Archive for ‘Feminism’

September 15, 2011

Nancy Upton

Go read about this really cool lady who slapped American Apparel down a bit.

(They responded boringly.)

May 20, 2011

Does Your Reading List Ever Make You Mad? (and Other First-World Problems)

I have some sympathy for Carmen Callil. Her actions are counterproductive, though, because now everyone’s going to be passionately defending Philip Roth’s literary reputation for weeks (well, days) and complaining about sour feminists, when if they’d just given him the prize without any controversy, everyone would have been like, “Roth again? Yawn! Why didn’t they give this one to Marilynne Robinson?”

But I think she just snapped, and we’ve all been there – as a reader, how many times are you told, “Okay. This guy was really messed up about women, but you just have to ignore all the blatant horrifying misogyny, and then, you have to admit, he’s a genius!” It’s constant. And most of the time, because women are great about doing this, because we – and it can’t be said often enough – do it all the time in every form of culture ever, we concede the point. We forgive the constant brutal, graphic rapes and the ‘mothers are manipulative, evil hags’ stuff and ‘I just want to kill my castrating wife’ stuff and the constant reducing of all women to two-dimensional jizz receptacles, and we overlook all that and say, “Yeah, you’re right. If you overlook the 90% of it that’s repeatedly telling us that we better never for a second think we have any power or status in our society whatsoever, it really is an amazing work of art.” (Meanwhile, ask some guys to come with you to see a movie with women in it, or pink somewhere on the poster, and it’s like you’re asking them to lick a public toilet.)

Anyway, eventually every single reading woman (and sometimes, a reading man) reaches that point where she just goes, “That’s it! That is it! I’m done! I do not have to overlook it and admit the genius! I do not have to admit any fucking knob’s genius anymore! I’m done! I am only ever reading stuff by women from now on forever and that’s it! YOU can overlook the dress descriptions and the stupid wedding at the end, and admit that this woman is a genius! YOU OVERLOOK SOMETHING FOR ONCE, DAMN IT!”

And then you have to go off by yourself for awhile and take some deep breaths, especially since you weren’t even talking to anyone specific, but just yelling at the air in front of your face, and you weren’t even reading anything at the moment, but just sitting there, thinking about stuff and seething. Plus, some of your favorite writers are men.

Ideally, you do not throw this tantrum publicly, while you are serving as one of the judges for a major literary prize.

Anyway, we’ve all been there. I can understand how Callil feels, although I don’t have an opinion as to whether or not Roth should have won – I’ve only read American Pastoral (I read it in Vietnam, which I think informed and added to my reading experience1), and I haven’t read everyone on the shortlist, but most current readers are not all that sad that the days of RothMailerUpdike dominance are ending (although I still plan to get around to reading those dudes some day).

If you ever have a moment of literary despair, it pays to remember that contemporary fiction is absolutely exploding with awesome writers, many of them women. Look at Jennifer Egan! I mean, I didn’t like her book that much, but everybody else loved it, and she won both the NBCC Award and the Pulitzer. Additionally, up-and-coming male writers have finally realized that being entirely dismissive of and confused about half the world’s population rather limits your ability to be a great recorder of the human condition, and literary misogyny is (I really think, though some people will argue with me) on the wane.

Here are some fantastic books I would recommend for anyone who needs a little break from being reasonable and open-minded about offensive content. Not only are these great books about women (I think? Maybe a couple are about men2), but they are not about “women’s issues”. They are not specifically about feminism or stifling marriages or dealing with abuse or anything like that (well, maybe some of them are a little bit, but those are not the elements I primarily remember about them)(and not that there’s anything wrong with books on those topics, but that’s not what we’re after here):

  • The Last Samurai by Helen DeWitt (Everyone should read this! Why has everyone not read this?)
  • Molly Fox’s Birthday by Deirdre Madden
  • Bad Marie by Marcy Dermansky
  • Let the Northern Lights Erase Your Name by Vendela Vida
  • Here They Come by Yannick Murphy
  • Atmospheric Disturbances by Rivka Galchen
  • Wetlands by Charlotte Roche (warning: look into this before you read it; it is not for everyone)
  • Winner of the National Book Award by Jincy Willett (Hilarious! Read it!)
  • The Elegance of the Hedgehog by Muriel Barbery
  • Bee Season by Myla Goldberg
  • Novel About My Wife by Emily Perkins
  • Heir to the Glimmering World by Cynthia Ozick
  • The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula Le Guin
  • anything by Marilynne Robinson
  • Any others? What can you recommend in this category?

And I don’t even know, so many more! Those are just the ones I happened to think of, that I’ve read recently. So never feel like you have to read Philip Roth, and never feel like you have to not read Philip Roth, either. Read everything! There’s enough great stuff out there for anybody in any kind of mood, is all I’m saying.

(Image via)
__
1I know, aren’t I tiresome?! If we were at a party, you would have just spotted someone you had to go talk to over there.
2Actually, two of these books (Atmospheric Disturbances and Novel About My Wife) are about men searching for their mysteriously missing (and not actually missing) wives. Weird!

April 8, 2011

Planned Parenthood Does Not Receive Federal Funding For Abortions

I don’t think any intelligent person really believes this budget standoff is about abortion, but this article is worth reading for a reminder of what the much-maligned Planned Parenthood actually does (and what the federal government actually pays for):

More than 90 percent of the health care provided by Planned Parenthood is preventive. Every year, Planned Parenthood doctors and nurses carry out nearly one million screenings for cervical cancer and 830,000 breast exams. Planned Parenthood health centers also provide affordable birth control to nearly 2.5 million patients, and nearly four million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV testing for women and men. The funding that PPFA receives from the federal government goes toward this basic care, and accounts for roughly one-third of Planned Parenthood’s $1 billion annual budget. These funds come from local, state and federal sources, but 90 percent come from Medicaid and other federal sources. Federal funds pay only for cancer screenings, birth control, family planning visits, annual exams, testing for HIV and other STIs, and other basic care.

Moreover, 73 percent of Planned Parenthood health centers are in rural or medically underserved areas. Planned Parenthood provides primary and preventive health care to many who otherwise would have nowhere to turn. According to the Guttmacher Institute, six in ten patients who receive care at a family planning health center like Planned Parenthood consider it their main source of health care.

March 31, 2011

Lynsey Addario

Photographer Lynsey Addario responds to those who say women ought not to cover war zones:

Yes, what happened to Lara was horrible, by all accounts. There’s no question. And when I was in Libya, I was groped by a dozen men. But why is that more horrible than what happened to Tyler or Steve or Anthony — being smashed on the back of the head with a rifle butt? Why isn’t anyone saying men shouldn’t cover war? Women and men should do what they believe they need to do.

I don’t think it’s more dangerous for a woman to do conflict photography. Both men and women face the same dangers.

Addario is one of four NY Times journalists who were recently captured and released in Libya.

March 11, 2011

Media to Women: Men Hate You

Women: in case there was any doubt in your mind, the media this month would just like to remind you that men hate you. Reading my usual feeds over the last couple of weeks has been one installment after another of victim blaming and rape apology. As far as journalists assigned to cover these things go, it’s like the 20th century never even happened. Women victims are pushed off the page, relegated to the margins, and, when they are mentioned at all, insulted and blamed for their own abuse.

The most egregious example is the NY Times coverage of the lengthy and premeditated gang rape of an 11-year-old girl in Cleveland, Texas. James McKinley, who wrote the article, chooses to focus the piece on the devastating effect this crime has had…on the Texas community. He includes three quotes for the article. The first is a quote about how all those poor boys (the 18 males, from middle-school-aged to 27, who gang-raped an 11-year-old over a period of hours in two different locations, and taped it, the better to brag about it later) were going to have to live with this the rest of their lives. The second quote is about how the child dressed like a young tart. And the third quote is about how the child’s mother let her run around by herself.  To be fair to the reporter, it looks like the town of Cleveland truly is entirely populated by horrifying shitheads.  Still, the way the article was framed did not question the residents’ interpretation of the events:  ”…how could their young men have been drawn into such an act?”  he muses.

Of course, other media outlets have reacted strongly to this mind-blowingly backwards coverage, but the Times has not apologized or taken the article down. They did publish a single, rather mild letter that rebukes the reporter for his victim-blaming, though it doesn’t mention the bizarre ‘oh, those poor boys,’ slant to the story.

As always, The Onion is not so much a parody of the actual news as it is a parallel.

