As luck would have it, just as I was perusing the AV Club’s various articles on the US networks’ fall programming, regular CWR reader/my friend Marilyn brought a certain issue to my attention.
This fall CBS will be bringing the series Intelligence to the small screen [not to be confused with the CBC series of the same name that aired in 2005]. The following is the trailer, which I only saw half a minute of earlier because it failed to grab my attention:
The synopsis on the official CBS preview site reads as follows:
Josh Holloway stars as former Delta Force turned U.S. Cyber Command über-agent in a crime thriller that explores the unlimited possibilities of technology. With a special microchip implanted in his brain, he has become the first super computer with a beating heart.
Now by this point you’re probably wondering where I’m getting at with all this, so let me stop blathering as if CBS pays me [they should, considering all I've gone through reviewing 2 Broke Girls] and get to the point.
Intelligence bears a lot of similarity to A Girl and Her Fed, a webcomic by K. B. Spangler, as well as Digital Divide, a novel she wrote set in the same world. This is fairly suspect, but we’ll get back to that in a sec. First let’s look at what CBS is saying-
The show is apparently based on Dissident, a book by writer John Dixon that has yet to be published. In an interview he posted on his blog Dixon talks about how his novel was optioned by CBS, and even goes into a little detail about what it’s all about. When asked for a single-sentence synopsis he replies:
When a tough sixteen-year-old sentenced to an isolated boot camp for orphans discovers it’s actually a mercenary training facility, he risks everything to save his friends and stop a madman bent on global destruction.
Does that sound familiar? Well, it might, if you’re a prolific reader of YA literature, but let’s pretend all you know is this blog post. If that were the case [and thank the Lord it isn't] there is no possible way you would connect the TV show Intelligence with the novel Dissident.
Now I haven’t personally read Digital Divide, though it comes highly recommended, and is only $5 on Amazon, but I am more than willing to trust an author on her own work and any similarities there might be between her writing and a three minute trailer. In a post put up yesterday Spangler describes her reactions to watching the teaser as follows:
I can overlook the tough-as-nails dusky blond hunk and the sassy brunette “minder” whose job it is to protect him. Attitude + sexy = win. I can ignore the whole “we gave a human the kind of power that was previously only seen in a machine” theme. Been done before. The shift from accessing the EM spectrum to controlling the EM spectrum (two very different things) is understandable as it makes for better action, and one can lead directly to another. I can even overlook that they are portraying the agent and what he represents as “this generation’s Manhattan Project,” which is a major theme throughout the seven-plus years of the comic and Digital Divide, even though that trope is less well-established in the general sci-fi & government conspiracy theory literature.
But…. Guys, the uber-elite Secret Agent with the chip in his head makes constructs. He says that an “unexpected” side effect of the implant is that he can project what he sees. “The intel I have access to… I can see it. It’s like a virtual evidence wall.” This is very unique and differs from other projection-type tropes, such as Gary’s in Alphas, where he translated what he perceived into images that only he could see. The Secret Agent in Intelligence can also perceive snipers from a distance, which is straight-up Rachel. The more information that we get about these projects, the harder it is for me to separate the ideas in them as being unique from my own.
Walls of text aside, what you need to understand is that there are some similarities that result from following the same sorts of tropes [government organizations, pushing the limits of technology, etc.] and others that seems far too specific to fall under that category. Spangler goes on to say in the comments section of that post that she spoke to Dixon, and that their conversation “suggested that his novel has a very different plot than the pilot.”
K. B. is making the wisest decision possible at this point and has contacted legal counsel, and is also withholding judgement in spite of all that she has observed thus far. The most saddening thing about this entire situation, however, is how realistically she’s viewing it all. In an interview with AlterGamer titled “Cross-Medium Copyright Infringement and Intellectual Property Concerns” she admits that there “is really no best-case scenario” and that “ the little guy doesn’t have the money to go up against a multinational corporation.”
At this point in time no one can truly comment on what CBS is doing with Intelligence; if Spangler is refraining from outright accusation I can probably hold back as well. What we can observe, however, is the helplessness of the one who doesn’t have the money or influence that big businesses always will. This has happened in the past with TV shows stealing covers, and it would not surprise me if some exec somewhere made the decision to take the premise of a webcomic with an audience anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand. After all, who would really notice? Even if they did, what would happen?
As I said near the beginning of this post, all of this is fairly suspect. Until Intelligence actually airs I, and fans of K. B. Spangler’s work, will have to wait and see what happens. What’s important is that she’s taken the necessary precautions, and hopefully gets to the bottom of all of this sooner than later.
Let’s Talk About The Hijab
I could spend all day railing on the treatment of the Middle East/Arabs/Occupied Palestine/Muslims/etc. The way Arabs/Muslims are singled out for scrutiny and criticism. Casting Indian actors to play Arabs, since Arabs don’t match their own stereotype. The lack of appreciation for the key role the Middle East played in preserving and advancing science and philosophy.
You get the idea.
So rather than trying to tackle a single issue that could be (should be, and has been) covered by an entire academic book, I’m going to hit up super-specific issue.
The hijab.
This, for the handful of you who might not know, is the head covering often worn by Muslim women. Often, but by no means universally. Although required by Iran and Saudi Arabia (and the Aceh territory of Indonesia), variations exist in both the prevalence of the hijab and how tightly (that is, how covering) it is worn.
