Monday, September 29, 2008

How desperate are they?

Is it just me or does anyone else find the most recent TV Guide cover (a fold-out double cover, no less, like a centerfold) problematic? I could probably spend an hour trying to qualify why it bugs me so much but I'm not sure it's worth the effort, and I probably would just be stating the obvious. Or, isn't it obvious?

(click to enlarge)

What do you all think?

This posting brought to you by a very different sort of desperate housewife, courtesy of Simone de Beauvoir:
In this insanity the house becomes so neat and clean that one hardly dares live in it; the woman is so busy she forgets her own existence. A household, in fact, with its meticulous and limitless tasks, permits to woman a sadomasochistic flight from herself as she contents madly with the things around her and with herself in a state of distraction and mental vacancy. And this flight may often have a sexual tinge.

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Feminist Flashback #4

This clip is from Chantal Ackerman's 1976 feminist film Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles. It's an amazing, three hour domestic odyssey that follows two days in the life of a Belgian single mother. Her activities are recorded in real time--we may watch her peel potatoes for ten minutes or sit with her while she has her daily coffee. I'll admit that when I went to see a beautiful restored print of the film at the Dryden Theatre I anticipated being bored out of my mind, but went out of a sense of feminist duty. In fact, I wasn't bored at all. I was enthralled. In this restrained, intense and brilliant portrait, we watch as the clockwork precision of Dielman's quotidian life--her obsessive, almost robotic, adherence to order and her set schedule of daily events--scatters and devolves slowly and subtly towards an inevitable climax.

Jeanne Dielman is not available on DVD in the US, but it's often screened at colleges and universities and may be available in some university libraries. I recommend seeing it on the big screen, if possible. If you ever notice that it's showing somewhere nearby, go. It's amazing:



Has anyone else seen this film? What did you think?

A Quick Cheer for Google

While I certainly do not always agree with everything Google does, I am very pleased with their recent decision to come out against California's Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex marriage.

Check out co-founder Sergey Brin's open letter on the official Google Blog:
However, while there are many objections to this proposition -- further government encroachment on personal lives, ambiguously written text -- it is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8. While we respect the strongly-held beliefs that people have on both sides of this argument, we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality. We hope that California voters will vote no on Proposition 8 -- we should not eliminate anyone's fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love.

Word, Google. Word.

Saturday, September 27, 2008

"All right, Mr. DeMille, I'm Ready for My Close-up."

As I reviewed another textbook for potential use in my classroom, I came across a line that rubbed me the wrong way. However, I couldn't help but wonder if I was reading too much into it, particularly given that, on the whole, I quite like this particular textbook. My negative reaction stemmed from one single caption that accompanied four images of Nicole Kidman as Anna in Birth (Glazer 2004).
Since I don't own the DVD, I can't visually recreate the images used in the textbook; instead, I'll briefly describe the four virtually identical soft-focus close-ups. In the first, her lips are parted, her head titled and her right eyebrow arched; in the second, her lips are closed and her head no longer titled; in the third, her eyes are dewy and her lip is turned up as she seemingly tries to hold back tears; in the fourth, her eyes are closed and her lips parted just slightly. The subtle changes in the tilt of her head, her mouth, and her eyes testify to the character's level of emotional involvement as she becomes increasingly absorbed in a piece of music.

The content of the images is actually beside the point. What I find somewhat problematic is the caption that accompanies them. Intended to explain the film's use of close-ups and long takes, it begins with the following clause: "Great cinematographers love great female beauty, as demonstrated by these four images from Jonathan Glazer's Birth (2004)." I could provide a diatribe explaining my objections, but I'm going to hold off for now. I'll simply say that that little clause got my hackles up. But I can't help but wonder if I'm overreacting. Am I making a mountain out of a molehill?

Debate Links

A few debate links, for those interested:

Shakeville's Debate Post, with lots of interesting comments.

Feministe's Presidential Debate Drinking Game

The scary/frustrating/annoying McCain attack ad that came out this morning.

The Huffington Post Debate Fact Checker.

The Washington Post's Debate Fact Checker.

Feminist Anthems: Tracy Chapman - Fast Car

We need more feminist anthems.

Music is powerful, and feminism needs music if it is to succeed and stay together as a movement. (I've got this theory, that the demise of riotgrrl is partly responsible for the current state of feminism, but that's another post...)

So what would a feminist anthem be, anyway? Fluffy, upbeat "girl power" songs? Angry riotgrrl rantings? Lesbian anthems? Protest songs? Songs about liberated female sexuality?

I think that any and all of these, and more beside, can qualify. We simply need to listen, recognize, and share.

Today, I'd like to consider a song that became very popular in the late 1980's. It's usually not thought of as a feminist song - the song is about generational poverty - but I believe that it is meaningful on many other levels.

Let's listen:



I'm going try and not over-analyze this song - it's too powerful musically to justify it.

"Fast Car" tells a simple story. The singer's father is an alcoholic, her mother leaves. She drops school to care for her father. She can't stand it, so she leaves town with her boyfriend, who has the car, to find a better life. It doesn't really work out, though, and her life starts to repeat her parents' life. She tells her boyfriend to leave, that they are not going to have the dream that she thought they would.

"Fast Car" is a sad, painful song. It seems to point to an inescapable circle of life, a pointless repetition of poverty. But the song is also hopeful. Note that it is not a love song - the word 'love' is never mentioned. The attraction to the boyfriend, even if he is 'nice', is also attraction to the power of his car - the power to leave, to make a new life.

So, it is a song about choice, about freedom. In the beginning, the singer is trapped - in the relationship with her father. Her boyfriend, via the car, provides a way out. She doesn't fall blindly in love with him, though, she doesn't just follow him somewhere. Instead, she make a choice to leave - "let's make a deal", she says.

And she retains this control. She gets a job, and then a better one. She's not dependent on her boyfriend. At the end, she tells him to leave, that she doesn't want to repeat her parents' life. By attaining this power, we know that she actually is avoiding her parents' life.

And notice her situation at the end of the song. No, she hasn't attained her dreams - no house in the suburbs - but she does 'pay all our bills'. Her children will likely remain in school, unlike her. Most importantly, "I got no plans, I ain't going nowhere." Even if she hasn't become "someone", she is also free from the demands of society - free, as a woman, to do the best she can given her situation. It's not ideal, by any means, but whose life is?

It's a song, at some level, about female empowerment.

Let's listen to "Fast Car" again. Think about it this way:

The car represents societal power, power to escape bad circumstances, and the boyfriend, what goes with that power. By the end, though, the singer doesn't need the car, and thus the boyfriend, to try and make the best that she can out of her life. So, she tells her boyfriend to take the car - perhaps he can try again for himself. Because, at some level, she has already made it. She belongs.



I hope to make 'Feminist Anthems' a semi-regular feature. If you have suggestions for songs, please let me know!

Friday, September 26, 2008

Live Blogging the Debate

This is the first time I've done this, so bear with me. Click on the "read full post" link to follow along...

9:04PM: The debate just began and I'm concerned because Obama is running out of time on his first question!

9:05PM: And yet, somehow, he managed to squeeze it all in. Nice.

9:07PM: McCain, I'm bored. But I get it. Bi-partisanship. Yes, yes. But what about how to stabilize the economy?

9:10PM: Jim Lehrer tries to keep the candidates on task. And fails. I have no idea why McCain is talking about Eisenhower.

9:13PM: McCain has a "fundamental belief in the goodness and strength of the American worker." Really?

9:15PM: Gateway drugs! Woohoo. Oh? McCain's just talking about the perils of earmarking and pork-barrel spending, which Obama has been party to. McCain, are you calling Obama a pig?

9:17PM: McCain is smirking, not a good sign...

9:20PM: But I think that Obama has done a good job of explaining what he's doing and trying to articulate that he doesn't want to harp on one issue (i.e. pork-barrel spending).