Also in the Times, Anna Holmes writes that the Charlie Sheen fiasco is notable (or par for the course) in that before, when Sheen was merely physically and psychologically abusing women, he was a celebrity in good standing, but now that he’s going around bashing his employers, coworkers and Hollywood generally, something must finally be done about him.

Finally, the New Yorker’s Talk of the Town section features a sympathetic, humanizing profile of Mike Tyson, pigeon trainer. Mike Tyson is often the subject of these sorts of cuddle-fests, because the contrast of a violent, meaner-than-spit boxer enjoying various gentle, emotional activities or fake-crying or whatever is a hilarious juxtaposition that requires no effort to think up. Mike Tyson’s most notable violent act is that he once bit Evander Holyfield’s ear during a boxing match. People don’t gloss over this about him – it is always referenced when he does guest cameos in movies, and is dutifully mentioned here in the pigeon profile.

Oh, Mike Tyson is also a convicted rapist. But nobody ever mentions that. It wouldn’t be fair to Mike.

January 2, 2011

A Breakdown of the Movies I Watched In 2010

In 2010, I kept a record of all of the movies I watched. I watched 69 movies total, and here’s how they break down across various categories:

Year Released:

Of the movies I watched this year, by far the majority (49) came out in the 00s, and most of those came out in 2009. I watched:

  • 5 movies that came out in 2010 (Robin Hood, Exit Through the Gift Shop, Inception, True Grit and The King’s Speech)
  • 23 from 2009 (Fantastic Mr. Fox, Up, In the Loop, The Private Lives of Pippa Lee, Sherlock Holmes, Bright Star, The Invention of Lying, An Education, Broken Embraces, Up In the Air, Whip It, The Informant!, Crazy Heart, A Serious Man, Inglorious Basterds, The Hangover, Coraline, Precious, (500) Days of Summer, Invictus, Adventureland, Nine and A Single Man)
  • 5 from 2008 (Synecdoche, NY, The Hurt Locker, Baby Mama, The Happening and Anvil: The Story of Anvil)
  • 4 from 2007 (Sweeney Todd, Atonement, Year of the Dog and The Diving Bell & the Butterfly)
  • 2 from 2006 (The Fall and Children of Men)
  • 4 from 2005 (Me and You and Everyone We Know, Happy Endings, Kingdom of Heaven and Brick)
  • 2 from 2004 (The Bridge of San Luis Rey and Melinda & Melinda)
  • 2 from 2003 (Visitors and Secondhand Lions)
  • 1 from 2002 (Dirty Pretty Things)
  • 1 from 2000 (Bring It On)

Otherwise, I watched 20 movies:

  • 9 movies that came out in the 90s (Boys Don’t Cry (99), The Truman Show (98), Chasing Amy (97), Dead Man (95), Pulp Fiction, Swimming With Sharks and Heavenly Creatures (all 3 from 94), Strictly Ballroom (92) and Without You I’m Nothing (90))
  • 3 movies from the 80s (The Burbs (89), Women On the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown (88) and Ran (85))
  • 2 movies from the 70s (All the President’s Men (76) and Maitresse (75))
  • 3 movies from the 60s (Vivre Sa Vie and L’Eclisse (both from 62) and Through a Glass Darkly (61))
  • 2 movies from the 50s (The Night of the Hunter (55) and A Place In the Sun (51))
  • 1 movie from the 30s (Blue Angel (30))

Venue:

This year, I watched 6 movies in the theater (1 by myself and 5 with other people), 14 at other people’s homes, 12 at home with friends or family and 32 at home by myself (well, that’s a little embarrassing to admit).

Bechdel Test:

I define the Bechdel test a little more narrowly than the standard definition. My criteria are not only that the film contain a substantial conversation between two or more women that is not about men, but also that it take place when no male character is on camera. Of the 68 movies I watched (one, Without You I’m Nothing, was exempt from this test because it is a one-woman show), only 10 pass this test unambiguously (Atonement, Heavenly Creatures, Boys Don’t Cry, Whip It, Year Of the Dog, Visitors, Baby Mama, Coraline, Precious and Bring It On). Since the majority of the movies I watched were made and released in the last few years, this is a particularly pathetic number. There are a number of additional movies with strong female leads (True Grit, for example), but there is never not a male character on screen (usually with the movie taking place from his character’s perspective). It’s very rare for movies to be made that do not take place primarily through a male lens – this is because women will obligingly turn out to see movies that deal entirely or mostly with men and/or “male” issues (even if those movies also largely feature women being insulted, beaten, raped and/or shot to bits), but many men are dismissive towards movies featuring women (even if they are not “romcoms” or otherwise “feminine” in subject matter). Apparently, Hollywood thinks that men are so unable to identify with women as their fellow humans that they will be unwilling to attend a movie with a mostly female cast, regardless of subject matter or merit.  Note that movies such as Women On the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown also do not pass the test as I define it, because, while this movie consists of a mostly female cast that often speak to each other when there is no man on camera, they are always talking entirely about their boyfriends (which isn’t to say it’s a bad movie – I liked it, actually, but it still doesn’t pass this test).

Additionally, there are a few movies that I wasn’t sure passed or not, because I wasn’t keeping track of this the entire year, and some movies I couldn’t remember clearly in retrospect. So, I think L’Eclisse kind of passes – there’s one scene where the protagonist and her friends are having a party and it’s all women, but I don’t remember what they talk about. They do dress up and do some sort of bizarre tribal dance to bongos (in blackface!), so, you know, maybe that sort of counts? I can’t remember if there are any conversations between only women in Me and You and Everyone We Know that aren’t about men, but I don’t think there were. The two women in Up In the Air have a conversation that is sort of more about age and opportunity windows than it is about men, but it’s really short and George Clooney is there for it, too, so it doesn’t count. I think there’s a brief conversation in The Night of the Hunter between the woman who takes in orphans and one of her charges about good behavior (mostly, but not entirely, defined by not running around with men). That might sort of count if we’re really reaching. I can’t remember clearly if Vivre Sa Vie, The Bridge of San Luis Rey or Happy Endings have any brief snatch of conversation between two women about something other than men, but I don’t think they do.

For more on the Bechdel test, see this great Twisty post on Toy Story III, and also Geena Davis on the dearth of girls in children’s movies.

Race/Ethnicity:

My breakdown for this is less reliable than the other ones, because I didn’t start keeping track of this until rather late in the year, so I might be forgetting some black, Hispanic or Asian actors, but for the most part, good roles for non-white actors that are not specifically about their race or ethnicity seem to be even slimmer than movies with female protagonists. I don’t really count movies in which the race or ethnicity of a character is essential to the role. So, for example, Precious has an entirely black cast, but the movie is about being poor and black. What I am looking for are nonspecific roles in which the director has cast non-white actors. This almost never happens. For example, the character played by a black actor in Melinda & Melinda is a pianist and a love interest – it’s not essential to the plot (or even mentioned) that he is black, so that movie passes.

Such a casting decision was made only 6 times out of these 69 films: Up (the little boy is Asian and his being Asian is not specific to his character [the actor who voices the part is Japanese-American]), The Hurt Locker (one of the three main stars is black), Broken Embraces (Penelope Cruz), Pulp Fiction (Samuel L. Jackson), Melinda & Melinda (see above) and Nine (Penelope Cruz again). Otherwise, Dirty Pretty Things has a black male lead, but he plays a Nigerian immigrant, so his being black is part of his character; Baby Mama has a black doorman, but he’s a racist caricature; Inglorious Basterds has a black character, but his being black is part of the plot; The Hangover has a horribly racist Chinese character; half the cast of Invictus is black, but it’s about South Africa after apartheid; and Bring It On has a black v. white storyline, which is also racist, although one of the cheerleaders on the “white” team is played by an Asian actor; and I’ve already mentioned Precious. So, even if we counted these movies, that’s still only 13 out of 69 movies with even one non-white actor in a major role (more movies than pass the Bechdel test, but still a pretty poor percentage).

Again, I could really be missing a few, because I thought about this only in hindsight, but I don’t think I’m missing any really principle characters, and the fact that I might have overlooked one or two minor roles in a few films doesn’t really improve the numbers much.  UPDATE: My roommate pointed out that Penelope Cruz should not count, because she is Spanish, so if I count her, I should count Marion Cotillard and other white Western Europeans in American films.  She also pointed out that foreign actors do have this problem, in that, say, Italians are always cast as mobsters, French women as seductive vamps, etc.  But that’s an entirely different issue – my point here is the rare casting of non-white Americans in American films (and non-white Brits in British films, etc.), so Cruz should NOT be counted, so that makes only 4 – 4! – films that pass this test!  I’m not updating the chart below, but those pie slices should be thinner.

