Posts with the tag feminism

Whipping the Sexism Out of Whip It's Box Office Numbers

Kay — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 11:41:37 EDT

Apparently Whip It, starring Drew Berrymore and Ellen Page, didn't do so great at the Box Office last weekend, pulling in about $4.9 million. The male-dominated cast of Zombieland dominated, trouncing all other movies with $24.7 million last weekend. (To be fair, zombies are amazing.) But critics say Whip It is a pretty good film. It's getting 81 percent over at Rotten Tomatoes, just 8 points behind Zombieland.

Over at NPR, Linda Holmes doesn't understand why the film is doing so poorly. "Not only is it touching and funny and a rollicking good time, but it's a movie that rarely finds its way to the multiplex -- it's a sports movie about a team of women, it's got a cast chosen mostly for suitability and not perceived hotness, and it's warmly funny but almost wisecrack-free," she writes.

Box office numbers do matter, though. Melissa Silverstein, who writes the blog Women & Hollywood writes, "I am seriously sad." Many people viewed Whip It and Jennifer's Body (Diablo Cody's adventure into feminist horror fimmmaking) as the rise of the film starring young women. "So now we won’t have movies about older women and we won’t have movies about younger women," Silverstein writes. "Great."

As Silverstein has noted often, films that star women are few and far between. And films that do star women (and are directed by women) become "underperforming films," Silverstein writes, though they are often produced on small budgets so they still usually make a profit, even if they don't do so hot at the box office. And that's not to say that Whip It won't do well eventually. It might. After all, Julie & Julia, the Julia Child/blogger biopic, is still raking in a reasonable amount of money (outperforming, ahem, G.I. Joe) even though it came out over the summer. And as I recall Juno wasn't an instant hit either. Many word-of-mouth films don't have a smash opening weekend but end up performing well overall because the public wants to see it after hearing from a friend that it's good.

Silverstein has done a phenomenal job of pointing out that there just aren't enough films written by, directed by, or starring women coming out of Hollywood. The problem is, Hollywood executives will look at a film that didn't take top spot at the box office produced by women, even if it ultimately ends up making a profit, and assume that it performed poorly it's because it was produced by women. Then they'll back fewer films directed by women. It's a bad cycle.

Worst of all, people are starting to put Whip It and Jennifer's Body in the same category. Because, um, I guess we have to put all women-produced films in the same category? That's like putting Drag Me to Hell in the same category as The Hangover. I guess they are lumping the two together because they're both "female empowerment" films. God, that's horrifying.

It's useless to look at Whip It in a vacuum. If there were gender parity in the films that Hollywood produced, I think you'd end up seeing that films directed by women "underperform" at about the same rate as male-produced films. It would be nice if feminism didn't have to put all of its eggs in one basket every time a film is written by, directed by, or stars women. As it is now, as a feminist, I feel like I failed because I didn't block out time to see Whip It this weekend. I plan to see it soon, but because I didn't see it on opening weekend, my voting dollars somehow count less.

But let's be clear about one thing: Hollywood produces a ton of crap every year that doesn't take a top spot at the box office on opening weekend. Much of it is produced by men. But Hollywood still produces crap produced by men. Hollywood execs shouldn't look at films like Whip It as failures because they're directed by and star women. Looking at Whip It as an indicator of whether women's films can and should succeed is dangerous business and downright silly. Let's hope movie executives realize that.

Fair Pay Day, And Ambivalence Thereof

Matt Zeitlin — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 20:32:54 EDT

As Kay said below, today is Fair Pay Day, and so it seems appropriate to share my thoughts.

Generational Feminist Divide

Kay Steiger — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:02:59 EDT

If there's one thing this election season has highlighted, it's some deep divisions within the feminist movement. Today at Women's eNews, Amy Tiemann outlines how some older feminists claim solidarity with Hillary Clinton based on her vagina -- or as Tieman says "plenty of second-wavers have turned the campaigns into a test of feminist credentials." Many younger feminists, meanwhile, say it's not just about electing a woman. Tiemann says, "I am worried that modern feminism may go the way of 'The Greatest Generation,' something younger women honor as a historical legacy that does not directly involve us." It's a good summary of the debate among feminists.

