On last week's Vanderpump Rules, Lisa Vanderpump went on a firing/suspension spree after a bar brawl broke out at Scheana Marie’s birthday party. She suspended Tom Sandoval and Kristen Doute for being involved in the shenanigans, but fired James Kennedy for starting the madness. Flash forward to this week:
It was finally time for the opening of Lisa’s new Hollywood hotspot, Pump. Although she needed all hands on deck for the kickoff party, she still needed her staff to hold down the fort at SUR. James, despite Lisa sending him and his size 23 skinny jeans packing, decided to show up to work anyway. Because that’s what normal people do when they’re fired, right?
Peter Madrigal, the totally undercover hottie manager, spotted the moron in the restaurant. He and James went outside so Peter could wrap his head around why the hell he showed up thinking he was still employed. James got all dramatic and whiny while trying to convince Peter that he doesn’t like him because he dates Kristen. Or perhaps it’s because you’re just really fucking annoying?
A few days later, #BeamerSelfie boy returned with a letter for Lisa. He begged and pleaded to speak to Lisa for a few minutes and finally she agreed. He read aloud a letter to her like it was a scene from the Notebook. It was so cheesy I could have barfed all over his chunky knit Jax-wannabe sweater. But, hey, it worked. The Queen Bee said she’ll think it over.
Tom Schwartz made his bartending debut at the Pump party. As we know, he’s been walking a very fine line having been involved in every fight that has gone down in the history of SUR. He begged Lisa for the job because he needs more of a stable income in order to marry his lady love, Katie Maloney. He told Stassi Schroeder that he didn’t know how to make Pump’s signature drink and next week he walks out of one of his shifts. So, when will he be receiving his Employee of the Month plaque?
Stassi has made her triumphant return back to LA and the life of SUR. She made an appearance at the Pump grand opening, much to the dismay of Scheana. Stassi and Scheana have a very on/off relationship. One minute they’re bridesmaids in each other’s weddings and the next they are shit talking one another on Twitter. Scheana can’t really get off the fact that Stassi doesn’t give a flying fuck about being her friend. Retweet.
Speaking of Stassi, Jax Taylor got wind that she was back in town. Jax says he was thinking about heading over to the Pump party to show his face and say hello to his old love. Her pal Kristina Kelly, Jax’s SUR co-worker, bluntly told him she can’t fucking stand him. He tells her that they’re fine and wants to check in on her family and the dog they once shared. Sorry, buddy. The Stassi ship has sailed.
Kristen decided she needed to meet with Tom to get the rest of her belongings and find some closure. She showed up to Tom’s apartment that so desperately needs a maid. Perhaps he could hire Kristen? Ariana is there to kick back and watch the show, which pissed Kristen off to no end. She asked Tom to give back the cable box so she could return it. Tom says, “I know, I just had stuff on the DVR that I really wanted to keep”. Absolutely epic response. Hats off to you, Sandoval.
Next week’s previews show yet another screaming match. Sleeping with everyone can be really exhausting, huh?
Vanderpump Rules airs every Monday at 9pm on Bravo!
From Your Site Articles
Lin Manuel-Miranda's Hamilton has taken the theater world by storm since its 2015 Broadway premiere.
A hip-hop musical about America's founding fathers doesn't sound immediately appealing, but Manuel-Miranda's brilliant song writing and diverse casting not only captured the attention of audiences, but proved that major change is possible within an art form as encumbered by traditions as musical theater.