Naturally, movies filmed in other countries feature casts almost entirely from their country of origin (for example, Ran is a Japanese movie with a Japanese cast), so they’re not included in this breakdown, though I should mention that as far as I can remember, none of the European movies featured any meaty roles cast with black or Asian actors. Also, there are a few movies that should be exempt from this test, because they are specifically about white people and so couldn’t have been cast with non-white actors (for example, The King’s Speech).

Rating:

Oh, so, did I actually like any of these movies or not? Looking back over the list, here are the ones I definitely really enjoyed (or, with some, didn’t enjoy necessarily, but thought were really very good) and would recommend:

Fantastic Mr. Fox, Atonement, The Hurt Locker, Up, The Fall, Heavenly Creatures, Boys Don’t Cry, Through a Glass Darkly, In the Loop, Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown, Sherlock Holmes, Bright Star, An Education, Whip It, The Night of the Hunter, Exit Through the Gift Shop, Pulp Fiction, The Informant!, Strictly Ballroom, Brick, A Serious Man, The Diving Bell & the Butterfly, Inglorious Basterds, Coraline, Invictus, A Single Man, All the President’s Men and True Grit. (28 out of 69)

Here are the ones that I thought were terrible and would advise you not to watch:

Robin Hood, Year of the Dog, Chasing Amy, Secondhand Lions, The Happening, Precious, The Burbs and Nine. (only 8 out of 69)

The rest are either forgettable; or they’re mostly bad, but have one or two redeeming elements; or I can see that they are objectively good, but I personally couldn’t get into them, or was offended by them in some way; or they were clearly good when they were made, but they maybe don’t really hold up.

While I can’t pick the overall best movie I saw this year, I can state with total confidence that the worst was The Happening (followed very closely by Year of the Dog).

__
Image via.

October 29, 2010

Sexy Costumes

A quick note on the whole sexy costume hate-a-thon that crops up every year.  Yes, sexy Halloween costumes are stupid, but, like so much criticism of things-associated-with-women, while the criticism itself might be valid, the vehemence, frequency and volume of the criticism is clearly informed by some underlying misogyny (see also dudes bitching about:  Sex in the City, rom coms, Valley Girl like-speech, weddings, shopping in general, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum). 

So, we start out with ‘sexy Halloween costumes are unoriginal and dull,’ and then, like magic, a mere hundred and fifty-seven (or so) comments later, we arrive at ‘what a bunch of stupid f-ing whores.’  Which, of course, is where we were clearly headed, all along. 

Anyway, people are talking about this again, and someone finally said, ‘Hey now, let’s calm down.

 

April 28, 2010

Quotas In India’s Panchayats

Inequality is especially marked in political life. Despite the high profile of a few female leaders — including Ms. Gandhi and the president of India, Pratibha Patil — fewer than 11 percent of members of Parliament are women.

By contrast, the panchayats stand as bastions of female representation. Academic studies suggest that the quotas have not benefited upper castes at the expense of more impoverished groups. Women are as likely as men to come from lower castes to serve on the panchayats.

And the quota seems to be benefiting both sexes in more tangible ways. One study, by Esther Duflo, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, found that panchayats led by women provided more public services, from wells to roads, over all.

NY Times

February 1, 2010

11

I have not been blogging much lately, and so, in the style of the blog 11 Points, here are 11 things that I have been spending my time on lately, and enjoying immensely. All highly recommended:

1. Gail Collins. The New York Times was long overdue for a female columnist who wasn’t Maureen Dowd, and Gail Collins is more than the Times deserves: tart, smart, funny and perceptive, her takes on the issues of the day are both informative and cathartic. I just checked out one of her books, America’s Women: 400 Years of Dolls, Drudges, Helpmates, and Heroines, but have only read the first chapter so far. I’ll let you know how it is. Also, in addition to her columns, Collins’s conversations with David Brooks are a treat. I have to confess, in the past, I have occasionally liked David Brooks, but he’s been heinous lately, and as his tenure at the Times goes on, he contradicts himself ever more blatantly. I dearly love a good journo fight, and Matt Taibbi (an occasional guilty pleasure for me, I’ll admit – his reportage may be spotty, but sometimes you just need a good, unapologetic rant) has lately been picking Brooks’s columns up in his teeth and shaking them back and forth until their necks snap.

2. The public library. I like to write in my books, dogear them, and read them in the shower, so for years, I insisted on buying books and keeping them in piles along my baseboards. But I don’t make that kind of money these days, and have finally learned to make good use of the public library. Yes, the inability to write in the books is a serious handicap, but otherwise, I am a total library convert. There’s a small branch near my house, and I can order whatever I want through the system to be delivered there, and they notify me by email when my holds are ready. Best of all, you can renew your books on the computer, and as long as nobody puts a hold on them, you can renew them indefinitely (I’ve renewed one 12 times already). And all for not one red cent (not counting city taxes). Beat that, Kindle.

3. Susan Schorn’s McSweeney’s column. I go back and forth on McSweeney’s, and particularly on their columnists. Some are good, some are boring, many have long outlived their original gimmick, good for only a post or two, but weirdly extended. But one of their new columns, Susan Schorn’s meditations on martial arts, self-defense, anger, weakness, and related topics, is fantastic – and not just because I’m into karate lately. I agree with Schorn about everything, and wish she lived next door to me, so that I could bother her all the time (and all of her other humor pieces are great, too). Speaking of karate:

4. Shotokan karate. I have been training at a local dojo since August (I’m currently a yellow belt), and I am obsessed. Fantastic exercise, and a wonderful outlet for pent-up aggression, karate is sport, art form, self-defense training and a study in focus and discipline, all in one. I try to make three classes a week, and, while I still couldn’t beat up a four-year-old, my kiai has deepened from Chihuahua to Rottweiler.

5. Jezebel and The Awl. I am putting these together, because my enjoyment of them is similar. For some reason, when Jezebel debuted, I immediately decided that I didn’t care for it. I can’t remember what about it offended me, because I’ve really been enjoying it lately. In addition to the progressive and feminist news alerts, there are hearty round-ups of celebrity gossip. And while I am not interested enough in celebrity garbage to actually read up on it, I must admit, do I want to know when Brad and Angie finally break it off, or when Lindsay Lohan ODs in a club bathroom, or when somebody has a major weight reversal? Yes! Yes, okay? I do want to know that! I admit it! But I don’t need to know the deets – I just want a headline and a photo, and that’s what Jezebel delivers. Now, The Awl, helmed by former Gawker editor, Choire Sicha (aka the only person who ever wrote for Gawker that I actually liked), is a hilarious, well-written chronicle of all things that would particularly interest…well, Brooklyn dwelling, underemployed pseudo-writers like moi. Plus, it is one of those lovely, rare blogs in which the commenters expand on (and often outshine) the posts. Kinder than Gawker and sharper than The Gothamist, The Awl fits just right.  If I could only read one blog, this would probably be it.

6. Amanda Palmer. The former Dresdan Doll has an awesome solo album. Plus, she’s engaged to Neil Gaiman, and showed up at The Golden Globes with her boobs and her pit hair out. She’s a fucking badass.

7. Small, well-done, original blogs. Tiring of sprawling, massive, constantly updating blogs, I have lately been discovering small, creative, focused sites that do one thing and do it well. Edith Zimmerman writes hilarious very short stories. Tom Oatmeal (who I found through EZ) makes milk come out my nose. And firmuhment is continually brilliant and original – scanned documents that inspire essays, short stories, and humor. I’m not sure if firmuhment is a single author deal or a team effort, but every post has obviously had a lot of work put into it, and I appreciate that.

8. Firefox’s new skins. I spent the lion’s share of my day staring at my browser, so anything that makes it more visually appealing makes me happy. Firefox’s new skins are a small adjustment that, surprisingly, makes a big difference. Currently, I’m enjoying Spring II. Goes well with my igoogle theme.

9. Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I resisted getting into this back in high school when everyone was super into it, and haven’t gotten into it since, because I didn’t want to consume seven seasons of TV. But my coworker has them all on DVD. Uncle, okay? I’m through six seasons already, and ready to register as an official member of the Joss Whedon fanbase. In addition to the overall awesomeness of the series, I enjoy identifying basic karate moves in the fight choreography.

