrities, the electoral college can be abolished! Back when America was a fledgling nation, the founders had to get all of the states to agree on the constitution, which is where they ran into problems. Anti-slavery northern states only wanted free people to count for a state’s population since enslaved people didn’t have freedom, let alone a voice in politics in the form of a vote.

The pro-slavery southern states were worried that they would constantly be outvoted by their northern neighbors. This was especially an issue for them since they knew that the north could push for the abolition of slavery once the Constitution was ratified. To combat that idea, the southern states demanded that the slave populations be counted towards the states’ populations. To compromise, they settled on the three-fifths clause, which counted an enslaved person as three-fifths of a person, and increased the political power of the slaveholding states. Even when the clause was finally abolished, and black Americans gained the right to vote, white southern leaders kept them from voting with poll taxes, literacy tests, and countless other schemes. This meant that white southerners continued to have over-representation in the electoral college, on behalf of a large population of black people, most of whom could not vote.

It’s no surprise that when Congress made a bipartisan attempt at replacing the electoral college in 1816, and again in 1969, it was white southern leaders that opposed the change the hardest. In 1969, a senator from Alabama argued that the electoral college was one of the south’s last safeguards and that it should be kept for that reason alone.

The electoral college has got to go. One would think that its racist and undemocratic origins would be enough to get rid of it, but that’s not really the case. If not to ensure equality amongst voters of all races and backgrounds, we should at least look at ensuring equality amongst voters of different states. Even the winner-take-all method of the electoral college is problematic in that it diminishes the votes of people in a state’s minority party, regardless of if it’s a vote for democrats, republicans or a third party member.

The discrepancies created by the electoral college aggravate Americans, especially Americans from non-swing states. After all, it doesn’t make much sense that candidates have to squabble over a few thousand votes in a few specific states when one candidate has won the majority of votes across the nation. If we want to make votes equal for everyone, we have to take a more democratic approach to our voting system and get rid of the electoral college.

“Holy cow, bear with me. Can y’all hear me?” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez inquired, as she started off her live stream on Twitch. Last Tuesday, the Democratic congresswoman took the streaming platform by storm, as she live-streamed the popular game “Among Us” against her fellow Democrat representative, Ilhan Omar, alongside famous Twitch streamers like Pokimane, HasanAbi, Jacksepticeye and various other internet celebrities.

As she live-streamed her game, Ocasio-Cortez took time to encourage people to vote and discuss various other things. She directed viewers to IWillVote.com, a democratic party website with information on voting. She encouraged the viewers, especially if they couldn’t vote themselves, to ask family members about their voting plan and whether they were informed about the criteria for voting in the 2020 election.

AOC also yelled “Trans rights!” in the live stream, in reaction to Harris Brewis’ – also known as Hbomberguy – name coming up on-screen. This is because Brewis is known for raising more than $440,000 for the transgender rights charity, Mermaids. Her short statement was touching to a lot of people, as many flooded Twitter with the clip and exclaimed how happy they were to have AOC’s support. Although this is nothing new since AOC has made her alliance with the LGBTQ+ community crystal clear. Last year, at Bronx Pride, she took center stage to detail her plan to further LGBTQ+ rights in America. Her platform detailed free and accessible Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis for all, as well as tackling the crisis of queer homelessness and making sure that no trans women — or anyone, for that matter — dies in U.S. prisons, following the death of Layleen Polanco. Polanco was a trans woman of color, who died at Rikers Island in 2019 since the staff failed to provide her with medical care while she was in solitary confinement.

She also discussed healthcare with Hbomberguy — an English Twitch streamer — about the UK’s free healthcare. “So you go to the doctor and then what happens, do you just walk up and say I need help? How does that work?” she asked. “I can’t even imagine that interaction without a credit card or some sort of cash payment.” The congresswoman is well known for supporting a free healthcare system in the U.S. On her website, it states that Representative Ocasio-Cortez believes that in the richest country on earth, no person should suffer because they can’t afford healthcare and that she is an unapologetic advocate of Medicare for All.

Regardless of your views on these issues, it is important to note how clever AOC was with getting her message out on Twitch. Twitch, is a video live streaming service operated by Twitch Interactive, a subsidiary of Amazon. Twitch has become popular in the past few years because it enables you to stream whatever you want from virtually anywhere in the globe, and its content producers provide a wide variety of content. While it can be used for other things, Twitch has become the world’s favorite platform for game-streaming service, making it the go-to site for gamers to post content. The Twitch audience is composed of millennials, with 55 percent of the audience being somewhere between 18 and 35. The site is also dominated by a male audience, with the user base being composed of about 81 percent male viewers.