But people don’t seem to get that.
Now 2013 has seen women’s issued brought into the spotlight, largely as a result of tragedies, such as the Stubenville Rape Trial (and it’s ridiculous outcome) or Missouri Congressman Todd Akin’s idiotic comments on “Legitimate Rape”. This, combined with other factors, such as the increasingly popular “slut-walks” or the attention centered on Pakistani child-activist Malala Yousafzai have all helped push the subject of women- especially in regards to oppression- to the forefront.
And that’s great.
It’s a shame it had to be as a result of so much atrocity, but at least people are talking about it.
But of course, with any popular issue, there’s inevitably going to be people showing up late and trying to hop onto the bandwagon to demonstrate just how open minded or progressive or humane they are. For the most part, these people are obnoxious but otherwise benign, however, these attempts to demonstrate just how “forward thinking” they are are beginning to become harmful.
See, a few people- more than a few people- have decided that in order to be good feminists, they should attack that evil construct of patriarchal oppression, the hijab.
2004 saw the French enact a ban on the hijab. Others have stated that the hijab is an attack on female sexuality, a sign of ownership, misogyny, or at the very least, places the obligation of avoiding sleaze on women, rather than men.
In all honesty, I was just looking for an excuse to use this gif…
But more than anything else, I hear the term “force”. “Women are ‘forced’ to cover up”. “Girls are ‘forced’ to wear the hijab”. “You would be executed in some countries for being dressed in ________. Or showing skin __________.”
Now there is some truth in that. But only some truth. As I stated above, the hijab is only madated in two countries, and while there is social pressure in others (we’ll talk about that in a minute), there are just as many predominately Muslim or Arab nations where it would be just as acceptable or common to go without. One of my favorite comedians, Christopher Titus, goes off on a rant about the “oppression of women” in such countries as Jordan, Egypt, and my own adopted homeland of Syria.
In reality, Syria has no laws mandating the hijab, has a sizable population of women who don’t cover (both Muslim and non-Muslim), and in fact banned the hijab from being worn in university classrooms on account of it being an interference the country’s secularism.
What that all essentially boils down to is racism. Yes, racism.
This isn’t a case of someone not doing their homework- it was simply assumed that Syrians, being Middle Easterners, must treat women badly by default. In fact, that sentiment is fairly common- if you haven’t heard it at least once, I’d be surprised, but let’s move on.
I mentioned social pressure above. Simple fact of the matter is, while the hijab is not mandated by state, there are countries out there where going out without a hijab would the equivalent of going outside in America without your pants.
And that’s all I really need to say right there. Why is it that we in the west don’t go outside without our pants? Are we oppressed for being expected to adhere to the shirt and shoes mantra?
The horrific oppression!
No, we’re not. So why do we imagine we can get up in another culture’s face about their own standards of modesty or propriety? Would you be happy if some aboriginal tribe became incensed with the West for “forcing” women to wear tops in public?
These women pity you tyrannized Americans and Europeans…
I doubt it.
Heck, we don’t even use the same standards on ourselves. Why is a woman oppressed when she’s wearing burqa, but saintly when she’s wearing a nun’s habbit? Do you go around talking about the poor, suffering women under Mennonite fundamentalist tyranny?
These women dress more conservatively some Muslims I’ve seen…
I’m not going to tell you that every culture is equally good and bad- that’s not the case. And I’m not going to tell you that every standard of modesty is right, or that there’s no such thing as negative social pressure. But people, this really isn’t about that, is it? I’ve been listening (in pain) to attacks on the hijab for a while, and I have yet to hear one that addresses these hypocrisies. I’m not saying such an argument can’t exist- I’m saying I’ve to see it. What we have so far are flimsy, emotionally charged diatribes.
Why?
Because it’s not about religion. Or freedom from oppression. Or feminism. It’s about image.
Hate to break your fantasy (not really), but you are not some sort of feminist crusader for attacking the hijab on message boards or YouTube comment sections. And brace yourselves, because this next bit is really going to hurt.
I also like Kevin Hart
Arab/Muslim women do not need rescuing by the noble, enlightened white Westerners.
Those that do want social change are more than willing and able to achieve this for themselves- again, just look at Malala Yousafzai (who also wears the hijab). This prevalent idea that Muslim women cannot possibly want to wear the hijab is at worst bigoted and at best ignorant. It is, either way, viciously arrogant.
And before I go…
And am I the only one seeing the irony in trying “liberate” women by telling them what they can and can’t wear?
I can’t be- right?
Rate this:
→ Leave a comment
Posted in feminism, race, media, America, Islam, religion, Europe
Tagged feminism, rape, politics, America, racism, comments, Islam, expression, Syria, afghanistan, Culture, Feminist, bigotry, Islamophobia, Europe, misogyny, racist, freedom of speech, Todd Akin, Egypt, women's issues, patriarchy., Africa, Hijab, middle-east, human-rights, religion, Malala Yousafzai, Arab, western, Asia, saudi arabia, Middle Eastern, Lebanon, Jordan, stubbenville, westerner, north america, Iran, women's rights, trial, mennonite, no shirt no shoes no service, secular, Christopher Titus, Kevin Hart, modesty, social standards, patriarchal, Aceh, Indonesia, congressman todd akin, missouri congressman, indian actors