10. My new phone. After three shameful years of hitchhiking on my parents’ family plan, I finally ponied up and got my own phone plan, and a phone with a full keyboard and a camera. And man, it makes a huge difference! I no longer wince at the sound of a text message arriving: it doesn’t take me a year to peck out a response anymore, and my phone looks cool and is really fun to use. And yesterday, when my brunch coffee came in a giant bowl with no handle, I was able to document it quickly and easily, no forethought required.

11. My rabbit, Thomasina. Thomasina is so freaking adorable!! And I love having a pet! This was a good move. She’s my little pal, and she does hilarious things and entertains me, and she’s cuddly and fun. Right now, for example, I am trying to write, and she is collapsing her little grass hut on top of her head, and making eyes at the rabbit she thinks lives in my closet mirror! OMG, she’s a gas. I won’t work at all today.

October 28, 2009

I’ve Been Reading: Wetlands

Charlotte Roche’s Wetlands is a novel about a girl and her asshole. No, really – exhaustively and all the way through, this novel centers on 18-year-old Helen Memel’s butchered asshole. Having nicked something major during her regular and highly involved shaving routine, Helen is lying in a hospital bed “with my skirt hiked up and my underpants pulled down, ass toward the door.” But she’s not embarrassed about that, or anything else. While she lies there in recovery, Helen ruminates obsessively on her favorite themes – her body, its byproducts and the fun she can have with them. All of this is shockingly explicit, but if you ask yourself why it’s shocking, being (as it is) so utterly everyday and banal a subject (essentially, a long version of ‘everybody poops’), you get closer to Roche’s ultimate purpose.

Wetlands is essentially a protest novel. Helen is merely particularly interested in her body; Roche, on the other hand, is furious that Helen’s interests and comfort with herself could be as rare and shocking as they (to many) are. True, all bodily functions are hidden, but some are more hidden than others – specifically, women’s. Roche’s target here is the sanitized woman: society’s obsession with hair removal, its primitive taboos about menstruation and vaginal cleanliness, its commercial tendency to tiptoe around women’s genitalia with cutesy, pink crap, as though vaginas themselves are an inside joke.

Undoubtedly, bodily secretions are nothing to be ashamed of; whether or not they are interesting is another question altogether. As Helen prods, picks at and wipes herself continuously, the book becomes tedious. Other people’s fluids, like their dreams and their college photo albums, are ultimately of no interest to anyone but themselves. Helen also has family drama and a new love interest, and she is scared and alone and putting on a brave face, but these plot points were clearly thought up after Roche settled on her theme. They feel tacked on, and the ending takes a leap into the surreal that is entirely unjustified by the chapters leading up to it.

Which isn’t to say Wetlands doesn’t have something to offer. Helen is an endearing and original character. And as a feminist howl, the book succeeds – Roche’s point is certainly a valid one that needs to be made more often. Still, she probably could have made it just as well in a ten-page short story.

August 27, 2009

I’ve Been Reading: Winner of the National Book Award

Shit, I had some vague idea I might write this book one day, but it seems Jincy Willett has beaten me to the punch (and undoubtedly done a better job of it than I would have).

Winner of the National Book Award concerns twin sisters, Dorcas and Abigail Mather. Dorcas is all brain, and Abigail is all appetite: while Dorcas grows up, tart and intelligent, a librarian who loves bird watching and heavy drinking, and is always armed with a witty comeback, Abigail feeds constantly on attention, sex and food, growing plump and slick, and popular with husbands all across their small Rhode Island town. As Dorcas describes them in their girlhood:

‘When I was twelve, and An American Tragedy was my favorite summer book, my sister thrilled to Forever Amber, especially the scene where Amber, trying to rekindle the passion of Bruce Carleton, her first rapist, appears at the King’s Ball in a beaded gown that makes her breasts stand out “like full pointed globes.” I had to call Abigail “Amber” all that summer. She had been “Scarlett” the previous spring. Already Abigail was coming down in the world.’

The novel opens with Dorcas holed up in her library as a hurricane bears down on Rhode Island. With no way to avoid it, she sits down to read her sister’s recently published autobiographical memoir, about how she killed her husband. Abigail is currently in a women’s penitentiary, awaiting her trial.

The novel proceeds within this frame – Dorcas reminisces back through the sisters’ shared history as she disgustedly reads her sister’s memoir. The memoir is co-written by Hilda DeVilbiss, who Abigail met on her postal route years ago. Hilda is married to Guy, a whiny, infantile, self-aggrandizing intellectual, the satisfaction of whose various needs is Hilda’s mission in life. When Guy demands he meet Abigail, the sisters become unenthusiastic friends of the couple, who soon introduce them to Conrad Lowe, Guy’s college roommate. Conrad is a type-perfect misogynist, sadistic and manipulative – in the same way that Dorcas is all intellect and Abigail is all appetite, Conrad is also more type than individual. He seizes on Dorcas as a contradiction in terms, the world’s only “honorable woman,” and marries Abigail in order to better fuck with the sisters. Dorcas tries to stay close to her sister and shield her somewhat from Conrad’s abuse, without becoming involved with him on any level. This proves an impossibility, of course, and the three are drawn into endless warfare that ends in Abigail’s imprisonment.

Through exaggerating and focusing on each of her character’s primary motivations, Willett perfectly elucidates the conflict between men and women, and women and women. The Mather sisters seem to me to be two aspects of the same person – I don’t think I’m reading too much into the novel to say that they represent the liberated woman’s struggle to satisfy her romantic and sexual needs without compromising her dignity and autonomy. As Dorcas explains to Conrad:

“Abigail and I divided up the world. Sacred and profane. Spiritual and physical. Mind and body.”

Abigail is pure id: immediately upon entering puberty, she revels in being gang raped. When she meets Conrad, she is nearly 200 pounds, an enthusiastic eater who has never dieted. She is naked, unexamined need, unembarrassed, never shy. While Abigail has slept with nearly every man in town, she has never been in love with any of them personally; of course, she falls hard for Conrad, and, to Dorcas’s horror, becomes meek and compliant in the face of his abuse. The scene in which Abigail pines for Conrad, who meanwhile calls Dorcas up for a date, seems to me to be symbolic of a woman wrestling with her own irrational desire: Abigail keens on the sofa like a dog in heat, while Dorcas panics at her sister’s brute, out of control need. She slaps Abigail across the face and douses her with a giant pot of cold water. At Abigail’s begging insistence, Dorcas agrees to have dinner with the hateful Conrad. At dinner, she tells him he’s a bad person, and is to stay away from them, but when she wakes in the morning, he is in Abigail’s bed.

Conrad seizes on Abigail’s weight as her Achilles’ heel, and Abigail develops anorexia and dwindles down to nothing. Meanwhile, Conrad works on Dorcas by manipulating her into frequent bouts of heavy drinking with him, flattering her intelligence and uniqueness. Dorcas is unwillingly susceptible to suggestions that she is mythically superior; this is her weak spot.

Perhaps I am reading too much in, however, when I say they also seem to personify the two factions of feminism currently holding each other in uneasy alliance. Dorcas and Abigail love, but do not really like one another. Dorcas says of her sister:

I know Abigail better than anyone else in the world, and if I were asked to explain this or that particular thing, I could probably give a fairly accurate account of her motivations. I can report that duty has never played an even minor part in her decisions; that she is moved solely by the desire for pleasure and the avoidance of pain; that she derives pleasure from an astonishing variety of sources, and pain from astonishingly few; and so on. I can even predict her behavior, with a respectable success rate.

But I don’t understand her at all. To understand you have to do more than predict and explain. You must feel some degree of empathy. I have a greater understanding of cats and internal combustion engines and Iranians than I do of my twin sister, Abigail.

Both sisters are powerful, but Abigail’s power stems from fully embracing her sexual role, and Dorcas’s from rejecting it outright. While Dorcas is disgusted by Abigail’s appetites (Dorcas: “My sister has great power, but no dignity.”), she respects her sister’s ferocity and is shocked when Abigail becomes a doormat at Conrad’s hand. The indignity of sex having always been insupportable to Dorcas, she is now witnessing the greater humiliation of love, which is entirely beyond her. Dorcas cannot bear to be treated like a thing, as if she would be of some practical use to another person. When Conrad Lowe admires her legs, she says of the experience:

To be judged desirable, to have any part of my body found desirable, was insupportable to me. Somehow he had known immediately what course of action would be the most vicious. . . . I saw myself for the first time as a thing, a thing in someone else’s mind. Of course I had always acknowledged my body, the fact of my visibility, but I had not been a thing really, because I had been of no use. . . . “

Abigail, on the other hand, prefers at all times to be treated as a thing, to be seen as a practical means to an end, but she takes deep offense at being treated like an idea, romanticized or mythologized, turned into something theoretical that she is not. Dorcas tries to help Abigail figure out why Hilda’s initial introduction of her to Guy had offended her so:

Dorcas: “Because…you were being treated like a thing.”

