Have you ever heard that if you hear something mentioned more than three times the universe is trying to get your attention?

Let me say first, that I try not to watch a lot of television because I wasted a lot of time on it in the past.  But having said that, I do try to keep up with what's out there, at least a little, so that I can know what people are referring to on social media.  

Among my Black, female friends, two shows seem to be generating the most conversation right now.  Once is the night-time soap Scandal, and the other is cable drama Being Mary Jane.  On one hand, these are shows about powerful, successful women with high profile careers. They are also the characters that the shows are centered on, rather than merely being the friend or the side-kick.  These are the types of characterizations that women, especially women of color, have been clamoring for.   The only down-side?  To paraphrase my friend Cassandra, "Why do they have to  be side pieces?"

Both characters, although savvy professionals, are knowingly involved in relationships with married men.  To Hollywood, that makes for high drama, and wonderful story lines.  To the viewer that realizes that Hollywood still has a long way to go with it's portrayals of women, especially  it's depictions of minority women, it feels like one step forward, two steps back.  Even as we are finally given unqualified leads in television shows, Hollywood still cannot resist the temptation of portraying powerful women, of any race, as incapable of handling a healthy personal relationship.

It is well documented that Hollywood has a problem with women.  It is only remarkable when you see or hear of a woman being promoted, or a woman in a position of power, because it is so exceedingly rare.  Although the box office and ratings successes of women-helmed movies and shows, both in front of and behind the camera, should justify allowing women more autonomy and control over what images of them are portrayed on screen, the more I see and read about, the more it seems like we are running in place.  For every Black Widow, we get two Mikaelas.  For every Mara Brock Akil, there are dozens of young writers and directors whose ideas won't even be read because someone will notice the sex or race of the submitter, and decide right away that the writing is not good enough, and/or there will be no audience for it.

Who, exactly, is this audience?  Certainly not the one's who do not consume the media presented without question or comment; in fact these are the viewers television execs would like to avoid.  We hold them to a higher standard, because we realize that television both defines and reinforces popular images of women and minorities, and for every negative portrayal, or stereotype confirmation, there will be more work on our part to counter it.  Which is why when women, especially minority women, are shown engaging in morally questionable behavior, no matter how together the rest of their lives are shown, that one little tidbit stands out.

Historically, minority women's sexuality has always been thought to be one or the other of extremes: either the sexless, hyper religious Mammy, or the tart tongued, sassy strumpet.  Rarely did a t.v. or movie character defy either of those polar opposites.  Single Black women weren't shown at all, certainly not dating normally, until the show Girlfriends aired.  Mostly, single women were shown as being loose, or easy.  Here we are, decades into the portrayals of Black women on television, and even though we finally won the career battle, and the starring role battle, the character still has to have a faulty moral compass.  You cannot tell me that those in charge could not have come up with a better romantic story line than to have women we are ostensibly supposed to admire involved with married men.  

Therein lies the rub, not just for Black women, although that stick in the eye hurts that much more.  Why can't you have a woman that more or less has it all together be the center of the show? I dare say that these women could have been dating a wide variety of men with other, serious issues, and it would not have harmed the viewership in any way.  I understand that flaws make for better story, but must the flaw go straight to stereotype?  A nervous tic, is a flaw.  Being embarrassed about a poor background is a flaw.  Being condescending to others is a flaw.  And all of these flaws can be had by anyone.  I realize that Hollywood rarely entertains original ideas, nor does it respect the input of women unless said input conforms in some way to the vision they already have of what they feel women's roles should be.  But with the wealth of new ideas, writers, directors, and pure talent out there, if they bothered to look carefully, they wouldn't have to resort to tired stereotypes for conflict.

I will always remember my seventh birthday, because that's when my parents took my older sister and I to see The Wiz.

If I have an absurd love of musicals, it probably started with the modernized, urbanized tale of of a young woman named Dorothy, and her adventure as she struggled to find the true meaning of home.  As young girls, we were meant to empathize with the journey of Dorothy, as she tried to make it home, and helped others find what they already had (the Scarecrow had always been intelligent, the Tin Man indeed had feelings, and the Lion's courage surfaced when it needed to), even if they didn't realize it.  We understood Dorothy (even if she was a kindergarten teacher instead of a teenager, a concession made due to the casting of then 33-year old Diana Ross in the lead role) and certainly empathized with her quest, although we would not have to deal with career trajectory issues for another dozen years or so.  When I started watching the movie again with my own children some years ago, I began to notice themes, bits of dialogue and song lyrics I hadn't noticed before.