So why is this news? Well, AOC played “Among Us” with over 400,000 people watching her live. All the various Twitch celebrities that promoted her also have millions of followers themselves who might be interested in watching their favorite twitch streamer play “Among Us” with a member of Congress. In a brilliant way, AOC reached thousands of young voters on their own turf. Ocasio-Cortez, who had previously been branded a social media expert, has had better luck with reaching out to young voters than her compatriots in the democratic party. AOC even hosted a workshop for her fellow Democrats, in order to teach them how to effectively engage with constituents on Twitter.

While some may scoff and brush this off, it’s important to note that the tech-savvy congresswoman is the second-most followed democrat on the site, the first being Barack Obama. Neither Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi or even Joe Biden match AOC in terms of Twitter followers, meaning that their access to younger voters is just a bit less than Ocasio-Cortez’s. Love her or hate her, AOC’s attempts at reaching out to young voters have proven to be successful.

At the moment, the Senate is working on pushing forward to get Amy Coney Barrett onto the Supreme Court. While that ruling comes, there are things that have to be addressed, such as the prevalence of hypocrisy in the ongoing issue.

Off the bat, it’s important to talk about Merrick Garland. In March of 2016, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to succceed Antonin Scalia, who had passed away one month earlier. Hours after Scalia’s death, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared that any appointment by the sitting president is null and void on the basis that it was an election year. Familiar, right?

Well, that concept is clearly one that McConnell is not acquainted with.

Going off of Senator McConnell’s own words, any appointment made by President Trump would be considered null and void on the basis of the fact that it is an election year. However, that does not seem to be the case. In fact, McConnell met with President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee in hopes of speeding up her confirmation to the Supreme Court to fill Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat. In case you need a reminder, we were less than two months away from the 2020 presidential election when RBG passed away.

So now that we know the “rules” don’t actually count, who is Trump’s Supreme Court pick? Who is Amy Coney Barrett? Barrett serves as a circuit judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. She is, obviously, a conservative whose views align with Trump’s and various other Republicans. What made her a top candidate for Trump is that Barrett has made clear that she would invalidate the Affordable Care Act. Barrett, who has strongly criticized the Affordable Care Act, even though she noted during hearings that she’s not particularly hostile to the law. The same law that provides 20 million with new healthcare coverage, and that the majority of Americans want to keep.

Another reason that Barrett caught the eye of Trump and other conservatives was her stance on Roe v. Wade, or rather lack thereof, since she has declined to give an answer as to whether or not she thinks the ruling was correctly decided. But from our understanding, she is against abortion itself, since she has confirmed to signing her name on advertisements that oppose abortion and her belief that precedents protecting reproductive rights are not settled law. Whether or not she will actually make strides to get Roe v. Wade overturned is unknown, but probably likely.

As Trump packs the supreme court with conservative judges, many people worry that gay marriage will be overruled, highlighted by two conservative judges calling the ruling into question. Given that Barrett’s addition to the court will shift it to a 6-3 conservative majority, the court might act on overturning that ruling as well.

While many Americans worry about their access to healthcare, reproductive rights and civil rights, Republicans in power are doing everything they can to set the courts to their advantage, even if it means they have to snub and step over people, while throwing decency to the wind.

If you spend time on any media platform, you have likely been a witness to cancel culture. It refers to the popular Internet phenomenon of withdrawing support from someone, or “canceling” them. These “someones” are often public figures or companies that have done or said something that has been considered objectionable or offensive.

Although it is on the Internet, this idea is not exactly new to us. Cancel culture has often been considered to be a form of boycotting which can be acceptable. However, the extent that cancel culture takes in doing this is often disputed.

The term “canceled” had been used a joke since the 1990s, but it got its big boost in 2010, when the “Love & Hip-Hop: New York” star Cisco  Rosado told his love interest, Diamond Strawberry, that she was canceled during one of their fights. The term was then used, in a comedic manner, on social media.

In the mid-2010s, the term was no longer lobbed at friends, but at celebrities and other entities who had done something to offend the person doing the canceling, and then suddenly the term was no longer a joke. Instead, it was used to draw attention to a public figure’s problematic behavior and promoted a boycott of them professionally.

Some defend cancel culture and argue that it is a way of speaking truth to power. After all, boycotts are nothing new, and where you spend your money is entirely your business. It has to be said that some good has come out of cancel culture. Various YouTubers who have done disgusting things have been held accountable because of cancel culture.