“I like being treated like a thing.”

“Nothing degrades you, does it?”

“Yes! She degraded me . . . She treated me like an idea! That’s it. She treated me like an idea. Can you imagine the nerve?”

Guy serves as foil to Conrad Lowe; Guy’s demonstrative feminism is a thin cover for his inability to look directly at any woman. Whereas Conrad sees women primarily as disgusting and inferior bodies (a former gynecologist, he says of his former career: “Women fall apart like they’re made in Taiwan. The whole female works is a model for planned obsolescence. They get lumps, rashes, discharges, gross smells. They bleed. Or they don’t bleed. Whichever, they worry about it. Their insides fall out, like the udder on a cow.”), Guy (an artist, who mostly sculpts his wife’s vagina in endless series) sees only his own imaginings:

I had never known Guy to remark on any woman’s physical aspect. With Guy there was always the pretense that we were pure spirit, pure intellect and “sexuality,” and our bodies were incidental, negligible, beside the point.

Conrad uses this gap in his friend’s understanding to humiliate him in company:

They would talk about women, about oneself, as though women were nothing but ambulatory body parts, the container of the thing contained, the part for the whole. They would tell repugnant jokes with horrid imagery, comparing us to carnivorous plants, dead carp, snails. At such times Conrad Lowe would eventually extract from Guy some explicit hateful remark, some punchline of his own, and then he would abandon Guy, slip out form under him like a retracted gangplank. Lowe’s face would transmogrify, the contagiously filthy-minded young man would disappear, and in its place would be this bemused adult with an ironic face, staring at his old chum in mild wonder. And there would be poor Guy, the focus of shocked attention, and the echo of his own obscenity ringing in everyone’s ears like cookware spilling from a closet.

Conrad Lowe is pure hate, a patriarchal symbol referred to repeatedly as “the dominant male.” He is determined to drive a wedge between the sisters, to destroy them both and bend them to his will. Dorcas describes him on first meeting him:

The man was obviously a sadist, a manipulator. I despised him instantly. He inspired in me an absurd crusading zeal.

It was the oddest, most unhinging thing. I hated him, gladly. It was as though I had waited all my life to do battle with this terrible man, and the unhinging aspect of my emotion was the gratitude, the bridal joy.

At first, it seems clear that Abigail is the more vulnerable of the two, but in the end, Dorcas proves no less susceptible to Conrad’s hatred. Perhaps more nefarious (and realistic) than his overt abusiveness is Conrad’s ability to thoroughly occupy nearly all of both sisters’ time and attention over years. Dorcas speaks of her peace of mind and serenity whenever she is briefly apart from Abigail and Conrad; toward the novel’s end, the couple manages to pressure her into actually moving into their house, and while Dorcas tries repeatedly to distance herself and reclaim her own life, she is inevitably drawn back in. She can’t even take a day trip to a park without them inviting themselves along, and when she tries to hike of by herself for a minute, and they follow her, she screams:

‘”What are you people? Twelve? Five? Stupid? . . . Leave me alone! For pity’s sake!”‘

Oh, lest I forget to mention: Winner of the National Book Award is really funny. Hilarious, in fact, and much more broad and subtle than my chosen excerpts make it seem (the few reviews of the book I’ve been able to find do not even mention the themes I’ve focused on here). It’s also an ugly book, really, but it’s an ugliness nobody ever nails with total accuracy. There are two possibilities here: either I am reading way too much into this novel, and it is simply a very clever and entertaining satire, or I am correct in suspecting that Willett has done something brilliant and subversive here. Either way, I’m quite sure Willett at least knows exactly what she is doing.

July 19, 2009

Holy Crap, a Female Gondolier!

Venice has its first ever female gondolier!

Way back in college, when I visited Venice during my summer abroad in Italy, I asked my gondolier if there were any women gondoliers, and he laughed at me, and explained that, though there are often women who try out to be gondoliers, it’s not really a job they can do, because it takes so much upper body strength to shunt the gondolas under the bridges and so forth, and none of them are ever able to pass the tests. Since then, I’ve frequently made jokes about being an aspiring gondolier – I don’t know why, but the conversation just stuck in my head.

Way to go, Boscolo! This makes me really happy. (Even though Venice is sinking, so it’ll soon be a moot point anyway.)

July 7, 2009

I’ve Been Reading: Don’t Get Too Comfortable

Attention, male writers: unless you particularly plan to alienate your readership, try not to cram a bunch of pointless derogatory comments about women into the first ten pages of your book, unless that’s really what you’re all about. I’ve noticed this with a number of books lately – I’ll get all alienated in the first chapter, and decide not to read the rest, and then keep going only to find the entire rest of the book totally devoid of casual misogyny. It’s so weird! I noticed this in Lost Cosmonaut, and now here in David Rakoff’s book of humorous essays, Don’t Get Too Comfortable. In the first essay, “Love It or Leave It,” about applying for citizenship during the latter Bush administration, on page 2, we have:

After twenty-two years, it seemed a little bit coy to still be playing the Canadian card. I felt like the butt of the joke about the proper lady who, when asked if she would have sex with a strange man for a million dollars, allows that yes she would do it. But when asked if she would do the same thing for a can of Schlitz and a plastic sleeve of beer nuts, reels back with an affronted, ‘What do you think I am?’ to which the response is, ‘Madam, we have already established what you are. Now we’re just quibbling about the price.’

On page 7, Barbara Bush the Younger is described (to absolutely no point whatsoever) as “W’s liquor-swilling, Girl Gone Wild, human ashtray of a daughter.” Particularly gratuitous, as Rakoff’s real beef is with Barbara, Sr. (page 8: “Stupid fucking cow.”).

Admittedly, on page 8, we do have a derogatory physical description of a man: “The hairy-knuckled, pinkie-ringed lawyer for a Vietnamese fellow behind me….” No mention of the man’s genitals, of course, or sexual appeal or lack thereof, but still, not exactly a flattering comment. But then on page 9, we’re back to women, describing a “Russian woman in her early forties” who has the misfortune to be standing on line nearby:

She wears painted-on acid-wash jeans, white stilettos, and a tight blouse of sheer leopard-print fabric. The sleeves are designed as a series of irregular tatters clinging to her arms, as if she’s just come from tearing the hide off the back of an actual leopard. A really slutty leopard.

It’s safe to assume that leopard was also female.

But here on page 9, we also have our first woman appear without being described physically, or with any tossed-off, irrelevant sexual slurs attached to her person. This is Agent Morales, who interviews Rakoff for citizenship. Then, by page 11, we’re on to Rakoff’s friend, Sarah (who, based on her introduction as “a self-described civics nerd,” I’m assuming is Sarah Vowell), and nobody describes their friends as pointless and/or distasteful vaginas, so we’re in the clear.

And that’s it, for the rest of the book’s 222 pages: no more offensive comments about women, at least not that reached out of the pages and slapped me, like these first ones. In fact, I really enjoyed the book after page 10. The essays were tart, well-written, observant and entertaining. Why the packed in slurs up front?

So, the moral here is: writers and editors (whether male, female, gay, straight or other): when you have your manuscript all ready for publishing, go through at least the first twenty pages or so, with an eye to how you describe or comment on any women mentioned, as contrasted with how you describe or comment on any men. If you note that every, single woman you bring up is described as a slut, a bitch, a stupid bimbo, a nag, or has been physically detailed for no specific reason (ugly, fat, wart-faced, saggy-boobed, clothes too tight, past her prime, sex on legs, etc.), and that every man is described in terms of his personality traits and actions, then think about whether or not you genuinely want half the population to toss you and your book right out at that point. Because not all readers are as patient as I am. A lot of women won’t make it to page 11. And I’d like to think some men wouldn’t either.

I really don’t direct the above rant particularly at David Rakoff. His is only the most recent book I’ve read to follow this off-putting pattern. But really, Don’t Get Too Comfortable is great otherwise. Rakoff is a sharp and articulate social satirist, and his targets aren’t the easy ones. If there is a unifying theme to these essays, I would say it is what we desire and what we buy, and why, and what we tell ourselves about it, with occasional diversions into the weird and often unpleasant things people like to do for fun. He has drawn a bead on class hypocrisy, and conspicuous consumption. He covers foodies, high fashion, fasting, plastic surgery, cryogenics and Puppetry of the Penis. He goes along on a Playboy shoot, attends a midnight scavenger hunt in Manhattan, forages for edible plants in Prospect Park and works as a pool boy at an upscale resort. He waits outside the Today Show, visits Martha Stewart’s crafts department, and shadows the director of the mystifying Log Cabin Republicans.