The many references to our urban reality, although handled with humor, pointed to the very real situations we faced on a daily basis.  The munchkins turned into permanent graffiti for painting on the walls of a park, showed children paying the ultimate price for what came to be called tagging, although back in the late 70's, they really were trying to make art, not just marking gang territory.  The Tin Man who hid his feelings behind jokes could be any of us who hide our true feelings in order to survive in our day to day lives.  Feelings are thought to be your enemy, and a sign of weakness, so we stifle them by whatever means necessary, in his case with humor, but occasionally with food, alcohol or worse.  The Lion's loud display of bravado, to cover up the fact that he felt he had no courage, was easily echoed in the legions of young men and women who resorted to violence and crime, based on a false, but popular, vision of what they thought courage looked like.

One of my favorite set pieces, and one of the funniest, was the Scarecrow and the Crows.  Here we have a young crow whose job is to scare the birds of prey away from the crops and seedlings.  When not doing this, which is most of the time as he is rather harmless looking, he entertains and educates himself by reading the bits of paper used to provide his stuffing.  He also yearns for a chance to come down from his perch and take a walk in his garden.  The crows like him where he is, of course, helpless and unable to stop them from stealing food from the garden.  To this end, not only do they refuse to help him off the pole, they unintentionally conspire to keep him from learning anything that would help the Scarecrow to help himself.  The Crows figure that by having The Scarecrow repeat their defeatist, cynical mantra (set to a good, dance-able beat, and sung well by a young Michael Jackson), they might maintain control over both him and their advantageous situation.  This was not new.

As far back as the 1950's, a crab barrel mentality, in which crabs try to keep each other from climbing out of the barrel by pulling them back in, has existed in the darker corners of urban centers.  Ostracism awaited anyone who dared display that they were academically talented, and/or wanted to rise above their circumstances.  Especially in lower socio-economic areas, reading was considered uppity, and the reader was thought to be either trying to be better than everyone else, or wasting their time, since they were unlikely to get a much better job than menial work, based on where their current place in life was. There was, some people believed, no escape from the life your parents led, so why even try?  The message of the Crows, then, was this:  Since the Game of Life is rigged to favor those that were already going to win, don't bother playing.  You will lose anyway, and feel worse for having tried.

What was true in the late 1970s is still true today.  Rampant anti-intellectualism (say that five times fast!) permeates urban culture.  Anyone that strays away from the accepted messages of hedonism (the search for pleasure above all things) and conspicuous consumption (you are what you buy) is regarded with a great deal suspicion and heaping doses of scorn.  Popular media feeds us a steady diet of images and music that tell us that we should aspire to look successful on the outside, never mind any education, as we are not expected to accomplish much else.  The messages are all wrapped up in pretty packaging as well.  Hmm.  Hedonism, materialism and negativity all set to a nice beat, with glamorous images.  Sound familiar?

Of course the movie goes on to a happy resolution, everyone finds what they are looking for, and Dorothy finds out the true meaning of home before being transported back to her New York City neighborhood.  But I've always found it interesting the things you realize when you first start hearing the words to the music you loved as a child, as an adult.  I never noticed that the lyrics to the song "Greased Lightning", from one of my other favorite musicals, Grease, were so dirty until I watched the original version of the movie sometime in my early 30's, after only watching the edited version on broadcast television for many years.  But aside from that, I am glad that the ultimate message of the crows, that of giving up in the face of obstacles, was defeated by the Scarecrow himself, with the aid of Dorothy and her dog in the movie.  He proved that no one has to let the  negativity that surrounds them on a daily basis define them, or decide their path.  He sang it actually.  To a nice, dance-able beat.

I still enjoy this movie.  Granted, I now understand both the lyrics and the underlying messages, a perspective that being 35 years removed from the first time I saw it as a child has provided.  The positive themes of family and self-determination presented in the film (Dorothy was afraid to make any real decisions, or leave the comfort zone of her aunt's home, until she was thrust into Oz), are what I believe the filmmakers really wanted the viewing audience to focus on.  Yes, the other, more negative connotations are there, and while it is good to be aware of them (mindless viewing of ANYTHING is always a bad idea), I believe that the larger point is that we determine our own fate, either by our actions, or lack thereof.  Sometimes despite where we started.

And like all journeys, it's always better when we make the trip with friends.  And music.