Feminism and Pornography

Jesse Singal — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:33:34 EDT

"Can feminism and porn coexist?" asks Sarah Hepola at Salon's Broadsheet blog. Maybe I'm out of my element here, acting as I am as the token male commenting on a feminist issue, but my immediate reaction is, Why not? It's one of those overly broad, provocative questions designed mostly to spark discussion, but the answer seems simple enough and I'm having trouble thinking of a counterargument. Since Hepola's not asking "Can feminism and porn made by men coexist?" or "Can feminism and porn-as-we've-known-it-since-the-1960s coexist?," why couldn't feminism and porn coexist, so long as we admit certain things about most porn would have to be altered or excised?

Limbaugh's Latest Slut-Shaming

Annika — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:37:01 EDT

I can always count on Rush Limbaugh for a healthy dose of slut-shaming rhetoric, and his commentary on Hillary Clinton's candidacy is no exception.

Yesterday on his radio show, Limbaugh argued that "feminists and women" feel they're owed a Clinton II presidency. I'll let him speak for himself (emphasis mine):

These women have paid their dues. They've been married two or three times; they've had two or three abortions; they've done everything that feminism asked them to do. They have cut men out of their lives; they have devoted themselves to causes and careers. And this -- the candidacy of Hillary Clinton -- is the culmination of all of these women's efforts. And if it gets stolen from them, in their minds -- not actually stolen, but if the country or if the Democrat [sic] Party rejects this wonderfully great, lying woman in exchange for a rookie, radical black guy who can't tell the time of day, they are going to be so miffed. They are going to be so upset.

Right. Because feminism is all about having abortions, eschewing men and getting a bunch of divorces. Looks like I've been slacking.

Click here for more of Limbaugh's enlightened pontification.

Body Image

Kay Steiger — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:21:40 EDT

I'm not quite sure how I missed this, but the NYTimes had this on Tuesday:

A new study finds that women who describe themselves as feminists are more forgiving than other women when assessing the attractiveness of women who are either very underweight or very heavy.

But:

Feminists and nonfeminists tended to agree on which woman was the most attractive. But that woman was described by the researchers as somewhat underweight, suggesting that even feminists cannot fully avoid societal pressures to be thin.

Gee, you mean feminists are subject to the same social pressures that everyone else is? And sometimes they fall victim to the exact same stereotypes everyone else does? Wow, thanks for that hard-hitting science. Granted, it was published in the very focused Body Images journal. I think the real conclusion to take away from this is that it's really hard to overcome stereotypes about what the ideal body is. After all, we're bombarded with images of the stereotype of attractiveness all the time. But the one thing that seems to help is when women identify as feminists -- i.e. don't buy into some of the ideas about how women are "supposed" to look and act -- the perceptions get a little better.

Virtual Bimbo

Kay Steiger — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:30:41 EDT

According to CNN, there's a web game out there called "Miss Bimbo" that encourages girls -- the site claims most users are between 7 and 17 -- to diet, find boyfriends, and get breast jobs. You know, all the things you want your little girl to aspire to.

Users are given missions, including securing plastic surgery at the game's clinic to give their dolls bigger breasts, and they have to keep her at her target weight with diet pills, which cost 100 bimbo dollars.

Breast implants sell at 11,500 bimbo dollars and net the buyer 2,000 bimbo attitudes, making her more popular on the site.

And bagging a billionaire boyfriend is the most desirable way to earn the all important "mula" or bimbo dollars. ...

The site says: "Bimbo dollars is 'the cabbage,' 'bread,' the 'mula' you'll need to buy nice things and to get by in bimbo world. To earn some bimbo cash you will have to (gasp) work or find a boyfriend to be your sugar daddy and hook you up with a phat expense account!"

The advice on feeding the dolls is even more spurious, encouraging them to feed the dolls "every now and then" even though they want to keep their Bimbos "waif thin."

Although there are a number of parental activists that oppose the game (obviously), I tend to think the influence of the game is overrated. I think this might be feed into fears a young girl already has about her body image or sexuality, but if you're a normal, balanced girl, you'd understand the game is just a game. It's comparable to the argument about violent video games. Video games don't cause violence, but they sure can feed into tendencies that are already there.

Meanwhile, though, I'm not rushing to visit missbimbo.com, and I'm fairly certain the company created it knowing it would be perceived as controversial. Therefore, parents would ban it and therefore girls would want to play it more. But don't you love it when misogynistic sites feed into the fears of young girls and try to reinforce terrible stereotypes?