<p>For most of us, being able to afford tickets to see the show in person has been a distant dream. Instead, we've obsessively listened to the cast recording, followed every new Hamilton performer on Instagram, and otherwise engaged with the show as much as possible without actually seeing it. </p><p>Finally, that's all about to change. Disney+ is bumping up the release of its recording of the musical by over a year. Instead of the planned theatrical release set for October 15th, 2021, it'll be out on July 3rd, 2020. That means we can all finally experience the glory of Aaron Burr's wrath from the comfort of our social isolation. </p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-632"></div>
<!-- End Ezoic - undersecond12 - under_second_paragraph --></p><p>With the acclaimed production finallu accessible to a wider audience, it's worth reflecting on the cultural impact of the mega hit. Obviously, when a show has this kind of reach, criticism is inevitable. In 2016, it was the <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/no-the-hamilton-casting-call-for-non-white-actors-is-not-reverse-racism_n_56fd2c83e4b0daf53aeed9b9?ri18n=true" target="_blank"><u>Hamilton casting notice that specified "people of color"</u></a> that sparked controversy. Inevitably, people have also <a href="https://feministspectator.princeton.edu/2016/02/24/hamilton/" target="_blank"><u>questioned</u></a> the strength of Manuel-Miranda's female characters.</p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-634"> </div>
<!-- End Ezoic - incontent11 - mid_content --></p><p>Firstly, <em>Hamilton</em> does not pass the Bechdel test. If you aren't unfamiliar with it, the Bechdel test was created by the comic artist and inspiration for the musical <em>Fun Home</em>, Alison Bechdel as a way to test a movie, TV show, or play. <a href="http://bechdeltest.com/" target="_blank"><u>The test</u></a> "…names the following three criteria: (1) it has to have at least two named women in it, who (2) talk to each other, about (3) something besides a man."</p><p> <em>Hamilton</em> passes the first two criteria easily, though there are significantly fewer female characters than male (in fact only four named female characters compared to sixteen named male characters). These four female characters are the three Schuyler sisters—Angelica, Eliza, and Peggy—and Maria Reynolds, Alexander's eventual mistress. Maria never speaks to another woman, making her irrelevant to the test. The sisters, despite having many interactions, never have a whole conversation without discussing their search for a man or, once they meet him, Hamilton himself. </p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-635"> </div>
<!-- End Ezoic - incontent2 - long_content --></p><p>Despite this, one could argue that the Bechdel test is an unfair assessment of the female characters in <em>Hamilton</em>, as well as period pieces in general<em>, </em>for the simple reason that the past was, well, incredibly sexist. </p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-636"> </div>
<!-- End Ezoic - incontent22 - long_content --></p><p>That being said, if you can change the telling of history enough to make Alexander Hamilton lay down a sick rap verse, can't you change it enough to create some autonomous female characters? According to Marjorie Strachey in <em>Women and the Modern Drama,</em> "As regards women the modern drama has before it a magnificent and almost untouched field, for the position of women is, and has been for fifty years, in a state of transition…"</p><p> So if this is true, is there any excuse for <em>Hamilton</em>, arguably the most influential work of modern drama in recent years, not to explore this unexplored territory?</p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-637"> </div>
<!-- End Ezoic - incontent3 - longer_content --></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzI3OTQ2MC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzOTY2MzU4Mn0.yhWd03Tw9j2uaIRoSNlLN-scu_Tg3irkUmD_saZh_2A/img.jpg?width=980" id="0a7ed" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3e4c16ceb851925bc7aad4c01e442233" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="Hamilton and Eliza ">
</p><p>It's worth noting that Miranda made it a priority to remain historically accurate in constructing his plot, so much so that<em> Hamilton</em> is being used as a means of historical education for grade school students. As unfortunate as it is, to make women any more involved in the life of Alexander Hamilton than they were would tarnish this historical accuracy. </p><p>Women during this time period were little more than property, to be bartered, used and exploited at the whim of whichever man's influence they were under at that time in their life. It could be argued that the Schuyler sisters are fully fleshed characters with inner lives and desires; the fact that their desires largely center around men is a reflection of the time they lived in, not the depth or strength of these characters.<br></p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-638"> </div>