9:22PM: Is it just me or does $250,000 or up yearly income seem like a reasonable definition of "rich" (re: Obama's definition of those who will be taxed under his proposal)?

9:24PM: McCain, did you just interrupt Jim Lehrer? Shame on you.

9:26PM: I don't know exactly how what McCain and Obama are saying lines up with the facts (as specious as that term is these days), but McCain's constant smirking and giggling is annoying me. Like a snide little kid who thinks he knows betters. Obama seems a lot more professional. And very relaxed, which is good.

9:32PM: Jim Lehrer for President! ;)

9:34PM: Sometimes I can't quite get the leaps of logic. Obama was talking about not wanting to cut money for education despite the bad economy and then McCain responded by saying that Obama doesn't support nuclear power. Is it just me? Did I miss something?

9:38PM: This is the second time that McCain has said he wasn't voted "Miss Congeniality" in the Senate. I keep imagining him in that Sandra Bullock movie. (Someone should spoof that. Get to it. 1,2,3, go!). And now he just called himself a Maverick. Does anyone else think it's a little goofy to keep referring to yourself by cute little nicknames (not to mention movie titles)? McCain, you Rogue you!

9:41PM: I hate the phrase "we are winning in Iraq." How exactly are we winning...? By the way, regarding something McCain said a few minutes ago, is he really that conservative of a spender?

9:49PM: What prevents someone from lying outright during the debates?

9:55PM: McCain rubs me the wrong way, for obvious reasons, but I think they're both doing a pretty good job so far, as far as argument and rhetoric are concerned (although I'm not thrilled with McCain's "tell-us-what-Obama-will-do-wrong-instead-of-telling-us-what-he(McCain)-might-do right" strategy). But their both articulate and obviously smart. It makes me wonder what the Palin/Biden debate is going to be like, especially after Palin's performance during her Katie Couric interview.

10:00PM: I was wondering how long it would take for McCain to mention the "war that [he] was in," although at least he hasn't reminded us (because we've forgotten) that he was a POW.

10:00PM: Now they're playing the "my bracelet from a grieving mother of a soldier is bigger than your bracelet from a grieving mother of a soldier" game.

10:04PM: McCain's proposed A League of Democracies (a.k.a. A League of Extraordinary Gentlemen?). I see a movie option in his future.

10:09PM: This section of the debate brought to you by a new tongue twister. Say "Ahmadinejad" ten times fast and follow it up with a few "perestroikas." It's apparently all the rage.

10:16PM: Is McCain paying attention or has he been reading Sarah Palin's talking points? Henry Kissinger has, in fact, suggested that meeting Ahmadinejad without pre-conditions could be a possibility, for exactly the reasons Obama outlined.

10:24PM: "John, I'm sorry, that's just not true." Obama is not against nuclear power. Cautious is not the same as against. And, McCain, you have not consistently supported renewable energy. No matter what you say.

10:31PM: Seriously, McCain, stop using your soft, condescending, "I'm important and sensitive" voice and stop saying that "Obama doesn't understand [insert pretty much anything here]." Uncool.

10:36PM: P.O.W. He just said it. (Although it's kind of funny that he said, "when I came out of prison.")

10:37PM: How come McCain got the last word? Didn't he start the closing statements?

10:38PM: Okay, as my partner just pointed out, the weirdest thing ever is the fact that the wives come out afterward and supportively hug and kiss their husbands. Why does that seem so wonky?

10:39PM: Bob Schieffer of CBS: "This was supposed to be John McCain's debate [...] but Obama really held his own."

11:00PM: I'm out for tonight. More comments later. Any thoughts from you all?

CNN has a transcript of the debate if you missed it.

Men FOR Title IX??? Are you kidding?

No, I’m not kidding. It’s beyond me that any father of daughters would be anything OTHER than a vigorous supporter of Title IX, the US civil rights law that prohibits gender discrimination in education. There’s a guy who ,lives in a big house on Pennsylvania Ave in DC with 2 daughters who glaringly doesn’t support TIX—one of the many things I don’t get about him.

Anyway, it’s a no-brainer for dads of daughters to support gender equity for girls and women—all we have to do is put our own daughters’ faces in the picture. Would we stand for them being denied opportunities JUST because they’re female? No way, so we shouldn’t stand for it with anyone else’s daughter either.

Fortunately, we don’t stand alone among men, as this NCAA video shows.



If you’re a man, be sure you’re speaking up for your daughter or stepdaughter—making sure that her school and world are safe and fair for girls. Learn more at www.dadsanddaughters.com.

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Feminist Flashback #3 (and links!)

It just occurred to me that I completely forgot to post a feminist flashback video this past Sunday. To make up for it, I'll not only post the highly entertaining video of Walt Disney's 1946 animated short The Story of Menstruation, but also a quick round-up of other interesting links from the past few days.

Come on...you really don't want to miss the menstruation film. It'll only take ten minutes and afterward you will feel edified with the knowledge that it's okay to vacuum and dance with boys and do all the sorts of things you would "normally do" when you have your period (I suppose if you're really pressed for time, you can just fast forward to the middle and watch from there, but don't you want to see how the pituitary gland works?)


(H/T AD Miller)

And, some links:

Hillary Clinton on the economy (from The Wall Street Journal): Let's Keep People in Their Homes (H/T Fewthistle).

Last night's Late Show with David Letterman in which Letterman expresses rightful indignation that McCain canceled his appearance on the show, lied about the reason and then stood Letterman up to speak to Katie Couric instead. Yes. For real.

On Appetite for Equal Rights: Sarah Palin on Katie Couric.

Jump off the Bridge on Bush and the Economy: Oops, the Dog Ate the Economy.

And, of course, if you haven't had enough of the linkage yet, the most recent Carnival of Feminists is up at Green Gabbro.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

I promised I would try not to do this, but...

I promised I would try to not talk about Sarah Palin anymore, but I recently caught up on some of my emails and finally read a couple articles people had sent me (H/T to my parents and to Few) and feel that they're worth sharing.

The first, Drill Drill Drill, was written by playwright and activist Eve Ensler and published in The Huffington Post on September 8 (Ensler is, of course, the creator of The Vagina Monologues, among other things.) Here's a short excerpt:
I don't like raging at women. I am a Feminist and have spent my life trying to build community, help empower women and stop violence against them. It is hard to write about Sarah Palin. This is why the Sarah Palin choice was all the more insidious and cynical. The people who made this choice count on the goodness and solidarity of Feminists.

She goes on, discussing--as many of us have over the past few weeks--the reasons why McCain-Palin is a scary choice (creationism, overturning Roe v. Wade, abstinence-only sex ed, etc.) and ends up relaying this rather-horrifying analogy:
If the Polar Bears don't move you to go and do everything in your power to get Obama elected then consider the chant that filled the hall after Palin spoke at the RNC, "Drill Drill Drill." I think of teeth when I think of drills. I think of rape. I think of destruction. I think of domination. I think of military exercises that force mindless repetition, emptying the brain of analysis, doubt, ambiguity or dissent. I think of pain.

Personally, I feel her wording is a bit sensationalistic, but she's a writer and creative license and rhetorical flair are part of the job description. That said, it's not lost on me how right she is about the violence--to our earth or otherwise--implied by the RNC "drill" chant or in McCain-Palin's stated policy changes in general.