On the brilliance of men

ashwini — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 10:22:47 EST

Thank you, Charlotte Allen, for elucidating precisely how and why women are so “dim-witted.” As an addition to your worthy screed, I’d like to offer a treatise on the superior contributions and tendencies of men that have uplifted our world as a whole.

First, lynch mobs. Common to societies throughout the world, but perhaps most visible in the U.S., lynch mobs are absolutely brilliant. Conducting a trial where evidence is presented and deliberated in an unbiased manner? How stupid. It’s so much smarter to get a group of men together to murder another man, woman or child (extra points if he or she is Black, Chinese or Native American) based on an accusation! Let’s hear it for the men!

Vaginas of Color on U Street

Kay Steiger — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 12:18:31 EST

I went to go see The Vagina Monologues show last night at the Lincoln Theater in D.C. I wrote about this week. It was a cast entirely composed of African American women. The performance was really great, and it really reminds me that Eve Ensler's play is a bit like feminism itself. It's not perfect, so it keeps evolving, changing, and adapting to various audiences. Feminism isn't one message. It's an ongoing discussion.

Can young feminists reconcile voting for a woman because she's a woman?

Jenny Odegard — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:16:37 EST

My gender studies education has taught me, if nothing else, to do my best to approach things in a gender-blind way. Thinking in that way, is it possible for me and other feminists of my generation to reconcile casting votes for female politicians if part of our vote is based on their gender?

Control A Woman

Kay Steiger — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:34:08 EST

I guess we're supposed to feel better that they also have a "control a man" model. Thanks, Urban Outfitters.

Taking Down "Revolutionary" Modesty

Annika — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:51:31 EST

Jessica Valenti has a great post today on Feministing taking down the notion that the current resurgence of Religious-Right-inspired modesty is "revolutionary:"

Pop culture tells women that their bodies are public property and that they have to be sexual in order to be desirable and loved. Purity balls and the like tell women that their bodies are private property (though not our own of course--our bodies belong to our fathers, husbands, and the men in our life) and that they have to be virginal in order to be desirable and loved. In either case women's sexuality belongs to everyone but women. There's nothing counter-cultural or cutting edge about that.

Amen. Read the whole post here. And catch up on Feministing's coverage of the incredibly creepy purity ball phenomenon here.

Cato Institute debate on feminism was useless

Jenny Odegard — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:38:47 EST

Today’s debate entitled “Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men? A Debate” featured panelists James P. Sterba and Carrie Lukas discussing whether or not arguments against gender equality related laws were valid. What listeners were left with was Sterba arguing over the validity of anti-“feminist” statistics, and Lukas basing her arguments off an outdated and limited view of the feminist movement. The main topics covered were date rape prosecution, Title IX gender equality in sports and education, women’s workplace rights and porn.

David Horowitz Picked On Feminists for a Reason

Kay Steiger — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:01:08 EST

I was on the other end of the so-called "email debate" Jesse talked about in his post. To be upfront I thought what David Horowitz wrote in his Weekly Standard piece was total bunk, through and through. But then, so is much of what is written in the Weekly Standard.

What's in a Name? Everything.

Kay Steiger — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:15:33 EST

Sarah Michelle Gellar (all you Buffy fanatics out there should be swooning) gave her husband Freddie Prinze, Jr. (if you stretch your memory, he's the one that hasn't done anything since that lame movie She's All That from middle school) the lamest anniversiary gift ever: She changed her name and presented him with her new driver's license.

Wow. ~~Geller~~ Prinze is going to give up her really famous name to preserve a really antiquated tradition. In the entertainment industry, this just doesn't make any sense. What's more, it seems really dumb that she waited until the fifth anniversiary.

I've never been a fan of name changing because it has this rather uncomfortable history of harking back to ownership. But apparently I'm in the minority on this one. Us's highly scientific poll indicates:

The most common argument I've heard is that changing your name doesn't change your identity, but to me this is total crap. After all, what do you say when someone asks, "Who are you?" The other argument I get is that somehow changing your name makes you more of a family unit. Really? I thought being a family required an emotional commitement, not a legal technicality.

Is Modesty Totally Hot?

Annika — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:25:31 EST

Clothing specifically marketed as “modest” is popular enough that Macy’s is starting to stock Shade, a modesty-driven clothing line created by two Mormon women in Utah. The clothes are fine, but the assumption that it’s a woman’s responsibility to dress modestly denigrates both genders.