Fun stuff, all. With the above-mentioned caveat, I’d recommend it.

May 31, 2009

On Animal Rights

My current position on this is, I eat meat and probably always will, and I don’t feel much compunction about it, but I don’t approve of needless cruelty and suffering for animals raised for consumption. While I don’t make much effort to curtail my consumption of animal products, neither would I go to bat for it – if meat were unavailable, I wouldn’t eat it. Those of us lucky folk in the developed world have an abundance of food these days, and all questions of the historical food chain aside, we don’t need to eat animals to survive anymore. Food is not that important and I don’t see meat-eating as somehow essential to my character or inheritance. So, if humane conditions on farms, and in dairies and slaughterhouses and so forth, led to less available and pricier meat, I would think it a worthwhile sacrifice. I would love to know that any animal-derived product I bought had never been the cause of pain and misery to any living creature at any stage of its growth, manufacture and transport – and hell, let’s extend that wish to all clothing, electronics, home furnishings and so forth – and if that guarantee meant that instead of piles of affordable goods to choose from, I had a smaller selection of pricier items, I’d happily make the trade-off and quit inadvertently subsidizing and profiting from exploitation and suffering.  I just don’t want to have to work at it.

The more we learn about the evolution of our species, the more difficult it becomes to draw a firm and absolute line between humans and other animals. Apparently, the latest word is we’re closer to dogs than chimps, which may go some little way toward explaining why we treat dogs like they’re people:

The marketing folks of the pet industry, in fact, use the term “humanization” to explain their good fortune. The pet owners driving the growth, many of them baby-boom empty-nesters, aren’t satisfied with shopping for their pets as animals. They’ve promoted them to junior humans, entitled to the same concern for health and happiness and company. Nearly half of pet owners in one survey say their animal sleeps in their bedroom (which probably explains the boom in the grooming business) and the most popular names for pets—Max, Chloe, Bella—sound a lot more like babies than the Spots and Fidos of yesteryear.

While the pet industry may be recession proof, we do not apparently ascribe the same importance to zoos, which have in fact declined in society’s estimation, at the same time as house pets have risen:

A lot of people wonder how much the current economic downtown resembles that of the Great Depression. One big difference comes in the support of zoos. In the ’30s, the institutions received significant support from Roosevelt’s Works Projects Administration. Artists created advertisements encouraging the public to visit zoos, and new buildings and exhibits sprung up in zoos across the country. St. Paul’s Como Park Zoo, for example, came out of the Depression with a bear grotto, monkey island, barn, and main building, thanks to the WPA.

Now, however, any allocation of funds to struggling zoos is immediately decried as wasteful spending. (I’m not saying I disagree.) And apparently, we haven’t been doing such a hot job of tracking and protecting endangered species, either.

Some feminists have long drawn parallels between mankind’s entitled disregard for animal welfare, and man’s viewing of women as an obligated sex class – both cases involve one group defining itself by its ownership of and right to use another group. Typically, these arguments are attempts by animal rights activists to persuade women of the importance of respecting all life as autonomous; PETA, on the other hand, offensively uses images of degraded women to market their animal rights agenda to men. (To me, the first is a stretch; the latter, an outrage.) Here’s Twisty on this:

The parallels between the myth of the happy hooker and the myth of the self-sacrificing meat animal are legion. . . . Both represent the privileged class’s celebration of itself and its contempt for anything it happens to debase in the course of its daily pillages. And the myths about oppressed individuals choosing to serve the vulgar interests of their oppressors have been created to allow the dominant culture’s beneficiaries to sleep at night.

Actually, these comparisons predate feminism:

A distinguished philosopher, Thomas Taylor, reacted to Mary Wollstonecraft’s 1792 call for “the rights of woman” by writing a mocking call for “the rights of brutes.” To him, it seemed as absurd that women should have rights as that animals should have rights.

(from the Kristof article discussed below)

Really, though, we all use animals to serve our purposes, even if that only involves misinterpreting canine affection as familial love, which, while not likely to cause any duress to the animal in question, might be nauseating to other humans.

But despite the many persuasive arguments for prioritizing the ethical treatment of animals, I can’t seem to work up much steam over animal rights. I know that worthy causes need not compete with each other, and that the way we treat animals is part and parcel of our overall attitude toward (and stewardship of) life on this planet, and so animal welfare is an integrated part of everything else in our long march toward a more advanced society. But at the same time, I care more about starving babies and enslaved women than tortured pigs and cows. (And by “care about”, I of course mean “think, read and blog about.” Not “donate to” or “campaign on behalf of.”)

Luckily, while my capacity for caring may be limited, no wee chicken is beyond the reach of the sheltering arms of my favorite journalist, Humanitarian Hero-at-large, Nicholas Kristof, who recently took a break from his usual coverage of the abuse, poverty and disease of unfortunate humans to pen a column on animal welfare:

One of the historical election landmarks last year had nothing to do with race or the presidency. Rather, it had to do with pigs and chickens — and with overarching ideas about the limits of human dominion over other species. I’m referring to the stunning passage in California, by nearly a 2-to-1 majority, of an animal rights ballot initiative that will ban factory farms from keeping calves, pregnant hogs or egg-laying hens in tiny pens or cages in which they can’t stretch out or turn around. It was an element of a broad push in Europe and America alike to grant increasing legal protections to animals.

Let’s hope there’s more of this, and that “guilt-free” food will come to mean something more significant than “low-calorie”.

May 16, 2009

Chick Lit

Elaine Showalter’s A Jury of Her Peers sounds right on:

She has insisted that themes central to women’s lives — marriage, motherhood, the tension between family and individual aspirations — constitute subject matter as “serious” and significant as traditionally masculine motifs like war and travel. Yet she rejects the preference of many feminist literary scholars for emphasizing “culture importance rather than aesthetic distinction,” and she doesn’t hesitate to describe some of the writers discussed in “A Jury of Her Peers” as artistically limited, if historically interesting.

She also offers an interesting explanation as to why there were great female authors in 19th century England, but not so much in America.

I think that books by, about and concerning women are certainly unfairly trivialized, but I also think that, in service to some mistaken idea of diversity, insignificant works do tend to be dredged up to represent women’s voices during historical periods when women were mostly silenced. Historical revisionism is no help to feminism – if women were uneducated and unliberated, and so unable to write literature or compose music, or do anything other than work, breed and die, we shouldn’t pretend it wasn’t so.

I did feel alienated all through school by reading novel after novel that portrayed women as clingy, irrational, two-dimensional fools – either virgins who sucked the lifeblood out of the protagonist, or predatory ho-bags who first enticed and then suffocated him. I think teachers understand how tiresome this is and want to provide a brief respite, and, while that is important, the solution is not to elevate something substandard just to provide an alternate point of view, because that further convinces those already convinced that all points of view other than theirs are substandard.

May 16, 2009

Oscars, Outrages, Etc.

Another Oscars ceremony has come and gone. I haven’t seen many of the movies, other than Vicki Christina, which I was happy Penelope Cruz won Best Supporting for her work in, because she was awesome; and WALL-E, which was great. And I was glad Winslet won, because, although I’m sure The Reader is just as bad as everyone says it is, she is one of my favorite actors and I think she’s a great role model for young women.

I have not seen Slumdog Millionaire, but everyone seems to have a strong opinion about it. Most of the people I know who’ve seen it really loved it, and I’m sure it’s great and all, but of course, like anything involving depictions of the “real” India by non-Indians and/or of the lives of the “real” poor by the wealthy, many people have their quarrels with the authenticity of it.

Again, I haven’t seen it, but I’m sure I’d probably agree with this post, which discusses the fact that the celebrated salvation from desperate poverty has to come from without, a financial deus ex machina, and that the female lead is a helpless battered woman who can do nothing for herself until some other man falls in love with her and saves her. In how many movies do we see this? And how many of these female characters are Asian? You’d almost think men have an unrealistic porny fantasy about “rescuing” battered, dependent, passive beauties from developing countries. Undoubtedly, these bruised and delicate flowers would know how to appreciate a good, loving master husband, unlike spoiled, bitchy feminists with their own money and their self-sufficiency.

Of course, being that the male lead in this particular movie is a young man from the Mumbai slums, I’m digressing a bit. Ahem. Where were we?