One such YouTuber is Austin Jones, a sex offender who reached out and groomed underage fans, who was exposed by a music website and an online petition made by an anonymous 15-year-old girl. This lead to him withdrawing from a tour and eventually uploading a video online admitting to his crimes.

Cancel culture has also been used against various celebrities and businesses as backlash for unacceptable behavior like the use of slurs or discriminatory practices, which typically results in an apology from the person or policy change from the businesses.

There are also many people on the Internet who condemn cancel culture for a plethora of reasons. The biggest critique that many have for cancel culture is that it’s an excuse for petty drama and that it can form a mob mentality. Fans of different artists have been known to attack and “cancel” anyone who says anything remotely negative about their favorite artists, and it can result in a bombardment of attacks from those fans.

One of the most famous incidents online includes fans of Beyoncé — the beyhive as they’re known online — to attack celebrity chef Rachel Ray, confusing her for Rachel Roy, another celebrity that had been accused of being the “other woman” in Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s marriage. And even though abuse was launched at her online, Rachel Ray took the attacks on her in stride, joked that she was flattered to be grouped with Beyoncé and thought the whole thing was hilarious. And although Ray was alright with it, many were bothered by the way people had gone about attacking her.

This leads to the second problem with cancel culture. While some call out the behaviors of others with the good intention of holding them accountable, others take advantage of the outrage to hurl degrading insults and abuse at others online. In fact, there have been many times when cancel culture spiraled into an online bullying fest, where the “canceled” individuals were subject to attacks about their looks, their loved ones and even had death threats made against them. So, while the backlash can come from a place of good intention, it does not warrant the mental anguish people are put through. After all, two wrongs don’t make a right.

Cancel culture has resulted in some good, like exposing celebrities and corporations for doing some heinous deeds, but most of the time it does nothing. In fact, most celebrities and businesses don’t suffer any hits to their career or profits. For example, Kevin Hart was “canceled” over homophobic comments he had made in the past and he withdrew from hosting the Oscars in 2019, but his movies and stand-up specials are still successful post-cancellation. Scarlett Johansson is “canceled” every now and again over comments that she makes but is still offered roles and is not blacklisted in any way. Other than stressing out the person being “canceled” to a maximum degree, a typical case of cancel culture doesn’t do much.

In late 2019, former President Barack Obama discussed cancel culture and stated that “that’s not activism.” And he’s right. Considering not much happens once the backlash dies down, in most cases cancel culture proves useless.

Holy unnecessary backlash, Batman! After months of filming, the movie “Birds of Prey,” was released  Feb. 7, and the culmination of weeks of drama began to play out online.

The movie, previously titled “Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn)” and now simplified to “Harley Quinn: Birds of Prey,” follows anti-hero Harley’s escapades in Gotham following her break up with the Joker. Although the movie was primarily focused on Margot Robbie’s Harley, the rest of the main cast was made up of women as well. The Birds of Prey also include Jurnee Smollett-Bell as Black Canary, Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Huntress, Rosie Perez as Detective Montoya and Ella Jay Basco as Cassandra Cain. Harley was the team’s de facto leader, even though she was never considered an official member of the Birds of Prey prior to the release of the film. A fan favorite, Harley Quinn’s mounting popularity was what got this movie the green light in the first place. Harley has been popular since her introduction 28 years ago (which is actually a short amount of time considering the fact that Batman and Joker have been around since the 1940s).

Harley Quinn is often portrayed in a tragic light. The former-certified psychiatrist, who then becomes the Joker’s accomplice/girlfriend, often faces abuse at the hands of the villain. However, in recent years, she’s been portrayed as an anti-hero who eventually leaves the Joker and makes a name for herself.

When the movie was first announced, many fans were reluctant to support it. Especially considering the fact that it was a sort-of sequel to the infamous “Suicide Squad.” “Suicide Squad” followed Harley and other villains running a suicide mission on behalf of the U.S. government. But in that movie, Harley’s character was watered down to just being the Joker’s hot girlfriend. Many fans were skeptical, especially considering the romanticization of Joker and Harley’s abusive relationship in “Suicide Squad”.

Then it was revealed that “Birds of Prey” would be portraying Harley’s life post-breakup with the Joker, and suddenly fans were more open to the film’s concept. When the trailer for “Birds of Prey” dropped, many Harley Quinn fans were overjoyed. One fan even went through the trouble of comparing shots of Margot Robbie’s character in “Birds of Prey” to shots of her in “Suicide Squad,” and this comparison highlighted just how oversexualized her character was in “Suicide Squad” and just how normal she seemed in “Birds of Prey.” Well, as normal as Harley Quinn can be.