The other article I wanted to share is Bumping up against the limits of female bonding by Ellen Goodman over at The Boston Globe. What scares me about this article isn't so much the content--it's a pretty short op-ed piece in which Goodman makes some interesting points about voting-for-your-gender versus voting-for-the-issues and the complexities of feminists responses to Palin--but the comments. Here's just a small sample:
Thanks, too, for confirming what we've known for ages: That the feminist movement was really about liberal ideals and NEVER about women. So quit the charade and please refrain from hallucinating that normal women want access to the "sisterhood". Who would want to be in a club that (apparently) only lets in bitter, fat ladies?
and
Oh, please! Get over it, you elitist whiner...you lost women when you ignored the predations of the Philanderer in Chief. You sold out women long ago when you only allowed for one line of thinking - liberal thinking. And now your hypocrisy has come back to haunt you. Sarah Palin is a woman who didn't need you or your daycare mentality. She believes in life, is in love with her husband, and is all the things your "Sisterhood" used to celebrate. She has it all, except for the "D" after her name, so you want to eat her alive.
and
Sarah Palin has more courage than all of you so called feminists put together. she loves her family, her country & is not in your "club" of mean spirited militants who are always fighting no matter how much you have- its never enough.. she is not a woman who hates men but she loves her husband & doesn't belittle him or compete with him. they have a good marriage because they have learned to compromise. which is something pro-choice, anti'life women will never be able to do. As long as someone acts, looks & thinks like you- you say they are acceptable. Not all women think it's ok to kill babies because "it's convenient."

Yes, because feminists think abortion should be a legal choice every woman can make on her own just because it's so damn convenient to kill babies. And we're all fat, bitter, hate men and emasculate them at every opportunity. Because feminist women rule the world and have been making it so hard on everybody else.

Wowza.

That is all.

Monday, September 22, 2008

The Women

So last weekend I went to see the new version of The Women and as soon as I left the theater I vowed to write about it here, it's taken me a while but here goes...
At first I thought that I hated the movie because I think the original is so fabulous. Here is a 1939 trailer for the film:



But then I realized that I was the only one of the women who I went with who had seen the original, and everyone universally disliked it, and one friend actually found it depressing. I'll warn you right now I'm going to reveal the ending, so if you have a need to not spoil it, by all means stop reading.

So the original film, based on Claire Boothe Luce's play, and with a screenplay by Anita Loos (who wrote the book, Gentleman Prefer Blonds) is snappy, witty and incredibly fun. The movie centers around Mary Haines (played brilliantly by Norma Shearer) whose husband is having an affair with a perfume salesgirl played by the irreplaceable Joan Crawford. The movie follows Mary as she makes the decision to divorce her husband, travels to Reno to get the divorce and in the end wins her husband back. All of these events are colored by the presence of Mary's mother, daughter and friends (notably the fabulously catty Rosalind Russell). In the new version of the film, Meg Ryan plays Mary Hanes as Meg Ryan (sorry Meg, I'll always love When Harry Met Sally, but you kinda phoned this one in). Eva Mendez plays Crawford's role, and doesn't hold a candle to Joan who while not sympathetic, at least comes off as a bit smarter. Anette Bening plays Rosalind Russell's role.

Other more minor roles from the original film are bulked up for the other major players and a few are lost. Like the 1939 version, the new film,(written and directed by Murphy Brown's Diane English) the film talks about men, but never shows them. It also, in some places stays very close the the original scrip, borrowing lines and pieces of dialogue.

The major difference between the original film and the new one is the the strange "girl power" bent that the new film takes on. After getting divorced, and losing her role in the family business, Mary decides to strike out on her own and design her own clothing line. Only after she is a success on her own does Mary go back to her husband. Finding a way to make this movie modern was probably not easy. At base it is about a woman who despite her husband's affair and all the gossip and humiliation surrounding it, still loves her husband. Even without ever seeing her husband on screen, Norma Shearer is able to convince the audience of this love, and the conflict it causes for her. Meg Ryan on the other hand is not nearly as convincing.

In the original film, with the help of some of her new and unlikely friends (fellow divorcees from Reno) Mary shows up her husbands new wife, Crawford who is having an affair of her own. In the original film Mary discovers that those she counts as friends are more interested in gossip and status than her well being, and that a gold digger and a rich old woman who has been married several times over may be the best friends she has. The Women's portrayal of vicious gossiping women may not be quite what we are looking for, but neither is the contrived "girl power" of Diane English's contemporary take on the story. Now the characters are too flat. Where before it was possible to see the nuance, even of Rosalind Russel's gossipy wife (who gets her comeuppance in the end), now the characters are just pale imitations of the ladies of Sex and the City and their strong bonds of friendship. For example the new film forces Anette Bening's character to gossip to save her job so that the audience is sure to sympatize with her, because we couldn't be counted on to do so if she was just a gossip. English's version of the film dumbs down the characters making them fit too neatly into good and evil roles, which is what makes Meg Ryan's reunion with her husband even more inexplicable.

I'll take 1939's bitchy, catty, smart and witty Women over 2008's flat and sappy women any day!

Feminism in the Film Studies Classroom


Baignade dans un torrent, Alice Guy (1897).

Last week, while completing some lecture notes for an upcoming class, a textbook representative from a major academic publisher popped his head into my office, asking if he could have a moment of my time. The very pleasant and knowledgeable rep. was hoping to learn a bit more about what I teach so that he could better assist me in the selection of textbooks for my upcoming classes, particularly my "Introduction to Film Studies" and "Film History" courses. I tend to try to cut such conversations short, in large part because I know exactly what the person is going to say as he or she attempts to sell me on the publisher's books. The sales pitch usually involves a run-down of the merits of their text and a delicate reminder of just how it improves upon one of the other often-used options in the field. Because my institution is a relatively large one, with over 11,000 undergraduates, these representatives have some sizable stake in convincing me to adopt their book. If we do adopt their book, it means about 200 copies of it will be purchased by our students each semester. That number isn't huge, but it's certainly nothing to sneeze at in an era when textbook sales are plummeting and academic publishers are feeling the effects of the resulting loss in revenue.

In any case, when the representative asked me if there was anything I found lacking in the textbooks currently available for use in core film courses, I quickly pointed out the exceedingly marginal space allocated to women directors in virtually all of the major film studies textbooks. He looked somewhat surprised, but quite sympathetic. He also admitted that even though he'd recently graduated from college and completed several film studies courses at a neighboring institution with a highly-regarded film program, he feared he could only name a handful of female directors. He took a moment to collect his thoughts and then rattled off a depressingly short list of names: "Jane Campion. Penny Marshall, and Sofia Coppola." There was a rather pregnant pause as he struggled for another name before finally adding Leni Riefenstahl, explaining that he'd watched a bunch of her films in a history class. He quickly conceded my point, admitting that if he could only name one female director for each of his four years of film study, there was obviously a problem.

I can't blame one individual for not knowing more about women's actions behind the camera. Let's face it, most undergraduates--and certainly most filmgoers--are woefully unfamiliar with the films of women directors. And who can blame them? Judging by the syllabi available on the internet, many Film Studies programs still relegate women directors to the margins; when their works do appear in the classroom, it is often in stand-alone courses on "women directors" or feminist film theory. Some people would argue that this omission on course syllabi simply reflects one of the long-standing realities of the film business: relatively few women find work as directors, particularly in Hollywood.