<!-- End Ezoic - incontent33 - longer_content --></p><p>But, according to contributor James McMaster on HowlRound.com, the argument, "'Well, this is just how things are back then!'" is inadequate. McMaster argues, "…It's hard to accept such an explanation when black and brown men populate the stage…Given all the cross-racial casting, why was gender-bent casting beyond the musical's imagination?" </p><p>But wouldn't gender-bent casting rob the musical of the powerful ways it explores the gender division of the time period? A female Aaron Burr, for example, would tell an entirely different story. Aaron Burr and Hamilton's tension comes largely from a clashing of specifically male egos. </p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-639"> </div>
<!-- End Ezoic - incontent4 - longest_content --></p><p>That being said, according to Broadway World, Miranda stated that he is "open to the idea of gender bent casting", particularly in the cases of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, two characters without love interests or majorly important gender roles within the plot of the show. </p><p>Beyond the critique that there aren't enough women in <em>Hamilton</em>, <a href="https://www.contemporarytheatrereview.org/2018/chandler-hamilton-almost-feminist/" target="_blank"><u>some find </u></a>that the female characters Miranda did create are devoid of strength. The instance most cited in this argument is Eliza's forgiveness of Hamilton after his very public infidelity (a historical fact). But couldn't it be argued that it's this very instance of grace that makes Eliza such a complex, strong female character? </p><p>The problem is that critics often look for female strength in the forms male strength might take, such as a lack of emotion, unwavering ambition, and a large presence. In Eliza, we are instead presented with a gentle woman who truly, deeply, loves her husband and has the courage to forgive him despite her anger. Is this not strength of a different, more delicate variety?</p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-640"> </div>
<!-- End Ezoic - incontent44 - longest_content --></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-youtube">
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="1ddd8f8e34185693645620aeffdf8a72"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-_m_hwKu5FQ?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="Add Photo Caption...">Phillipa Soo Burn Hamilton The Musical</small>
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="Add Photo Credit...">
<a href="https://youtu.be/-_m_hwKu5FQ" target="_blank">youtu.be</a>
</small>
</p><p>In the song "Burn," we see Eliza reject Alexander and turn her back on their love, showing that despite many women of the day merely accepting the unfaithfulness of their husbands as the norm, Eliza will not. Eliza burns all of the letters she had exchanged with Hamilton, and as Michael Schulman points out in his article for <em>the New Yorker</em>, "The Women of 'Hamilton'": "…The song points to the larger problem of women's history: the public records are thinner, the milieu is mostly domestic, and there's more need for speculation. </p><p>What was Eliza really thinking? Was burning her letters the only act of personal agency she had left?" One forgiving interpretation is that this is Manuel-Miranda's way of noting this lack of public records regarding women and acknowledging the way it inevitably affected his show.<br></p><p>One must also look at Eliza's actions in the context of the entire plot. She abandons pride and refuses to hold grudges, something both Burr and Hamilton are unable to do, resulting in Hamilton's ultimate demise. In that sense, isn't Eliza the true protagonist of the show? In the closing scene, we hear about all of the many things she accomplishes before her death, things that Alexander was not able to accomplish because pride and manly bravado robbed him of his life. </p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-641"> </div>
<!-- End Ezoic - bottomofpage - bottom_of_page --></p><p>Is her ability to forgive the very thing ultimately flaunted as what Hamilton was fundamentally missing— his fatal flaw? Eliza's philanthropic accomplishments are cited as the culmination of the life of Alexander Hamilton, arguing that despite all his male pride, brilliant writing, and delusions of grandeur, the best work done by a Hamilton was that of his wife.</p><p>This argument would not be complete without mention of the other primary female character in the show: Angelica Schuyler. Angelica and Alexander connect on an intellectual level and are described as equals in all aspects. We hear about Angelica's correspondence with many men of great power, showing that despite her power being limited by her gender, she asserts her mind as much as she can. Despite the special connection Angelica and Alexander share, Angelica concedes to the desires of her younger sister, giving her blessing to Alexander and Eliza's marriage. She chooses her sister over him in this instance, and when she hears of his infidelity she rushes to her sister's side to reject Hamilton entirely.</p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-645"> </div>