Oh, yes. Slumdog. Still, people are happy that the movie won because it’s so long been the boring standard that in America, any movie about people other than white Americans are niche films . . . unless, that is, they primarily focus on the way in which people other than white Americans affect white Americans. Which brings me to Gran Torino. Apparently, conservatives are pissed that Gran Torino didn’t get recognized and Milk did. Since, you know, Milk is about the rights of a group of people conservatives haven’t yet adjusted their prejudice about, and Gran Torino is about an old white dude and how he feels about some Vietnamese people he has to deal with. Now, a movie about Vietnamese gangs would be of no interest to these same people. That would be a niche film, of interest only to Vietnamese gangs and the liberals who care about them. But a movie about how an old white dude is affected by Vietnamese gangs…now that’s a movie that “everyone” can relate to! Especially when the old white dude is a Christian With Faith, and uses his Legal Gun of Righteousness to save the Vietnamese folk what can’t save themselves, and teaches them how to be more like old white dudes, before he finally drops dead in an oh-so-subtle crucifixion pose (which, so far as I can tell from the Wikipedia entry, is what happens in Gran Torino – I haven’t seen it, or Milk).

I have a very good friend, who is much smarter and more socially conscious than I am, and who has the irritating habit of ruining everything for me by pointing out a totally obvious bit of ridiculousness in some area of the culture that I’d been to thick to spot myself, and it was she who alerted me to this obnoxious habit of Hollywood being more interested in the ways in which racism and prejudice affects old white dudes than in the lives of black people, or immigrants, or anybody else. Now that she’s pointed it out, I see it everywhere. We’ve had Monster’s Ball, Crash, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, so on and so forth, and (as she put it) is it really so endlessly fascinating how old white bigots learn to open their minds? Isn’t there ever going to be a day when we can stop talking primarily to them and making movies about their experiences and trying to understand them and teach them to be better . . . and instead just ignore them until they go away? Are old white bigots really so relevant anymore? Isn’t it time to move on from all that?

Which is what I say in response to this post, in which James Bowman says:

Though in principle it is a good thing to seek a break with the past and the hardened positions on both sides, those positions are the result of the Penn-like tactic of characterizing those on the other side not just as wrong or mistaken but as reactionary in the commie sense – that is, as barriers to inevitable progress who must be removed. If you’re one of the barriers, you may be excused for finding that a somewhat chilling prospect. You have been identified as being, in practice if not in name, evil – that is beyond the bounds of decency and not to be recognized as legitimate in your views by anyone who is decent.

But see, that’s the thing: opponents of gay rights are barriers to inevitable progress who must be removed. Because there are actual gay families who are actually very much affected by conservatives’ slow, resistant refusal to see them as legitimate, and these families need not carefully consider those people who still oppose their rights. They need not try to see it from their side, or come to a compromise, or “respect” their point of view. Gay people simply want to live their lives the way they see fit without going a-begging to people who disapprove of them on every level.

Gay people will get equal rights eventually. And frankly, if that idea chaps your ass for some reason, you should probably get used to being the bad guy.

That said, I’m no fan of Sean Penn. I think he’s a good actor and enjoy his movies, but, as with most celebrities, I assume he an unintelligent, self-absorbed, entitled asshat, and I have absolutely no desire to know him as a person. And also, didn’t Sean Penn beat up Madonna a few times? Celebrity or no, any man who hits his wife should be in jail or in traction, but not in the spotlight, so I’m disappointed to see positive buzz about Penn on one of my favorite feminist sites. And the idea that anyone ever arrested for domestic assault could righteously preach to others about morality…well, only a celebrity would have the balls for that.

May 16, 2009

On Teen Sex, Single Moms and Shame

Recently, Bristol Palin went on national television, and said two highly controversial and shocking things: that it’s better to have a baby when you’re not an unemployed and single teenager who has yet to graduate high school, and that teenagers often have sex with each other. Then her mom came on and explained that, while young women do get knocked up from time to time, if they have good, loving families and financial means (like all decent people are supposed to have), it’s not too big of a tragedy.

Well. That clears that up. Teenagers shouldn’t be having sex, so we shouldn’t educate them or provide contraception, because that would be acknowledging that they’re having sex. But hey, we all realize that really, they’re having sex. But that’s ok, because if they do get pregnant, those who come from loving, well-off families will be just fine! And those who do not come from loving, well-off families, well . . . they should have had loving, well-off families. Or not had sex.

Rebecca Traister puts it better:

To Sarah Palin and Van Susteren’s minds, the real story here was not about cautioning other teens, or preventing teen pregnancies, it was about how to deal with them once they’d — inevitably, it seems — happened. In Van Susteren’s words, about “how important it is for families to pitch in.” The Alaska governor, pausing for a moment of generous reflection, said, “I don’t know how other families do it. If they kind of assume that the young parent is going to make it on their own, or assume that government would take care of the young parent and child. That’s not government’s role. This is a role for families to pitch in and help.”

So the bigger message here, as spun by Greta Van Susteren and Sarah Palin, is that abstinence is a naive peg on which to hang our contraceptive hopes, but that when our daughters reproduce before they finish high school, we need to move beyond it — not to discussions of birth control and abortion, but to the fact that the Palins are an unusually big, helpful, supportive group, and that other less fortunate young mothers should go out and get multigenerational families to help them out because it’s not the government’s responsibility.

Also, Lindsey Beyerstein points out the hypocrisy of the difference in coverage of Bristol Palin and Nadya Suleman:

I’m so sick of hearing disgruntled conservatives railing against “welfare mothers.” If they really value motherhood and childbearing as much as they say, they’ll happily pay for social services to support those families.

Of course, the very same politicians and pundits who score political points off welfare mothers had a field day ranting about birth control in the stimulus–a proposal that would have saved $200 million in healthcare costs alone over the next five years by making it easier for states to cover birth control for the same poor women are currently eligible for pregnancy care under Medicaid. (Since the federal government already matches state Medicaid contraception spending 9-1, the provision would have been a net stimulus for participating states.)

On a related note, the Atlantic bloggers have been having an interesting back-and-forth about shame. Here, Ta-Nehisi Coates takes issue with the “70% of black children are born out of wedlock” statistic:

To summarize–there is no data to show that the black “illegitimacy” figure of 70 percent has been caused by unmarried black women having more kids than they did in the past. In fact, the trend is the exact opposite. What is clear is that the behavior of married black women has changed, to the point that married black women are actually having less kids than married white women.

Megan McArdle thinks shame has its uses:

It is true that people who are ashamed often do not behave well. But they often behave badly precisely because they are trying to deflect their shame. People do a lot of things to avoid being shamed. Why do small towns have lower rates of crime, and lesser antisocial behaviors like cutting people off in traffic or queue jumping, than big cities? Are people in small towns more inherently virtuous? Or are they afraid of what the neighbors will think?

Ross Douthat weighs in:

. . . When people make bad choices, a culture of shame and stigma can make their lot in life worse, not better. . . . [H]uman beings what they are, social stigmas are usually effective precisely because they create suffering, and exclusion, and cautionary tales. Therefore it’s not quite right to say, as Rod does, that lifting the stigma on unwed childbearing involved “false compassion.” The compassion involved was and is real, and so are its beneficiaries. Many lives really were improved as American society became more tolerant of unwed motherhood – just as many lives were improved when divorce became easier to obtain, and bad marriages easier to walk away from, and so on.

But many other lives were not. And so the battle between social conservatism and social liberalism at the moment isn’t a battle between competing utopias, but a battle over which tragic choice is worse: The choice to stigmatize, which can damage and even ruin lives, or the choice to destigmatize, which can damage and ruin countless lives as well.

Andrew Sullivan notes the difficulty of destigmatizing:

But what if, in fact, there is no actual “choice” to destigmatize? What if the cruelty of some social norms – such as the way in which illegitimate children were once treated – leads to a gradual and irreversible social change? The real choice today in many areas is whether to re-stigmatize – and that is a very hard thing to do in a diverse, free and changing society. . . . Surely the more reasonable option is simply not to encourage socially disadvantageous behavior (as welfare once did), and to create a model of successful family structure that others might emulate. Obama’s marriage and family are probably much more effective in this than a lecture about abstinence from Rick Santorum.

Two things about shaming: first of all, anyone who feels they have enough moral authority to confidently shame other people probably has no self-awareness and should not be the person responsible for determining which behaviors are to be stigmatized and which rewarded. I mean, really, who the hell does anybody think they are?