Barbara K. Quart, author of Women Directors: The Emergence of a New Cinema (1989), provides (albeit dated) statistics that explain the depth of women's underrepresented status as film directors:
Since half the world's population is female, roughly half of all feature films should be made by women. The actual numbers, as is well known, are shockingly different. One statistic has it that between 1949 and 1979 (and this takes in the period when women started entering feature filmmaking again in numbers), one-fifth of 1 percent of all films released by American major studios were directed by women. Before that, only one woman director, Dorothy Arzner, worked in America from silents and the beginnings of sound in the 1920s into the 1940s--one woman directing in the heyday of Hollywood's productivity and power. Even in the more active years at the beginnings of the film industry, the years that were more hospitable to women, the numbers were small.
Though I would quibble with some of Quart's claims--Arzner was certainly not the only woman making inroads in Hollywood during the 1920s--she calls dramatic attention to women's underrepresented status in what is, arguably, one of today's most important economic and cultural industries.1

In August, 2002, the feminist art-world activist group, The Guerrilla Girls, also tried to call attention to the Hollywood bias against women, publishing a billboard with an "Anatomically Correct Oscar"


The campaign also included the distribution of stickers proclaiming that "The U.S. Senate is more progressive than Hollywood. Female Senators: 9%, Female directors: 4%." And if the response to recent attempts by women to run for national office is any indication of the current state of feminism, to realize that Hollywood, full of supposedly left-leaning liberals, is even more discriminatory towards women is very depressing in deed. As Michelle Goldberg explains in her report for Salon magazine, the study used to provide the statistics for the Guerrilla Girls' campaign suggests that "the dreams that radiate off theater screens and into our culture are still almost exclusively the dreams of men." What's more upsetting are the statistics Salon quotes from a study by San Diego State professor Martha M. Lauzen:
women directed 7 percent of the top-grossing 100 films released in 2000. (In a sample of the top 250 films, the percentage was a little higher, at 11 percent.) Last year, that already dismal number plummeted. 'We're just putting together preliminary figures for films released in 2001. The percentage [of the top 100 films] has gone way down. It looks like 4 percent, which means it's below 1992 levels.'
If all these statistics are true, can we really blame textbook publishers and professors for focusing primarily on works by male directors? After all, they should concentrate on maintaining the pedagogical integrity of the textbooks and the courses that use them, right? And that should mean selecting the most appropriate, high-quality film titles that will best illustrate the film technique or historical development being taught. We shouldn't select "inferior" films simply because they are directed by women, right?

In fact, I firmly believe that the goals of pedagogical integrity and feminist film scholarship need not be mutually exclusive. There are a great many excellent films directed by women that should be included in core courses in film studies and film history. In fact, I believe that the responsible film scholar is obligated to introduce his or her students to works directed by women. We should also feel obligated to include films by other underrepresented groups. Because the textbooks often pay short shrift to such films, if they include them at all, it may mean moving beyond that textbook and supplementing students' readings with articles by feminist film historians and theorists. We may have to pressure publishers to pay more attention to women's rolls in Hollywood, avant-garde and international cinema. Or, it may mean rewriting the damned textbooks ourselves. Otherwise, students will finish their programs with the impression that the Guerrilla Girls' "anatomically correct Oscar" accurately represents the film director, not just Hollywood's gender and racial bias. So with that in mind, I will return to planning next semester's syllabi and I will do my best to work women directors into the calendar--even if they rarely appear in the pages of the textbooks currently available to me.


a scene from Lois Weber's Hypocrites (1915).

1. If you'd like to get a more comprehensive picture of women's roles in the early film industry, take a look at Duke's Women Film Pioneers project website. The work of the Pioneers project makes clear that hundreds of women were involved in behind-the-scenes early film production--as writers, directors, producers, and editors. Though some of these figures have been all but lost to history, this collaborative project seeks to rewrite that history and give women their rightful place within it. Information found there will introduce you to other key figures such as Lois Weber, Jeanie MacPherson, and Alice Guy-Blache, to name but a few.

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Turn the world on with your smile


Friday was the 38th anniversary of The Mary Tyler Moore Show, which first aired on CBS on September 19, 1970. The show and its cast and crew won twenty-nine Emmys over the course of its seven year run, and as I sit here and watch the hosts of the 60th Emmy Awards make fools of themselves (and objectify Heidi Klum) I thought I'd post a small tribute to my one of my favorite television shows.



I've loved Mary Tyler Moore for as long as I can remember. I was too young (read: not yet born) when it first aired, but I watched it in re-runs on Nick-at-Nite when I was wee (8 or 9) and still watch it to this day--and now that I own the first four seasons on DVD, I can enjoy Mary's quirky humor, her eternal optimism, her victories (and her failed parties), and her friendships whenever I like.

Even then, I think I could appreciate the (historical) importance of Mary's role as the working, single girl. While she wasn't always explicitly feminist, she epitomized a woman who wasn't all about what she was to men, who had relationships outside of her home and her immediate family, and who was good at her job and enjoyed it. She wasn't perfect. She had her foibles and her quirks. She was constantly on Lou Grant's bad side and never sure how to deal with her overbearing neighbor Phyllis. She was sometimes shy and self-deprecating. But she was sure of what she was doing with her life and she was smart. And she had a wonderful best friend. (Rhoda was actually my favorite character...shhhh...don't tell Mary...)


I just found this short tribute to MTM in The New York Times archive and thought I'd share a bit here:
Mary was a gentle role model, someone for the shaky career woman to identify with in the transitional 1970's. The show ran from 1970 to 1977 when, even though the women's movement was on its way, women were still expected to work between school and marriage and then put their jobs on hold after the wedding. If their lives didn't pan out that way, well, there was probably something a bit weird about them.

Mary wasn't weird. Not in the least. What was so endearing about her was that in a medium so well known for exaggerating, she was conventional and believable even as she knocked down stereotypes and barriers. She was Barbie Doll-pretty and slim, the way the ideal woman is supposed to be. But she had her frustrations and failures anyway and wasn't afraid to admit her impatience with the dating game. So did her friend Rhoda (Valerie Harper), who had an acknowledged weight problem. Before Oprah.

Subtly and sensitively, Mary's writers managed to address subjects as diverse as anti-Semitism and sexism without preaching, and without copping out. As tempting as it may have been to have Mary settle down into marriage, she didn't. She wasn't even divorced or widowed. Mary was television's first single working woman of significance who didn't have a standard explanation for her status.

She worked -- because she worked. In fact, at a time when many young women were striving to establish themselves professionally, often at a price to their personal lives, Mary Richard's job was at the center of her life too -- so much so that in the final episode, she said she no longer worried about treating her colleagues as family because, in a way, they were.
Sometimes I watch Mary Tyler Moore now and I think that it might still be one of the smartest sitcoms on television--especially one with a clever, capable female protagonist--and it aired over thirty years ago. Certainly shows like 30 Rock have followed in its footsteps and deservedly so (and congrats to my all-time favorite leading lady, Tina Fey, for her multiple Emmy wins and to the show for its seventeen nominations), but I can't help worry that we haven't come much farther in terms of television's representations of women than we were in the 1970s. Or perhaps we were getting somewhere and now we've reverted.

I mean, on the Emmys just now Heidi Klum had her suit pulled off by two men, revealing a skimpy formal shorts one-piece and stilettos. Seriously. That's sure quality entertainment.

Am I just being cynical? Maybe. And I don't think Mary would approve.


Update: Emmy and I must have been on the same page tonight, since the Emmys did a little tribute to The Mary Tyler Moore Show just before 30 Rock received its Best Comedy Series Emmy!

Saturday, September 20, 2008

Election Music

No, this is not going to be about Mike Huckabee's band.

Nor is about the bands who played at the political conventions.

No, I'm going to look at the most important music in the campaign - the music played during political ads. We don't usually engage background music directly with our brains, like we do other music. Instead, we listen to the spoken words and watch the picture. This allows the music to affect us emotionally, almost without our knowledge. Have you ever found yourself feeling tense after viewing a negative ad, or calm after an ad about education? It's all in the music. I believe that the music in a ad affects us almost much or more than the content does.

So what does this have to do with feminism? Well, nearly all of music is gendered. Some music will bring up feminine images and feelings, and some will bring up masculine images and feelings. The music used in the campaign ads is carefully chosen to reinforce gender stereotypes and sexism, even when the is no mention of gender in the ad itself.

(for a fun introduction to this topic that doesn't involve reading dry academic papers, read this analysis of the Buffy theme vs. the Angel theme.)

All of the ads mentioned in this post can be found here.