Feministing.com editor Jessica Valenti points out that this "modesty vogue" is about more than dressing respectfully:

The notion of dressing modestly comes at least partly from the idea that men can't control themselves...By telling women that they have to dress a certain way to quell men's desires, modesty advocates are sending a clear message that the onus is on us to control men's sexual--and possibly violent--actions.

Standards like that reflect a larger "men are stupid/helpless" dialogue that's been popularized in contemporary culture. One of the modesty fans interviewed in the piece, a freshman at Brigham Young University, suggests that men aren’t capable of focusing on anything but boobs: "It's easier for boys to concentrate on your face and your personality when you are not revealing anything to them that is distracting to them.”

So men can run companies and countries, but they can’t concentrate on what a woman says if her ankles and shoulders are showing? I’m not buying it. Let’s give everyone a little more credit and stop pressuring women to use their wardrobes to control men.

Hayes on Pollitt

Justin Elliott — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 20:50:55 EDT

Chris Hayes of The Nation has posted an elegant response to Katha Pollitt’s Learning to Drive. The “searingly, almost wince-inducingly, honest” passages are the source of some readers’ discomfort, he concludes—correctly, in my view.

Then he takes a look at the tensions surrounding any attempt to bring a feminist or left worldview into some semblance of harmony with American life today:

So you've got a trap. You can "live by your principles" and drop out and join a commune and thereby completely remove yourself from the levers of power that might alter all the unjust structures that rule society, or you can live in the world with the inevitable complications and compromises that entails and risk being called a hypocrite or a sellout. Though I'm a feminist, I'm lucky enough to be a male feminist, which means I'm off the hook from some of the more pernicious psychological mayhem this unavoidable contradiction often causes. But I still feel its weight. My ever-growing sports obsession, to name just one example, is a source of guilt, even shame. It feels like some secret endorsement of the patriarchy. Likewise my increasing desire for what my wife and I have taken to calling a Modicum of Bourgeois Comfort.

Katha Pollitt Redux

Kay Steiger — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 20:26:53 EDT

Because Katha Pollitt's book has generated a lot of discussion on the blog, it seems appropriate to post a link to her own defense of the NYTimes book review in which she says, "It is a strange experience, too, to have an obvious joke (the infamous "men are rats") quoted as my actual opinion." True, I haven't yet read Pollitt's book, but the degree of embarassment to which it was recieved was puzzling. It's as if some people didn't expect Katha Pollitt the Feminist to be Katha Pollitt the Human. Says Pollitt of the debate over her memoir:

Has feminism really become such a brittle, defensive, live-for-your-resume, never-let-them-see-you-cry kind of thing? If that's true, and I hope it isn't, the backlashers have truly won. They’ve gotten women to censor themselves to save society the trouble. Feminism, after all, was supposed to enlarge our sense of women's humanity, in all its messiness and contradiction and individual truth; it was supposed to connect women to each other, and to men, in more honest ways.

More on Katha Pollitt's New Book

Annika — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:14:31 EDT

Re: Justin's post on reviews and reactions to Katha Pollitt's new book, Kay alerted me to a great piece up on Salon today that discusses our expectations and impressions of public figures' personal writing.

Rebecca Traister asks:

Is there ever a point at which it is a good idea for women, especially intellectual, politically engaged women, to strip off their clothes and caper naked as jaybirds in front of a line of would-be assassins?

It's a well-written, thoughtful look at what irks people when strong women write personal memoirs. Definitely worth reading, though the initial conversation is only loosely related.

Contraception and Cancer

Kay Steiger — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:28:20 EDT

Kaiser Family Foundation's Daily Women's Health Policy Report highlights a study conducted by the British Medical Journal that shows women who take oral contraceptives for less than 8 years are up to 12 percent less likely to get cancer. But taking oral contraceptives for more than 8 years can increase the risk by up to 22 percent.

There has been a lot of debate about the effect of hormonal birth control on women's overall health. Especially because when birth control was first introduced, the hormonal levels were too high and made many women sick. We've come a long way since 1960, though, and women have safely been using oral contraception for more than 40 years. In some cases, like the study above, it can actually be beneficial to women's health.

Conservative groups, however, may seize on this news to say that women shouldn't be on oral contraceptives because they're bad for them. (I can just imagine the Family Research Council email now.) Even if the use of oral contraceptives for more than 8 years increases the risk of cancer slightly, there are other things--like smoking--that drastically increases the risk of cancer by a lot more.