Why so serious?

So, my first two posts have sort of been about serious stuff. But I'm not all serious all of the time. I'm actually a big fan of film, and this is the first Oscar night where I haven't been at or been hosting a party in a few years. SO, here are a few thoughts about the 81st Academy Awards, even though I've only been able to watch since after Jerry Lewis got his lifetime achievement award (which is somewhat controversial, what with the term "Jerry's Kids" being maybe a bit on the patronizing side, as well as his use of gay slurs....and I'm sure there's more I'm missing)

Anyhow, in going over the awards that were already given out, the single biggest thing I can say is, do yourself a favor and rent Man on Wire. It is a documentary about the man who walked on a tightrope between the two towers of the world trade center in the mid 70's after they were just built. It is put together like a bank heist, and it is just magical and captivating, and captures a sense of wonder and whimsy that is infectious. I honestly cannot recommend this enough.






Now, I'm happy for Slumdog Millionaire (and I really do need to go out and see it), but I'm a little sad that they didn't acknowledge the female Indian co-director who's assistance allowed for the film to take such advantage of the city of Mumbai and it's citizens (although she herself is fine with it).


There aren't enough female directors, and they don't get the same chances as men in the field. And a lot of times when women direct films, they are independently produced and financed. It was funny to see how shocked people in the industry were at the success of Sex and the City (which I didn't see, and am saving for perhaps a hormonal moment to be accompanied by chocolate ice cream and irony). Like the concept that women might respond to a movie about them was inconceivable. I am hoping the ongoing "digital revolution" enables more female directors to go out and make films, and that they get seen by larger and larger audiences, because there is a difference between the male and female gaze.

Now, I have another film recommendation that was nominated in the screenplay category (Sally Hawkins got robbed)!



Happy go Lucky is a film that follows an woman who loves life and who faces life head on with a heart full of love and a mind open to adventure. She is a single elementary school teacher in England who lives with her best friend, and enjoys her life and looks for the positive no matter what comes her way. It sounds like it's going to be a super-sappy Pollyanna type story, but the acting and directing keeps it fresh and honest. I found it especially affirming being a thirty-something single woman myself.

And here are some random thoughts about the parts of the Oscars that I did see:
*I think I love Anne Hathaway a little more because of how excited she was for Kate Winslet
*as my friend Adam pointed out, it's a little odd to have to read your best friend's name off a little scrap of paper, Sean Penn.
*And I was impressed that his acceptance speech was as toned down as it was, considering he won it for playing Harvey Milk. He's not exactly known for having a light touch
*I thought the little "senior yearboook-like" speeches to each of the nominees was kind of endearing, but I wonder who picked the pairings
*Robert DeNiro wins on the introduction front

As for nominated films, I've seen....a few
(films I've seen, films I'd reccomend, films I want to see, films I have no idea about, meh)

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (I dunno, other than makeup effects, I'm not sure there is anything here I'm compelled to see. Makes me want to rent Big Fish again instead)

Frost/Nixon (I'm a sucker for a political thriller)

Milk (not burning to see it, but wouldn't turn it down)

The Reader (I'm all holocaust movied out)

Slumdog Millionaire (heck, I'd see it for the soundtrack alone!)

The Visitor

The Wrestler (this is one of those movies you have to be in the right mood for, because it's bound to be depressing)

Rachel Getting Married (this looked good, and I like Anne Hathaway. The Devil Wears Prada is much better than you'd think based on the title, mostly because of Hathaway and Streep)

Changeling (More because this is the type of noir story I enjoy than Angelina Jolie's presence)

Frozen River

Doubt (see notes for The Wrestler)

Tropic Thunder (ZOMG! I LOVE this movie! Ben Stiller is a good comedy director, and I love the concept. Not to mention it's worth seeing for Tom Cruise alone, AND makes a good argument for why there should be an oscar for title sequence)

The Dark Knight (Elevated the Action flick. Nolan is definately one of my favorite working directors, and I like Aaron Eckhart a lot, and not just because he was a big part of why the adaptation of Thank You for Smoking worked as well as it did)

Revolutionary Road (I like Kate Winslet, but I'm not sure I'm gonna go out of my way for this one)

Vicky Cristina Barcelona (I do like me some woody allen, and penelope cruise)

The Baader Meinhof Complex

The Class (sounds very interesting, based on the NPR piece I heard today)