There are four basic types of music found in the ads:
  1. Strong Leader - obviously masculine. characteristics include a strong, often rock, beat, a powerful melody. Usually paired with a positive, issues-centric ad.
  2. Security - very feminine sound. Designed to appeal to the listener's sense of home and family.
  3. My Opponent is Evil - what it sounds like. Has a creepy, scary sound, but without an real threat. I also call this the 'creepy femme' theme.
  4. No Music - this is also notable, as we shall see.
We will examine each type in detail.

Strong Leader


Listen to McCain's "Ohio Jobs". Notice the strong beat, the short, syncopated notes, and the repeated phrases. Also, note the fast tempo. All of these are masculine sounds. As you listen, notice how your heart rate increases slightly, how you sit up and feel like doing something. This ad may be about jobs in Ohio, but the music makes it about a specifically masculine construction of work - in effect, it says: "McCain will help you get out there and succeed!" "Michigan Jobs" uses the same soundtrack as "Ohio Jobs". Obama's "Hands" contains his campaign's sole pure example of this theme.

Listen to McCain's "Disrespectful". This ad is about Sarah Palin, yet it contains the most masculine music of any republican ad. The voice-over says that Palin is being attacked, and that it's 'disrespectful' (Stop picking on the girl!), but the music says, "Palin's tough. They can't hurt her, she's as tough as Hillary." "Fact Check" is similar, but not quite as extreme.

"Foundation" is an interesting ad. It starts with the 'creepy femme' (see below) theme, but notice how the music changes when McCain says, "I've taken on tougher guys than this before." A drum beat begins, and the music becomes stronger ,pushing it over the line to the 'Strong Leader' sound. Obama's "Sold us out" is quite similar to "Foundation".

McCains's "Patriotic Act" uses an overly masculine, patriotic-sounding track for parody purposes.

Security


This type of ad music is incredibly stereotypical. It features pretty, feminine melodies with a calming accompaniment and slow tempos. Obama's "Need Education", "Burden", "What kind", and McCain's "Enough is Enough", "Education", and "Symbol of Hope", are all examples. These ads are all about family values, education, and financial security. While few of the ads mention gender, the message - that these are the 'women's' issues - is quite clear.

"Crisis" is unusual - it combines a feminine flute melody with masculine beat; Strong Leader with Security, for a McCain-Palin ad. The implications are rather obvious.

Obama's "Still" uses 'old' sounding feminine music for the purpose of parody - but also to imply weakness...

Which brings us to the most musically offensive ad that I have found. McCain's "Advice" is about how "weak" Obama is, paired with a soft, feminine soundtrack and a female voice over! The ad clearly says, without using words, "We can't have a leader who is feminine in any way!", and given the masculine music given to Palin in "Disrespectful", this makes perfect sense.

My Opponent is Evil \ 'Creepy Femme'


This sort of music confused me a bit when I started this analysis. It is quiet, tense music, usually with a repeated xylophone or marimba melody. The melody has a fairly strong beat, while the accompaniment does not. Is is masculine? Is it feminine? Or is it just scary?

I believe that it is primarily feminine, hence the 'creepy femme' designation. The music lacks power. It is feminine, but with enough masculine elements to feel dangerous. It is scary, but in a manipulative, underhanded way, playing on the fear of strong women. It's "Watch out, she's going to stab you in the back!", not the "Oh, no, here he comes!" of horror movie music.

The 'creepy femme' theme is used in almost every negative ad, except those already mentioned. McCain's "Chavaz", and "Nothing new", and Obama's "Who advises", "Honor", "His Administration", and "Naked lies". There is one example of 'creepy masculine' music: Obama's "Fundamentals".

No Music


Two of Obama's ads contain no music, "Plan for Change", and "Real Change". This is excellent, as it forces us to think about the ideas presented, rather than respond to emotional appeals. Indeed, Obama's campaign is using no music in ads where McCain would have used Strong Leader music.

Conclusion


Obama's campaign shows more variety and reasonableness in choice of music, but both campaigns use it to manipulate emotions. Their opponents are presented as feminine and weak, while they themselves are masculine and strong - except when they are talking about financial security and education, when they suddenly understand what woman want!

Listen carefully to the music in political ads! Don't let yourself be taken in by the feelings presented by the music, and recognize the sexism that is being implicitly presented.

Friday, September 19, 2008

The Not-So-Subtle Misogyny of the Cesarean Section

Until recently, I was absolutely stumped as to what I wanted to write about for my first post at Fourth Wave. Many topics (including and not including Sarah Palin) occurred to me but none seemed exactly right. Last week, sitting in my little office behind medical records in our Family Medicine Center, I finally realized exactly what I wanted to talk about: Cesarean sections as a form of oppression of women.

For those of you who don't know, I am a lesbian with no children and no plans to have children who works as a Medical Support Assistant for the Maternal and Child Health Program at a University clinic. I had no medical experience when I began work here and my experience with children was limited to babysitting, to time spent with numerous younger cousins, and to extended time with my niece and nephew, who live only ten miles from me. Over the last two years, I have absorbed a vast amount of knowledge on pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding and I'm now considering adding a lactation consultant specialty to my nursing degree when I finish.

One of the things our clinic is known for is our support of TOLAC/VBAC. For those of you not fluent in "medicalese", TOLAC is a Trial of Labor After Cesarean and a VBAC is a Vaginal Birth After Cesarean. Women who have had one or more Cesarean sections are free to request a TOLAC as part of their childbirth process here and the goal is to have a successful VBAC. What is so unbelievable to me is that we are just one of a few clinics/medical centers/obstetrics providers in our state that supports this labor/birth option. Most other clinics/medical centers/obstetrics providers in our state tell women who have had previous c-sections that their ONLY labor/birth option is a repeat c-section. Ninety percent of women in the US who have had a previous c-section are having repeat c-sections with their successive pregnancies because of a lack of medical support for a completely natural birth option. Why the lack of support?

The reasons why medical providers are unwilling to support a natural birth option after a previous surgical intervention are woven inextricably with the reasons why the c-section rate in this country surpasses necessity and belief. Currently, approximately 1 in 3 US births end in Cesarean section while the World Health Organization maintains that only 10 - 15% of births should do so. We are subjecting twice the recommended number of women and children to surgical interventions during childbirth without good evidence for our actions. And by "we", I mean the health care industry. Contrary to popular belief (made popular by sensationalist media outlets), there are not droves of women ordering non-medically indicated Cesareans for cosmetic/personal/scheduling reasons.

So if there are no droves of women requesting Cesareans for Convenience and only 10 - 15% of births are statistically likely to require medically-indicated surgical intervention, where are all these other Cesareans coming from?

Natural Vaginal Birth Takes Too Long

First and foremost, the health care industry and insurance companies believe natural birth takes too long. Patients these days are being shuffled out of hospitals earlier and earlier after major illnesses/surgeries due to a combination of overcrowded conditions and insurance companies' resistance to compensating hospitals for longer stays. Therefore patients that have longer labors often receive medical intervention to "speed things up", including pharmacological inductions and AROM (Artificial Rupture of Membranes). The problem with these interventions is that many times a woman's body simply isn't ready to give birth yet, often leading to Cesarean sections due to fetal distress.

Also, many insurance companies offer a "global fee" for childbirth that does not take into account the length of the labor, so many providers are paid the same whether a woman's natural labor takes 30 minutes (precipitous) or 30 hours (prolonged). Some providers, therefore, are more likely to suggest induction or AROM for longer labor periods for simple financial reasons that only benefit themselves.

Pregnancy and Birth as a Medical Condition rather than a Natural Process

Added to this travesty is the disturbing trend of national medical associations, such as ACOG (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists), toward the criminalization of non-hospital births. Birth Centers are closing all over the country due to a reluctance of major medical centers to support them and midwives and homebirths are being attacked on legal fronts, threatening the entire natural birth concept.