<!-- End Ezoic - incontent_4 645 - longest_content --></p><p>Angelica is a smart, powerful woman who is held back only by her gender, something she recognizes in the song "Satisfied," by proclaiming, "I'm a girl in a world in which / My only job is to marry rich / My father has no sons / So I'm the one / Who has to social-climb for one …"</p><p>Finally, we must engage with the limits of the Bechdel test itself. Often, people take the Bechdel test as the deciding factor as to whether or not a work can be considered feminist, but that's not necessarily true. For example, the 2015 movie <em>50 Shades of Grey</em> passed the Bechdel test but is far from being a movie that represents women in a way that would make most feminists proud. In contrast, you can look at older works and see that they do not pass the Bechdel test either, but feature complex female characters. <span></span></p><p>Given all of this, one has to conclude that Manuel-Miranda actually did a fair job in creating complex female characters while maintaining historical accuracy in <em>Hamilton</em>. Of course, representation of women on stage is still sorely lacking, but of all the shows worth criticizing, it seems fair to conclude that the accusations of sexism have primarily been aimed at <em>Hamilton</em> because of its immense success. </p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-646"> </div>
<!-- End Ezoic - incontent_9 646 - incontent_9 --></p><p>None of this is to say that the Bechdel test isn't a helpful and important way of criticizing art, particularly new works, and holding them accountable for the inadequate ways they incorporate women, especially in modern stories in which women are freed from many of the obligations they were burdened with in the past. </p><h2></h2><p>Perhaps the Bechdel test should be edited to stipulate that in works representing the past, female characters should be evaluated by their complexity and strength, <em>despite </em>their necessary attachment to men. Such a test might read as follows: "Are there two or more named female characters? Do they talk to each other about something other than men? If they do not, is it out of a desire for the approval of men, or for survival? If for survival, are they shown to have wants and desires outside of those surrounding men?"</p><p> In the case of<em> Hamilton</em>, the women's discussion of men is not because they do not think of anything else or are too simple to conduct lives separate from men, but because it is a decided necessity to find a man in order to survive. Additionally, this is not where the character development ends, we learn a lot about both women's desires and inner lives, making them real, multi-faceted human beings, anchored to men by their circumstances, not their inability to be independent.</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Keep Reading
Show less
Culture Feature
Dear White People: AAVE Is an Actual Dialect, Not Your "Stan Culture"
Using a Black dialect isn't a meme—it's cultural appropriation.
08.03.2020
As Black Lives Matter protests have rightfully taken the world by storm over the past couple of months, we're long overdue for thorough evaluations of just how often aspects of Black heritage have been co-opted by white audiences.
It should be obvious that much of fashion and music as we know it today was invented by Black people. We (hopefully) all know by now that we can no longer accept Blackface and use of the n-word by non-Black people as the norm—and Internet users have tried "canceling" offenders in the public eye, with varying degrees of success.
<p>It shouldn't require much explanation to understand that explicitly racist jokes are bad, but there line between "acceptable" and "offensive" can be a little more muddled in some other instances—like in the case of non-Black people using AAVE, or African American Vernacular English.</p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-632"></div>
<!-- End Ezoic - undersecond12 - under_second_paragraph --></p><p><a href="https://www.languagejones.com/blog-1/2014/6/8/what-is-aave" target="_blank">AAVE is a specific dialect</a>, like British English, and it's used by Black Americans and some Black Canadians (hi, Drake!). It comes with its own set of rigid grammar and pronunciation rules, despite decades of white people condemning it as being a "ghetto" way of speaking. However, as memes, hip-hop, and shows like <em>RuPaul's Drag Race </em>have spread AAVE outside of its typical Black communities, non-Black Internet users—such as Brittany Tomlinson, better known as the <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/daniellaemanuel/woman-trying-kombucha-meme" target="_blank">Kombucha Girl</a>—have demeaned AAVE to a simple source of the slang du jour.</p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-633"> </div>
<!-- End Ezoic - incontent1 - mid_content --></p><p>In a TikTok video that's recently resurfaced on Twitter, Tomlinson seems to be addressing her previous use of AAVE, defending it as just a byproduct of "Internet culture."</p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-634"> </div>
<!-- End Ezoic - incontent11 - mid_content --></p><p></p><center><script async="" src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
<ins class="adsbygoogle" style="display:inline-block;width:468px;height:60px" data-ad-client="ca-pub-4301469008561137" data-ad-slot="9626795938"></ins>
<script>
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
</script></center><p></p><p>"I feel like it's a very fine line between genuinely calling out a creator who's using AAVE or 'the blaccent,' like, putting it on for comedic purposes, versus quoting something," Tomlinson explained. "The Nicki Minaj thing— 'big boobs? Chile, anyways...'—that's a meme, obviously. So when someone's quoting that, or when someone says 'periodt,' 'sis'—it's very much Internet culture. Like, stan Twitter. Stan culture has its own language… Collectively as a generation, if you're on the Internet, this is kind of how we all speak." Tomlinson has since <a href="https://twitter.com/brittany_broski/status/1289341598115889153?s=21" target="_blank">apologized on Twitter </a>and removed the videos.</p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-635"> </div>