While this change delighted many fans, others were upset to a somewhat disturbing degree. One user on Twitter complained that “if DC put as much time into the script as they did making Margo Robbie unattractive, BOP would have been great.” The Tweet included a hypersexualized drawing of Harley Quinn with the caption “Hoped for this”, alongside a picture of Margot on set, captioned “But ended up with this…”

In general, most of the backlash against the film came from male fans who were against this new version of Harley Quinn. As I read Tweets, YouTube comments and various other social media posts, I came to the conclusion that the majority of comments against the movie all shared an idea. This idea being that by not sexualizing Harley Quinn, the creators of the film would isolate the franchise’s “base”. For those of you unfamiliar with the comic book movie fandoms, when they say “base,” they are referring to straight white men.

Already upset with the portrayal of Harley in “Birds of Prey,” fans of the DC universe decided to direct their energy towards nitpicking at various parts of the film and making an issue out of a non-issue. Like, where was Batman? Why wasn’t he there? Maybe he was in outer space with Superman, trying to blow up another meteor. Or maybe he teamed up with Zatanna to fight another supernatural plague. The man can only do so much. Is it truly something to be mad about though?

But the hate toward the script never seemed to be the main source of anger from the majority of those against the action flick. The conversation would always wind its way back to the outfits worn by the women in the movie. And some of these fans truly seem to think that Margot’s choice in outfits were ugly. I have to respectfully disagree; I found her outfits to be delightful. It’s important to note that Robbie wasn’t the only star to face anger over the clothing chosen for her character. Smollett-Bell and Winstead also faced some of this anger, since their outfits were also less sexualized than their comic book counterparts. The belief is that “Birds of Prey” isn’t being true to the comic book versions of the characters. But the problem with that is that women have been criticizing the comics for hypersexualizing female characters for years. If anything, “BoP” addressed that critique by having characters who are engaged in combat by being dressed more realistically than their comic book counterparts.

The online drama took a rather bizarre turn, with the fans who were against the movie suddenly dragging the new Sonic movie into the mix. “Sonic the Hedgehog” has dominated the box office since its release, whereas “Birds of Prey” was neither a smash hit nor a flop. But for some reason, certain people regarded the two films as if they were in competition. Comparing the two is like comparing apples to oranges. “Birds of Prey” is an R-rated niche comic book film that targets female comic book fans, while “Sonic the Hedgehog” is a movie about a beloved pop culture mascot and targets families and kids. It is unreasonable that some use the success of Sonic seems to demonstrate that “Birds of Prey” is a flop. The movie made its budget back during its opening weekend, so in technical terms, it isn’t a flop. A smash hit? No. A box office bomb? Also no. But why is that?

“BoP” is a movie written, directed and produced by women — including Robbie, who was very involved with the movie’s creation. It’s not a reach to say that the targeted audience was women. Of course, that’s not to say that men cannot watch and enjoy the film. Director Cathy Yan even stated in an interview that she hoped that the movie wouldn’t alienate men. “It had to be fun for everyone, and enjoyable. I don’t think we were too vicious or antagonistic or aggressive in anyway. We don’t want it to be alienating; that doesn’t serve us.”

But that doesn’t change the fact that this film was made with women in mind, with its non-sexualized costume designs to the complex female characters and even a soundtrack that boasts an array of talented female artists. The film is essentially devoid of the male gaze. As the industry begins to understand that they can indeed produce films for their female audiences that aren’t rom-coms, more and more movies like “BoP” will roll out.

In fact, this outrage isn’t even new. On the other side of the aisle, “Captain Marvel,” which stars Oscar-winning actress Brie Larson, also garnered a lot of hate. Similarly, fans voiced outrage at Larson’s non-sexualized uniform. In fact, fans were so mad about Marvel’s first movie with a female lead that they tried to “review bomb” the movie online, which means flooding the movie with bad audience reviews and ratings. This is especially ridiculous, considering “Captain Marvel” made over a billion dollars at the box office, making it the definition of a hit.

The fact of the matter is that the movie industry is recognizing its female audience, and it’s working to grow expand its audience to include more women. And they’re working to give that audience what they want: realistic and complex characters. I hope that as new superhero movies with female leads roll out over the next few years, the backlash will slowly sputter out of steam, and we won’t have to deal with unnecessary outrage every single time.