The truth of this matter is that 90% of the time, birth is a natural event that requires little medical intervention. It certainly does not require a hospital or else many of our grandparents and some of our parents would not have been born. The Western transition toward hospital births began in the 1920s in Germany and became very popular in the US during the 1950s (that decade is another entire study in anti-feminist behavior in and of itself). Since then, birth has been regarded by the US health care industry as an illness rather than as a natural function of a woman's body and they have devised numerous "interventions" that they claim are for the safety of the mother and the child. Some of these interventions are medically indicated but some have no evidence to support them. Some, like continuous fetal monitoring, have recently been linked to the increase in Cesarean sections.

Only about 30% of the world's children are born in hospitals or health care centers and yet we are seeing a population boom in almost all regions of the world. Women have been giving birth to healthy, hearty children without the benefit of routine medical care for thousands of years.

Don't get me wrong; I am not advocating that birth should be without medical care or monitoring. Certainly maternal and fetal outcomes, especially in developing countries, can be improved drastically by medical presence. What I am advocating is a discontinuation of the (mostly Western medicine) mindset that pregnancy is something to be "fixed".

The Concept of "Routine" Surgery

As anyone who has ever had abdominal surgery will tell you, there is nothing "routine" about it. Depending on the complexity of the surgery and the location/size of the incision, it can take years to recuperate from abdominal surgery. The short-term complications are the same for any major surgery: increased risk of infection, of blood clots, of chronic pain, of being readmitted to the hospital for failure to thrive or other poor functioning. There is also an increased risk of hysterectomy and of surgical injury. The long-term is much more complicated. Chronic pain, inability to lift weights over 10lbs, lack of stamina, infertility, weight gain, long-term absences from work, adhesions, gastrointestinal difficulties including intestinal blockages, future ectopic pregnancies, complications with future pregnancies--all these are possible with Cesarean sections but are rarely discussed with the patient. And what about babies born by Cesarean? They are more prone to respiratory illnesses and asthma, they are susceptible to surgical injury themselves, they are more likely to experience difficulty breastfeeding, and they miss out on that first skin-to-skin contact with their mother in the first hour of life that is so necessary to the hormonal health of both mother and child. Cesarean sections are hardly "routine" surgeries but most hospitals, insurance companies, and even patients treat them as such.

Why do they do so? One of the reasons are the inordinate numbers of "reality" television shows on channels like the Discovery Channel that portray birth as something that a) always happens in a hospital and b) always requires significant medical intervention. We call it "birth as a rescue operation" around here and we are disgusted. The shows focus on the most at-risk patients with the most severe complications and present these births as the norm, scaring women into believing that their babies might die if their births aren't micromanaged by medical personnel. Another reason is our Western ability to accept non-medically-indicated surgery in general. Statistically speaking, how many people in, say, Laos get cosmetic surgery? Compare that with US figures and you'll see a part of the problem.

With these three factors (and I'm sure there are others), it is not hard to interpret the non-medically-indicated Cesarean section as a misogynistic dismissal of a woman's innate abilities. So what are the remedies? How can we lower our out-of-control Cesarean rates in this country?

Support Midwives, Birth Centers, and Homebirths

The birth center that is affiliated with our clinic is the last free-standing birth center in our state. They facilitate approximately 450 births a year and their Cesarean rate hovers at about 5%. Homebirths attended by qualified midwives also enjoy extremely low rates of Cesarean section, especially homebirths for low-risk women. There are no electronic fetal monitors at homebirths and midwives are more likely to allow the pregnant woman's body to direct the birth process, intervening only when medically crucial.

There is absolutely nothing behind the desire to criminalize homebirth other than greed, plain and simple. Hospital births cost money, Cesarean sections cost more. Doctors and insurance companies profit from expensive medical procedures and they do so at the expense of women and children. Period.

Study after study has proven that homebirths attended by qualified providers are safer and cheaper than hospital births and yet ACOG and the AMA push to criminalize the practice?

Even if you never plan to have a child, please support the right of women to choose midwives and homebirths for their deliveries.

Choose Family Medicine Providers

Statistically speaking, more women are choosing to specialize in Family Medicine and women providers are more likely to approach medicine in a collaborative give-and-take way. Family Medicine providers who also provide obstetric care are more likely to support alternative birth processes.

For example, at our Family Medicine Clinic we offer three types of prenatal care to our pregnant patients: traditional care, where the woman sees an individual provider for a 20 minute appointment at regular intervals; group prenatal care, where a group of 4 to 8 women at roughly the same gestational age see a provider and a group facilitator for 90 minutes of care at regular intervals, including group discussion and special talks; and focused prenatal care, where a woman who is low risk and/or who has had multiple low risk pregnancies/births with excellent outcomes can choose to see a provider fewer times over the course of her pregnancy.

What are the benefits, specifically in regards to the Cesarean section? Well, our hospital's overall rate of Cesarean births is approximately 30%, right with the national trend. Our Family Medicine Center's rate is currently 18% and we are actively trying to lower it. We are conscious of the WHO recommendations and are trying very hard to meet them through extensive training in labor support and other practical means of allowing a woman's body to direct the birthing process.

Trust Your Body

A woman's body has all the tools it needs to give birth. Period. Except for the statistically few women who require substantial medical intervention, the other people present during births are really only there to cheer a woman on, to occasionally "catch" a baby, and to clean up afterwards.

Do not buy into the crap that pregnancy and birth is "too hard" or "too scary." Do not watch those ridiculous medical shows on Discovery that present birth as a dangerous condition that requires medical intervention. Do not let any provider make decisions for your and your baby without your input.

Do educate yourself about the birth process. Do consider all your birth options keeping foremost in your mind what you hope for and want out of the experience. Do shop around for a provider that can give you the support you need to give birth in the way you have chosen.

Women are strong. Birth is natural. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Choice matters

(Update: Check out the op-ed piece about reproductive rights and Bush's new restrictive health care regulations in the New York Times by Senator Hillary Clinton and Cecile Richards (President of Planned Parenthood): Blocking Care for Women)

I grew up in a very liberal household and for that I am extremely grateful. I was also lucky to grow up in a fairly liberal city, where my parents’ interracial marriage and my biracialism were barely worth remarking upon, where my parents really did have gay friends who we regularly spent time with, where the biggest social divide in the public schools I attended seemed to be whether or not you liked sports or were in the honors classes. (This is, of course, not quite true, but I don’t want to go off on a long tangent about race and class in my school(s). Perhaps in another post. Suffice it to say that, in my personal experience at least, there was never any racially-motivated hostility between students, and I had both black and white friends. Things may have changed in high school, but I didn’t attend high school in my hometown, so I don’t know.)

We had comprehensive sex education in seventh grade—although it was called “health” class and quite dull—and, even in elementary school, my fourth grade teacher once responded to a complaint that my friends and I were reading a book with “naked pictures” (we were reading The What's Happening to My Body? Book for Girls) with the comment that “different people are mature enough to handle information about their bodies at different times” and that she wasn’t going to ask us to stop (although she may have asked us to be a bit more discreet). I had an openly lesbian pediatrician, for goodness sake—she later became my gynecologist and her partner, also a doctor, once treated me for a particular nasty throat ailment—and I distinctly remember attending a huge Planned Parenthood fundraiser with my parents when I was eleven or twelve.

So, given this charmed existence of liberalism—I realize I was quite privileged to grow up this way; it has inexorably shaped my worldview and I feel very lucky—you can imagine my shock and horror when I stumbled across the 1996 HBO movie If These Walls Could Talk.

I don’t remember how I came across the film. We didn’t have HBO when I was a kid, and my television viewing was pretty restricted (an irony now considering that I now adore TV and recently conducted an “experiment” wherein I watched television for twenty-four hours). Maybe it was rebroadcast on another channel. Maybe my parents had a tape of it a friend had given them. I don’t know. But it totally rocked my worldview.