Departures

Revanche

Waltz With Bashir (I heard an interview with the filmmaker on NPR, and I was captivated. It sounds like it's pretty intense, so it's another movie like The Wrestler and Doubt, but I think it will be worth it)

Happy-Go-Lucky (See Above)

In Bruges (the box describes it as a dark comedy. it's half right, and not that funny. I mean, I guess if I was in the right mood it would have been better, but I was hoping for dark comedy along the lines of Grosse Point Blank, and got something a heck of a lot darker. Proves that Collin Ferrell CAN do something useful)

WALL-E (it's got elements of silent film, it's beautiful, and whimsical. Yet another reason credit sequences deserve their own oscar category)

Bolt

Kung Fu Panda (I hear it's not as dumb as I thought)

The Duchess

Wanted

Iron Man (if Batman hadn't been as good as it had been, this movie would have probably gotten even more attention. Good popcorn flick)

Defiance (James Bond as a leader of the Jewish resistance against the Nazis. Who am I kidding, I would watch him read the phone book. Him and Craig Fergasson)

Australia

The Betrayal (Nerakhoon)

Encounters at the End of the World (I almost did see this film. It screened as part of the Independent Film Fest of Boston, which is made of awesome! Werner Herzog will not be ignored!)

The Garden

Man on Wire (see above)

Trouble the Water (I'm a sucker for a documentary, what can I say)

Hellboy II: The Golden Army (mostly for Guillermo del Toro's visuals, which are amazing)

what exactly do we mean by choice?

So...the media decided to call Nadya Suleman, the woman who had octuplets as a result of IVF, Octomom, which makes her sound less like a mother of mulitple births, and more like a cartoon super-villan. The porteyals in the media have largely been negative, especially talking about how already had six children, and that at least two of her six previous children are disabled. It's also been widely discussed that she is unemployed, on disability, and recieved government aid to help with the six children she already had, and will likely need much more government aid to help support the eight children she had through IVF. For starters, I think we need to leave the woman alone. The kids are already born, and wheather one agrees with her decision or not, if only for the sake of the kids we should let them be and wish them the best.

Now having said that, there is a LOT to talk about in responose to these kids and this situation. For starters, how many is too many? (My parents were very intentional in only having two children, one to replace each of them) I don't think anyone is SERIOUSLY considering limiting the number of kids a family can have (and it looks like China may be reconsidering their one child rule), but there is a question about what is an "optimal" number of children to have. The NYT recently had an article about larger families feeling judged by others. Now, I don't anticipate having a large family (I've spent a lot of time vacilating between wanting kids and not wanting kids, but I think now I would like to have children if the opportunity arose), but I do have friends who have larger families, some intentionally and some not. The question of family size is a personal one, but I think it's valuable to talk about what it means, especially in the west where we use a disproportionate ammount of the worlds resources per person.
In a world with dwindling resources and concerns about climate change, and in a country where millions of kids spend their entire lives in foster care, maybe it's time to talk about family size and intention. This can get a bit sticky because for some folks, things like birth control (forget abortion) are considered tempering with God's plan. There is also a movement known as the Quiverfull, that encourages families to have large families as part of God's plan. I think the world can use a supply of loved, well cared for, good people, but I also think it's important to think about our planet, and what it means to be a good steward of it (to use the christian term that is often used in talking about conservation).

Another interesting question has to do with IVF itself and the ethics behind it. My understanding of the procedure is that the procedure includes fertilzing an egg (either donor or your own) and sperm, and then implanting them. And becasue the doctor is working with people who by and large have fertility issues, there are often more eggs attempted to be fertalized than they hope to implant. What to do with the fertilized eggs beyond those are implanted is an issue that currently does not seem to have a satisfactory solution. This appears to be what happened in the Suleman case. The doctor fertilized six eggs, and Ms. Suleman saw them as her children, and how do you ask a woman to dispose of her children? I wonder if some of this is in part a difference between how a doctor views these little bits of tissue in a test tube, vs how someone who is aching to have a child sees them. I mean, who's in charge here? Who owns the embryos and who has the right to decide what happens to them when push comes to shove? Yes, there are guidelines about how many are implanted (which I believe caps out at around three), but how do you enforce it? And what if the mother insists? And I wonder what the statistics are on who actually does selective reduction (which means aborting some of the fetuses in order to increase survival of the remaining fetus(es)). Putting myself in the potential mother's shoes, it would be heartbreaking to try to decide about whether or not to selectively reduce, even if it meant better survival odds for the remaining fetus.