And second, damn near all of the shaming I see in our society (and now I think about it, in most others, now and throughout history) is directed at victims. Often, people shame to reassure themselves they couldn’t possibly fall prey to poverty, disease, abuse, crime, etc., because they’re not stupid or careless or immoral like this or that victim.

(And speaking of situations in which the victim is always thoroughly shamed and blamed, I appreciated this article, which boldly declares that rapists are rapists, even if they’re also stars.)

December 8, 2008

I Need a Drink

The feminist blogosphere is all abuzz over a stupid NY Magazine article clearly published in order to set the feminist blogosphere all abuzz. Apparently, Alex Morris believes feminism has driven women to drink.

Now, don’t that beat all? The very first thing those damn liberated women of olden times did upon receiving the permission to vote was usher in prohibition/destroy the country. Now, 90 years later, they can’t stop hitting the sauce!

Freaking women. Either they’re drunks or prudes or whores or virgins or mothers or businesswomen or feminists or lesbians. But one thing’s for sure: they’re always up to something! If only they’d all pick one, good, amenable identity and conform to it en masse, it sure would make it easier to dismiss them all as individuals. But they just can’t seem to get on the same page.

Feministing:

The thing that pisses me off most about this article. . . is that drinking is a serious problem for young women and men. But instead of serious, nuanced media coverage on what to do about the drinking culture among American youth, we get article after article hawing about the consequences of equality. . . . Seriously – it’s tired. Not to mention incredibly sexist : the underlying message is that gender equality is bad for women.

So if folks are actually concerned about young women and drinking, how about we talk about the consumer culture that markets liquor (something Morris touches on before quickly returning back to feminism) or how drinking is being used to blame women who are raped? 

No joke. How many articles have their been lately about the increasing problem of binge-drinking and date rape on college campuses, and how many of these articles have arrived at the conclusion that the problem is…women being there? Yeah, maybe the problem is women being out and about, and drinking and carrying on like they’re real, live, young people. Or maybe – just maybe – the problem is men who rape women!

And as long as I’m taking the bait, check out this other asshole I ran across:

Forget what feminists, hippies, and liberals have told you in the last half century. They are all lies based on political ideology and conviction, not on science. Contrary to what they may have told you, it is very unlikely that money, promotions, the corner office, social status, and political power will make women happy. Similarly, it is very unlikely that quitting their jobs, dropping out of the rat race, and becoming stay-at-home dads to spend all their times with their children will make men happy.Money, promotions, the corner office, social status, and political power are what make men happy (as long as they win, of course, but then dropping out is by definition a defeat). Spending time with their children is what makes women happy.

You know, Satoshi Kanazawa, I think I know why you’re clearly so unhappy. You may think that you’re meant to be an evolutionary psychologist and author, but you’re lying to yourself and denying your true nature. You are actually evolutionarily designed to run fast, wrangle heavy stuff, and catch and strangle small creatures, and the sooner you admit that to yourself, the sooner you can become a truly satisfied man. I encourage you to quit all this thinking and writing that’s making you so miserable and unfulfilled, and realize your true potential as a welder/firefighter/rabbit-wringer.

October 8, 2008

Anything You Can’t Do, I Can Do Easy

So, this is annoying:

Can you still make it from scratch in America? That’s the question that Adam Shepard asked himself in college. On graduation, he took a train to Charleston, South Carolina and started out with nothing but $25 and a backpack. A year later, he had a car, and apartment, and $2500 in the bank. How he did it — and what he learned along the way — is the story of his new book, Scratch Beginnings: Me, $25, and the Search for the American Dream.

See, the thing is, though, the book really ought to be called “Me; $25; a firm grasp of the English language; a good understanding of appropriate business and social etiquette; a clever brain and healthy and attractive white body [assuming the cover illustration is meant to depict the author]; the self-possession that comes of having been raised by a family that loved me, paid attention to me, and was able to provide for me; the social skills that come from having been brought up in a safe community where I enjoyed a stable support network of friends and family, and a safe and decent school with adequate funding; the freedom of being unaccompanied by any dependent children or ill or disabled relatives; the confidence that comes from knowing if my little low-stakes gambit here fails miserably I can just go back to my nice home; a college degree[!!!]; and the Search for the American Dream, which I have already extensively benefited from, and everybody who meets me immediately knows it, even if I am dressed in a potato sack and boasting proudly of how I have temporarily elected to live like the poor folk do in hopes of scoring a book deal.”

But then, that’s a lot to fit on a book jacket.

Also, apparently old people don’t particularly like being talked to like they’re babies, even when they’ve totally lost their minds:

“The main task for a person with Alzheimer’s is to maintain a sense of self or personhood,” Dr. Williams said. “If you know you’re losing your cognitive abilities and trying to maintain your personhood, and someone talks to you like a baby, it’s upsetting to you.”

(via Feministing)

I understand that.  I absolutely hate being talked to like I’m a baby. A lot of men like to talk to attractive young women like they’re babies – I seriously can’t count the number of times when some older man I barely know has explained to me (affectionately) that I am such a sweet, sensitive young person. What he clearly means is, ‘You’re pretty, but I know it’s inappropriate for me to be attracted to you, so I’m going to treat you like you’re my precious little daughter.’ Which, besides being presumptuous and offensive, is even more amazing in light of the fact that I am cranky, standoffish and self-absorbed, especially upon first acquaintance. That’s maybe a little hard on myself, but at any rate, I could not possibly be mistaken for a cuddly, approachable people-pleaser…except by men who are bound and determined to believe that all pretty women come prepackaged with Disney princess personalities.

At any rate, if actually becoming cranky old people won’t save us all from being cooed at and patted like we’re puppies, what the hell will? I hope I don’t get dementia, because I’ve already decided that if I make it to my 80s and don’t have anything more I really want to accomplish, I’m going to spend the rest of my days trying every possible kind of super hard-core drug. That will be my Earthly reward for a life full of self-denial and jogging, and I sure hope Alzheimer’s doesn’t rob me of the opportunity, or I’m gonna be pissed.

Two funny things:

First of all, I think this is my favorite liveblogging of a debate thus far…

…and Chuck Klosterman’s A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century is hilarious, if long (via Kottke).

September 20, 2008

Kaley Cuoco Is the Most Depressing Person Alive

So, I recently joined the YMCA in my neighborhood.  As it’s been over two years since I belonged to a gym and had regular access to weights, I’ve entirely forgotten my old regimen.  So, I bought a few women’s exercise-type magazines to find a couple of routines.  I usually steer clear of women’s magazines because they tend to make me both angry and depressed, and these were no exception.

I seem to recall reading Shape several years ago, and it was 95% about actual exercise, and the models were all ripped. Not anymore.  Now, it’s 95% hideously overpriced clothes, and interviews with lying celebrities (“I mostly care about being happy and healthy, and my kids!”), and advice on how not to eat, or do anything much but spend insane amounts on worthless crap.  And only 40 pages in (or 3 pages in, if you don’t count advertisements), there is an interview with Kaley Cuoco.  Apparently, she is an actor on a sitcom, The Big Bang Theory.  I’d never heard of her or the show.  She’s 22-years-old, and this is what she has to say:

I go to [spinning] class three times a week, without fail.  I always get there early so I can sit in the front of the studio, and I’m ready to go as soon as the instructor comes in.*

And:

…right now I can’t get enough of the 6-inch vegetarian whole-wheat sandwich from Subway.  I pick one up after my Spin class . . . It’s my default meal; I know exactly how many calories are in it – 260 – and I never have to think about what to order.*

And worst of all:

Diet cola is my absolute favorite drink in the world; I used to drink four cans a day.  But to help me cut down, I’ve turned it into a treat.  Now, instead of having dessert, I’ll have a can of diet soda.  Putting a limit on how often I can drink it has helped me appreciate it more.*

Oh my God, Kaley!  I want to kill myself!  You are the saddest girl in the whole world!

Seriously, I myself am far more ascetic in most respects than your average person could bear to be, and I often find my own self depressing in some ways.  But even I want to kidnap this girl and make her go on some insane sky-diving, Fleet-Week-cruising, cocaine-snorting adventure in irresponsible hedonism.  What’s the point of being rich and famous if your best idea of an awesome time is go to spin class and then eat a Subway sandwich and drink a can of Diet Coke?

Jeez.


These quotes taken from Shape’s October 2008 issue (Vol. 28, No. 2); I don’t really know what the procedure is for footnoting in a blog post.  Please don’t sue me, Shape.  Oh, and also – your magazine blows.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 41 other followers