I’m fairly certain anyone reading this has probably at least heard about the movie, if not seen it, but just in case…If These Walls Could Talk chronicles three women’s experiences with abortion in the 50s, 70s and 1990s (starring, among others, Demi Moore, Cher, and Sissy Spacek). It’s pretty harrowing, as you can imagine, and was nominated for a number of Emmys and Golden Globes. The 1990s segment ends in the insanely bloody bombing of an abortion clinic, which haunted me through much of my adolescence.

So, it’s no wonder that in 8th grade, when we were asked to write a short speech taking a stance on some controversial issue, I chose abortion. I recently came across my speech while cleaning out boxes (I just moved last month), and thought I’d quote a bit here. It’s not Shakespeare or anything—I mean, I was fourteen—but I was pretty proud of it at the time and so I haven’t edited it from the original:
Picture this: a young girl, maybe 14 or 15, sneaks down a dark alley to have a dangerous operation performed without correct supervision and under unsanitary conditions that may cause AIDS and many other disesases. This is what will happen if abortion is made illegal. Not only will women continue to have abortions, but it will be life-threatening to them. Abortion is one of the most controversial issues today in America. As in all controversies, there are at least two sides to the abortion issue basically under the headers, “pro-life” and “pro-choice.”

I happen to be advocating the latter. Pro-choice doesn’t mean, as some people think, that abortion should be used as a method of birth control. It simply means that women should have the right to make a decision that concerns their body on their own. The first point I’d like to make is that aborition was illegal in most states between 1880 and 1973, and many women who had illegal abortions performed were put at serious risk or even died. In countries where aborition is illegal it is the leading cause of maternal death. […] The so-called “pro-life” advocacy is also ironic considering that there have been over 1000 reported acts of violence towards abortion clinics including bombings, death threats, kidnappings, and shootings since 1977. In fact, in 1984 a part-time abortion consultant came home to find her cat decapitated; in 1993, Dr. David Gunn who performed abortions in Florida was murdered after withstanding years of harassing letters and death threats, and there have been several more bombings, shootings, and even murders by anti-abortionists since. […]
It goes on, as I try to address as many issues as possible in two pages (religion, when life begins in the womb, etc.), and hence it ends up being pretty formulaic in terms of rhetoric, and not the impassioned narrative I remembered it to be. However, the research I did and the sentiment I was trying to express have stuck with me through the years. Granted, I now have a much more nuanced understanding of reproductive rights and abortion issues, not just information gleaned from an HBO film and a few newspaper articles and websites (I’m not even positive I had all my facts right). Still, I think my younger self would be as horrified as I am that there’s a serious risk these days that Roe v. Wade could be overturned. And, so, I wanted to dedicate this post to reproductive rights, and finish up by sharing a few links.


RH Reality Check: Does Personhood Start At Fertilization? from RH Reality Check on Vimeo.
  • And last, but not least, check out the What to Expect When You’re Aborting blog. Some people might find the blogger—who’s been posting almost in real-time about her experiences with her own abortion—a bit…er…provocative (some might say offensive, but I wouldn’t), but I think her blog is incredibly fascinating, engaging, intimate and real. Very much worth a read.

What about you all? When do you first remember learning about Roe v. Wade and the pro-choice versus pro-life debate? Have your feelings about abortion changed over the years or stayed the same?

Also, please feel free to include more links to other useful/interesting articles in the comments.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

'Bitch' and 'Chicks Rock' P.S.A.

Two Public Service Announcements from Fourth Wave:

1. Help Save BITCH Magazine. If you can donate, please do. If you can't donate, spread the word. BITCH is a non-profit, feminist magazine, and this may be their last issue:



2. The Women's Mosaic has started a new blog, Chicks Rock, which is dedicated to providing a space "for women to share their experiences related to diversity and personal growth." Check it out, comment and maybe even consider becoming a guest blogger.

Plus, a couple bonus links:


* A great article pondering why there aren't more superheroine movies ("And why not start with the superwoman who was sent here to bring a feminine--and feminist--perspective to the fight against evil? It might take Wonder Woman's Lasso of Truth to make studio executives own up to the fact that 41 years after she first made it on the screen, they're still afraid of Diana Prince.")
H/T don't ya wish your girlfriend was smart like me?

* Stephen Colbert on the McCain campaign's tactics of silence, diversion and hypocrisy


H/T Appetite for Equal Rights

Monday, September 15, 2008

Sexism, noun

From the Oxford English Dictionary:
sexism, n: prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
(my emphasis)

Do we need to explain to the McCain campaign the difference between sexism and satirical criticism? Just because someone is a woman and you're making fun of that someone doesn't automatically make it sexist. Why are you doing this to me Carly Fiorina? I don't want to even have to think about Sarah Palin anymore, let alone talk about her, and you all keep making me. Of course, that's been your ploy all along. But we're on to you, McCain. America is on to you. I hope.



H/T Appetite for Equal Rights for the vid.

P.S.: Check out Feministing's new anti-Palin shirt.

Sunday, September 14, 2008

Feminist Flashback #2

I know I said that I wasn't going to talk about Sarah Palin anymore, and I won't. My excuse for posting this is because it's Feminist Flashback Sunday, I needed to post a clip/image anyway, and even though this isn't technically a flashback (flashback to 24 hours ago...such a long time past!), I absolutely adore Tina Fey. So there.

Saturday, September 13, 2008

Why we need to stop talking about Sarah Palin

Why do we need to stop talking about Sarah Palin? Because she is a distraction, meant to divert our focus from what's really going on with the Presidential Campaign. Don't get me wrong, all of the debates about Governor Palin's feminism, or lack thereof, and whether or not she's pro-woman (hint: the answer is no) were and are imminently valuable, but I think it's time we move on and think about the larger picture, too.

What else is there to talk about, you say?

John McCain has been leading a campaign of lies and smears, and the general (Democratic) public has been so caught up with Governor Palin that they've only just started to notice. Finally, the MSM are beginning to address the outright dishonesty of the McCain-Palin campaign, starting with their specious co-option of feminism and ripping-off Obama's slogan "change we can believe in" to his egregiously false attack ads:



I was certainly glad to see that the women of The View, which--I'll be honest--is not a show I usually watch or spend much time thinking about, ripped a strip off McCain yesterday, grilling him on everything from his changing stance on abortion and his choice of Governor Palin to his attack ads (make sure to watch the clips embedded in the linked article).

I hope people are finally getting their heads out of the clouds (I was going to say "out of Sarah Palin's ass," but figured that might be inappropriate. Of course, I just said it anyway.) and realizing that Sarah Palin has a running mate. In fact, she is the running mate to someone who is a serious threat and who could, in fact, be president if we're not careful. And, unless McCain dies in office immediately, his actions are what we'll have to worry about, not (necessarily) those of Governor Palin.



That said, while it's important for women (and men) to continue to take a stand against Governor Palin's anti-womanism, I think Democrats should put most of their energy behind rallying for Obama-Biden. Join your local campaign headquarters, go door-to-door, donate money if you can, register to vote, make sure everyone you know has registered to vote, put a sign on your lawn, put a sticker on your car. Isn't it more valuable to show support for our candidates instead of trying to undermine our opponents (even if they deserve it)? Or, as Cara at The Curvature has pointed out, isn't optimism a stronger force than pessimism?

Note: When I say "we" don't assume that I'm talking about anyone specific. I'm not. I'm mostly addressing myself (since I have been writing and talking about Palin as much, if not more, than others in the blogosphere) and anyone else like me who has suddenly realized that all their energy has been going into discrediting Governor Palin when it should have been directed towards supporting the Democrats.