<!-- End Ezoic - incontent2 - long_content --></p><div id="49ca2" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d2d2aef010af7c5d32765942f3b32e0a"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1289286200285569024" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">y’all really let this yt woman sit up and here and boldly tell black people AAVE is “stan culture” i’m sick https://t.co/QjD4mixEr0</div> — flo millicent stan account (@flo millicent stan account)<a href="https://twitter.com/slitmyclitt/statuses/1289286200285569024">1596224758.0</a></blockquote></div><p>It's true that many words rooted in AAVE have become so common that many people who use them have become desensitized to their racial connotations; <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/black-slang-white-people-ruined_n_55ccda07e4b064d5910ac8b3" target="_blank">slang terms like "lit," "bae," and "throw shade" can all be traced back to AAVE</a>. Words like "sis," "periodt," "deadass," and "chile" are more recent arrivals in the general cultural consciousness, but as the responses to Tomlinson's video indicate, they've already been used by Black people for ages.<br></p><p>There's a lot of issues with Tomlinson's statement, and perhaps the most obvious is her assumption that "we all speak" in this culturally appropriative manner. Plenty of white people know that using AAVE is culturally appropriative, and for Tomlinson to diffuse the blame onto an entire generation just comes off as an attempt to dodge responsibility for her own covertly racist actions. And even if Tomlinson genuinely does think "we all speak" that way, that just further proves the troubling degree to which AAVE has been co-opted.</p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-636"> </div>
<!-- End Ezoic - incontent22 - long_content --></p><p></p><center><script async="" src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script><!-- Popdust Mobile Banner 320x100 --><ins class="adsbygoogle" style="display:inline-block;width:320px;height:100px" data-ad-client="ca-pub-4301469008561137" data-ad-slot="6952751205"></ins><script>
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
</script></center><p></p><p><strong>Furthermore, it's incredibly reductive to call AAVE a part of "stan culture." It's an actual dialect. </strong>There's a lengthy list of specific pronunciation and syntax guidelines to follow in AAVE—learning it as someone who learned English as a typical white American would require some tedious brain rewiring. There are even anonymous Twitter accounts dedicated to broadcasting embarrassingly misused AAVE by non-Black people (a quick tip: "chile" means "child," not "chill"), proving it's a language with complex structures and not just a batch of fun slang words to use as you please.</p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-637"> </div>
<!-- End Ezoic - incontent3 - longer_content --></p><p>Since <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/blackenglishhistory/what-is-black-english/a-note-about-stigma" target="_blank">AAVE has often been considered "incorrect," "lazy," and "poor grammar"</a> since its beginnings during Civil War-era of slavery, many <a href="https://www.yesmagazine.org/opinion/2019/12/17/culture-code-switching/" target="_blank">Black people feel the need to code-switch</a>—or change their way of speaking—in hopes of being better respected by White peers. It's pretty disturbing, then, to see AAVE become a "trend" among white people trying to be funny in 2020—especially when <a href="https://www.statista.com/chart/21857/people-killed-in-police-shootings-in-the-us/" target="_blank">Black people are still disproportionately murdered</a>, <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/10/10/faces-poverty-social-racial-factors/37977173/" target="_blank">impoverished</a>, <a href="https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/un-report-on-racial-disparities/" target="_blank">incarcerated</a>, and <a href="https://www.popdust.com/megan-thee-stallion-shooting-reaction-2646844030.html" target="_self">made a mockery of online</a>. </p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-638"> </div>
<!-- End Ezoic - incontent33 - longer_content --></p><p>Sure, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziM8LHGzFlk" target="_blank">that one video of Nicki Minaj</a> that Tomlinson referenced is pretty funny—probably because of her sheer confusion. But why is a behavior that's inherently Black, like speaking AAVE, considered humorous among stan culture? Whether intended or not, a white person using AAVE is likely doing so to be considered funny or cool among their peers online—I can't imagine them using phrases like "periodt" or "it really do be like that" with their parents or teachers.</p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-639"> </div>
<!-- End Ezoic - incontent4 - longest_content --></p><p>Long story short, AAVE was only considered "ghetto" until white people appropriated it; that should be a dead giveaway that white people shouldn't use it at all.</p><h2></h2>
Keep Reading
Show less