On Jan. 13, in a 17-minute-long video on her channel, one of the biggest beauty gurus on YouTube came out as transgender. Nikkie de Jager, more commonly known as NikkieTutorials, started her YouTube career in 2008 at the age of 14 after she was inspired to recreate a makeup look she had seen on TV. De Jager only grew from there. At the age of 25, she has amassed a beauty empire for herself. She’s accumulated over 13 million subscribers and 1.2 billion views on YouTube, become the global beauty advisor for Marc Jacobs Beauty and collaborated with Ofra, Maybelline and Lady Gaga.

In her video, which is titled “I’m Coming Out,” the beauty guru reveals that she had been receiving threats from an individual who had plotted to ruin her career and life by exposing that she had transitioned. As a result, de Jager was forced to come out to her followers and the general public.

De Jager was invited onto Ellen DeGeneres’ show Jan. 25, and there she stated that she was happy that it’s 2020 and that people were accepting of her. On the show, de Jager also revealed that she had always been confused by gender roles and how they relate to things like hair and clothes, and she attributed her success to her mother’s love and support for helping her when she was young. But most importantly, the YouTuber stated that she can now be more comfortable with herself.

De Jager definitely deserved the public outpouring of support. Her name trended on Twitter, and fans flocked to her comment section to give support. Most people online generally seemed supportive of the beauty guru. This positive reaction of understanding and support really goes to show just how far the LGBTQ community has come in the last few decades. If de Jager had come out as transgender in the ’90s, she could’ve counted on her brand taking a hit and her career becoming stagnant at best and ending at worst. But NikkieTutorials’ fans embraced de Jager’s announcement, and some celebrities and the general public cheered her on.

Even though the LGBTQ community has come so far, there are still issues that haven’t been overcome. This “scandal” showed us that there are people out there who still find it acceptable to hold someone’s transition over their head. What the unnamed individual — the one who pressured de Jager into coming out — proved is that there are people who are willing to weaponize a person’s orientation or sexuality for their own personal gain. And that is not only disgusting but completely unacceptable.

It’s important to also recognize the backlash against de Jager, however small, that occurred once she came out. There were individuals who claimed they could “tell that she’s a man,” and there were others who called her “two-faced” for keeping the fact that she was transgender a secret. And even though these comments were few, it shows that we still have work to do. Transgender individuals should not be mocked for transitioning, obviously. Transgender individuals also do not owe us anything, and if they don’t want to disclose information about their past or how they currently identify,  they do not have to. Nothing about de Jager’s brand or makeup skills would change if people didn’t know she was transgender. And if Nikki didn’t want to tell the world she’s transgender, then she had no obligation to her viewers to tell them that.

We have to get rid of this mindset that people in the LGBTQ community owe us an explanation. De Jager’s orientation is between her and those close to her, not the rest of the world. Even though issues like these exist, it is heartwarming to know that the world has come so far and that Nikki is happy with where she is right now.

Disney unveiled its new streaming service, Disney Plus, Nov. 12. Disney plans on competing with streaming giants like Netflix and Hulu by offering their viewers a large expanse of Disney television shows and movies, which had either faded into obscurity or been pulled from competing streaming services, all for $6.99 a month.

The new streaming service was met with much excitement from die-hard Disney fans and casual viewers alike, all of whom were overjoyed to find long-forgotten Disney shows and movies available online. In fact, such beloved shows, like “Lizzie McGuire,” were trending on Twitter for the better part of the day. That is, until Disney Plus crashed, and various other technological issues were experienced.

Users then took to Twitter to complain about the crash. Skeptics argued that Disney Plus crashing on its launch day was an ominous forewarning of the platform’s possible demise. More optimistic individuals argued that the crash showed just how popular the platform will be if such a large number of people tuned in and caused the crash on the very first day.

The streaming service’s performance was not the only thing on people’s minds. In the lead up to the launch, many had wondered how Disney would address the controversial scenes littered throughout their older films. Would Disney leave in the scenes that have now been acknowledged as offensively racist, or would they simply cut those scenes out? Given Disney’s penchant for censorship and attempts at not rocking the boat when it comes to controversy, the general consensus was that they would cut out the scenes. After all, conflict could definitely pop up from viewership of their outdated films, and it would make sense for Disney to try to avoid the issue completely. But that was not the case.