Mainstream Feminist Rock? The Donnas vs. The Runaways

Are there any feminists in mainstream music?

Try this experiment: Turn on a radio. Tune to your local mainstream rock station. What do you hear? A male voice. Change to the classic rock station. Another male voice. How about a country or rap station? Guess what! Try top 40. There you'll probably hear a vapid-sounding woman singing about her (ex-)boyfriend, or about how sexy she is. Repeat this until you're good and mad. There aren't many women on the radio (except DJs), let alone feminism. Now, I know that radio isn't as important as it used to be. So, try looking through a list of top mp3 sales. At the time I'm writing this, there are only 4-5 non girly-pop* female songs in the amazon.com top 100 - although a Pink song is currently #1. (If anyone gets different results, by the way, I'd like to know.)

Still, I'm going to start here at Fourth Wave by writing about feminism and rock music.

As it turns out, of course, there are excellent women musicians in the music industry. Some are even quite popular. Not all pop singers are intolerable. Sarah Mclachlan, Madonna, and my personal favorite, Idina Menzel all spring to mind. If you listen to a classic rock station for very long, you'll hear some Heart. And then there's the Queen of Rock herself, Joan Jett.

Now, before Joan Jett and the Blackhearts, Jett was in a band called the Runaways. If you've never heard of them, the Runaways are often considered the first really successful all-female band. They were forerunners of later all-female bands, including more feminist bands (riotgrrrl bands, L7 and Babes in Toyland, female queercore bands, etc.) The Runaways, though, were not feminist. At all. They were a rock and roll band - they sang about sex (with boys), rebellion, drugs, and rock and roll itself.

As much as I love feminist musicians, very few feminist bands have anything like mainstream success. The question, therefore, is: What effect, if any, has feminism and feminist music had on the women in mainstream rock? How has it changed since the Runaways?

I originally meant to compare the Runaways to the most popular all-female band in any genre, but the most popular band turned out to be the Dixie Chicks, and there didn't seem to be much to say. So, I went with another popular band, the Donnas. As far as I can tell, the Donnas are the most popular all-female rock band currently performing, and one of the most popular all-female bands in any genre. They are also perfect for our purposes; they were directly influenced by the Runaways. Like the Runaways, the Donnas sing mostly about sex, drugs, and rock and roll. There are about 20 years between the bands - the Runaways disbanded in 1979, and the Donnas started to see real success in 1999 or so. Let's listen to a couple of songs:

First, the Runaways, "Cherry Bomb":


No, they didn't always perform in lingerie. But the whole 'trashy teenage jail-bait' look was essentially the selling point of the band. One of the big problems with the Runaways was with their manager, Kim Fowley, who over-managed and over-hyped the band until they appeared to be a cheap exploitation act put together by men. Nobody is really sure how much this was the case, but it certainly taint their perception.

Now for the Donnas, "Take It Off":


As far as I know, the Donnas have never performed in lingerie. Many reviewers claim they started with a the trashy jail-bait look, but nearly every video that I have seen features them in jeans and tank-tops or t-shirts - fairly neutral outfits. If they once had a trashy look, they've certainly dropped it by now.

Notice also the difference in the front-women's dancing. The Runaways' Currie is obviously playing up to her outfit, and while the Runaways are not the Pussycat Dolls (by a long shot), their sex appeal was an important part of their act. The Donnas' Anderson rarely does anything like this. Her dancing consists primarily of fist shaking, headbanging, and the occasional side-to-side movement that looks like a swagger as often as it looks sensual.

And that is the difference between the two bands. The Donnas are certainly very sexual, but theirs is an aggressive, almost masculine sexuality. The Runaways sing,

Here you are a superstar
But I sing and play in my own way
You got your fans and I got mine
But I need your love that's the bottom line

And,

Don't abuse me
Now you listen to what I say
If you're tryin' to use me
Why don't you just go away

But the Donnas?

Spendin every night in a different state
Spendin every night with a different date
...
Forty boys in forty nights
I got no time to see the sights

And also:

Boy, don't try to slow me down
You're not the only one that's on my mind
Got, enough to go around
If you can't take it you'll be left behind

The Runaways may be tough aggressive rockers, but in the end they seemingly need a man just like other women. The Donnas don't need men at all - they use them for sex, just like male rock stars use the women in their songs. (Note: the Donnas aren't totally consistent in this - the songs do tend to use female terms to describe relationships, but this is also kind of the point - they're female, just not feminine)

In the end, the Donnas are about as feminist as straight-up hetro rock and roll can be. There is one problem, though. While they are confident and strong in themselves, they really don't care about other women very much:

You've been talking trash again, oh no
Don't pretend you're not my friend, oh no

And the repeated line in the same song:

G-I-R-L T-A-L-K, the girls talk

Yeah, yeah, we know. Girls don't like each other. It's two steps and one step back, really:


  • Strong, independent, sexually confident = good


  • Tearing down other women = bad


I do think that there is overall progress, though. We've come quite a way since the Runaways. The Donnas even parted with their first manager to avoid a Fowley-type scandal. Their latest album was released on their own label, and still charted.

Perhaps in another 10-20 years, the songs we hear on the radio (or whatever finally replaces it) will have as many female voices as male voices.

*By the way, please don't think I hate pop music or musicians. It just seems that much of it tends to reinforce stereotypes of dependent, weak women with breathy high-pitched voices who think about men all the time. The over-production often makes them sound fake to my ears, as well.

Friday, September 12, 2008

Feminism and Religion ~ Ayaan Hirsi Ali

I just wanted to post a quick note of congratulations and support to feminist author Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who won this year's Anisfield-Wolf Book Award for nonfiction last night in Cleveland, OH. Her appearance at the awards had to be kept a complete secret up until the moment of presentation because she has suffered such persecution--as well as multiple threats on her life--due to her radical, outspoken autobiography, Infidel, published last year.


Born in Somalia, Hirsi Ali fled an arranged marriage when she was 22 and was granted asylum in the Netherlands. She converted from Islam to atheism, and recently became a member of the Dutch Parliament and is an avid activist for women's rights and religious freedom.

In case you haven't heard of her or her book, here's an excerpt...the first page of her introduction:
One November morning in 2004, Theo van Gogh got up to go to work at his film production company in Amsterdam. He took out his old black bicycle and headed down a main road. Waiting in a doorway was a Moroccan man with a handgun and two butcher knives.

As Theo cycled down the Linnaeusstraat, Muhammad Bouyeri approached. He pulled out his gun and shot Theo several times. Theo fell off his bike and lurched across the road, then collapsed. Bouyeri followed. Theo begged, “Can’t we talk about this?" but Bouyeri shot him four more times. Then he took out one of his butcher knives and sawed into Theo’s throat. With the other knife, he stabbed a five-page letter onto Theo’s chest.

The letter was addressed to me.

Two months before, Theo and I had made a short film together. We called is Submission, Part 1. I intended one day to make Part 2. (Theo warned me that he would work on Part 2 only if I accepted some humor in it!) Part 1 was about defiance—about Muslim women who shift from total submission to God to a dialogue with their deity. They pray, but instead of casting down their eyes, these women look up, at Allah, with the words of the Quran tattooed on their skin. They tell Him honestly that if submission to Him brings them so much misery, and He remains silent, they may stop submitting.

There is the woman who is flogged for committing adultery; another who is given in marriage to a man she loathes; another who is beaten by her husband on a regular basis; and another who is shunned by her father when he learns that his brother raped her. Each abuse is justified by the perpetrators in the name of God, citing the Quran versus now written on the bodies of the women. These women stand for hundreds of thousands of Muslim women around the world.


And if you still need reasons to check out the book for yourself, here are a few book reviews:

"The Fight for Muslim Women" | by Anne Applebaum

"No Rest for a Feminist Fighting Radical Islam" | by William Grimes

Against Submission | by Ian Burma