Disney Plus’s launch revealed that Disney would not be cutting out controversial scenes. Instead, they would be issuing a disclaimer written in each film’s description. An obvious reason for this decision is that Disney simply can’t cut the scenes out because they occur at points crucial to the plot.

For example, the Native American characters in Disney’s “Peter Pan” are blatantly racist caricatures, but cutting them out would be a lose-lose situation for Disney. On one hand, they would be cutting out moments crucial to the story, while also not addressing the racist depiction of Native Americans in the movie.

Disney’s effort may not have been enough. Many critics have pointed out that Disney’s disclaimer was not necessarily as well done as it could have been. Instead, critics have pointed to disclaimers issued by other production companies that come up in older films and show.

In this case, many have pointed to the Warner Brothers’ handling of a similar situation. Like Disney, Warner Bros. has produced content in the past that was racist, prejudiced and problematic. And like Disney, they have also issued their own disclaimer. But Disney’s disclaimer is roughly two sentences long and dismisses the issue as an “outdated cultural depiction.”

Warner Bros. has instead issued a longer, well thought-out disclaimer, that calls out their racist content for what it is and firmly states that these depictions are wrong and also notes that censoring such scenes would be the same as claiming that the prejudices never existed. In comparison, Disney’s disclaimer falls short in doing its job, which is especially disappointing when you consider the fact that Disney’s disclaimer was made in 2019, while the Warner Brothers’ disclaimer was created in 2014.

Nanc

On Oct. 10, Kylie Jenner posted a video on YouTube singing “rise and shine” to her daughter, and a new  meme was born.

Twitter blew up with various “rise and shine” memes, which were mostly at Jenner’s expense. Despite the targeting, the reality star took the jokes in stride and even posted her own meme on Instagram. However, Jenner went viral once again two weeks after the video was posted. This time though, she was on the receiving end of backlash over her filing legal documents in order to trademark the phrase “rise and shine.”

Jenner experienced another round of backlash earlier this week after claims were made that she sent cease and desist letters to an Australian apparel label over their use of “rise and shine” on various shirts. And even though Jenner denied ever sending those letters, it did not stop Twitter from getting upset over the idea of the cosmetic mogul abusing her ownership over such a common phrase. So, where do we draw the line? Celebrities use trademarks in order to protect their art or their work from exploitation, but what if they abuse this system? Will these trademark battles wade into murkier waters?

The Kardashians are no strangers to public outrage over trademark issues. In June of this year, Jenner’s older sister, Kim Kardashian-West, experienced massive backlash over her trademarking of the word “kimono.” The name of her shapewear line just so happened to be the same word as a traditional Japanese garment, and many Japanese people and Japanese Americans were outraged over the trademark.The mayor of Kyoto even wrote a letter to Kardashian-West asking her to drop the trademark out of respect for Japan.

The reality star did eventually drop the trademark and apologize but not before enough public outrage had been expressed. Kim and Kylie are not the only celebrities who have made attempts to trademark words and phrases. Taylor Swift wanted to own “This sick beat,” Justin Bieber’s wife, Hailey Bieber, trademarked her name one week after her wedding, and former quarterback Tim Tebow even wanted to trademark his prayer posture.

Every time a celebrity attempts something of the sort, there is a flurry of coverage and public backlash. But can celebrities be blamed? With Instagram and an unstable merchandising industry, it makes sense that celebrities might want to be a bit more cutthroat when it comes to protecting and controlling as many parts of their public personas and their work as possible. The big problem lies in the fact that the rules are not always clear when it comes to the trademarks.

Is this something we need to worry about? To my understanding, not really. While it may seem as though celebrity trademarks are out of control, that’s generally not the case. While there is an uptick in the number of trademarks — the Harvard Law Review reported that from 1985 to 2018 there were 6.7 million trademark applications filed — the rise of trademarks has been met with an appropriate response. The Patent Trademark Office implemented various rules, which include forbidding the hoarding of trademarks. The notion that celebrities will start trademarking every little word and phrase is not a real possibility and will not happen. Also, a new system has been put in place where trademarks can be audited to see if they are being used appropriately or are being abused. If they find evidence of the latter, the trademark can be repealed.

Most celebrities don’t even bother to register trademarks, mainly because the majority of infringement comes from fans, and the last thing they want is to turn their fanbase against them. We’ve seen this come to play with all the backlash from fans that celebrities have experienced over trademarks, which has come to act as a check to this rise of trademarks. We can all breathe a sigh of relief and relax when it comes to trademarks. Even if the system may seem as though it’s overflowing in this new era of marketing, it has its own checks and balances.