And let's not forget that there are some issues of class (and potentially race) in play. I mean, people think that Kate of Jon and Kate plus 8 is annoying, but that's nothing compared to what Ms. Suleman is facing. And what about the Duggar family, who have a show on Discovery Health about raising their EIGHTEEN children. It seems that a lot of the anger stems from the fact that there is no husband, and that there is no visable means of independant support. I wonder if the backlash would have been so bad had we been in an economic upswing, vs the current downturn. Would it be different if she had a husband? Would it be different if she was a woman of privalege (I know the tabloids flip-flop between anointing Angelina Jolie for adopting so many kids, and think she's wackadoodle for having so many kids, but this seems worse, and not only because of the increasing magnatude)? Does it matter that these kids will likely be supported by taxpayers dollars, and is this just a new way to express rage at "welfare mothers"? On the flip side, why is this one woman recieving so much ire in the media compared to Bernie Madoff? Not that he is getting off scott free, but this woman is recieving DEATH THREATS for goodness sake. And is the fact that she is a woman of color an issue?

So, there are lots of factors and issues to think about. It seems like we (being the general populace) are angry about SOMETHING, and that we agree by and large that this situation is not good for the kids or the mom. But the fact that there is so much interest, and so much venom, suggests that it's hit something in our collective psyche. Or, as I like to say at work...it's all information. When I ask a pretty straightforward question, and someone gets very animated about it, to me that means there is likely something more there. Example, I ask you if you're feeling suicidal, how do you respond? Well, you might wonder whyI'm asking, but if you're not feeling suicidal you would probably say, "no". So, if I ask, and you start yelling at me for asking you that question, that is interesting to me because something about the question seems to have hit something important to you. So in this case, what is it about this woman that has hit a collective nerve? I really think that a lot of it has to do with timing and economics. We're all stressed to some degree about the economy, and somebody should just pay Tim Geithner to not say anything, because every time he talks the market drops 300 points. And we're angry about our country seeming to be in a downward spiral. We'd love to yell at the banks, but I think we're too confused by what happened, and too in awe of the Masters of the Universe, dethroned or not. And while we'd love to be angry at people who are foreclosing on our homes, I think a lot of us are realizing that it wouldn't take too much for "those people" to become us. But none of us are planning on having eight children, so it's easy to focus our anger on her, and how she is "squandering valuable government resources". It's the "welfare queen" of a new generation (which makes me wonder if we are underestimating the importance of race, or if we've just moved on and vilfy poor single mothers with more equality now).

I think the most interesting thing to me about all of this is how identity politics can get all flummoxed in a situation like this. Feminism is often distilled into being about "choice". Reproductive choice, the choice to marry or not, and who to marry, choice in careers, choice to stay home and raise a family and have that work be valued. But does that mean that every choice is a good choice, and should every choice be defended as legitmate? I'm a feminist, and I believe that every woman should have the right to choose what happens to her body, but does that mean I need to defend Ms. Suleman's choice to have 8 children by IVF? Read the comments on the feminist blogs around this topic and it's pretty clear that this is not a black and white issue. There are some in the movement that seem to feel that we are "under attack", and that every choice needs to be defended against criticism from a largely patriarchal society. And I get where they're coming from. It's hard being a woman. There are so many difficult and conflicting messages about who you should and shouldn't be, that ANY act that defies the expectation of society is impressive in it's way. But I feel like, while we are still fighting that battle to stake our claim on our own destinies, it's time, as a movement to look beyond that. It's not just good enough to talk about the patriarchy and how we can defy it (although we shouldn't completely abandon that discussion). It's time for us to talk about what to DO with these choices we have now, how to empower ourselves and other women, and what these choices mean for us. OK, so right now we have the right to choose to abort. Is it OK for us to talk about it now beyond "Keep abortion safe and legal"? Can we move on to making it rare? Is it OK for me to suggest that while abortions are not something to be ashamed of, it is a more invasive medical procedure than preventing pregnancy, and we should try to prevent them for the sake of our sister's health? (Is there such a thing as a pro-life feminist?) And sex. We're moving away from the idea that women don't really like sex, and beginning to accept the idea of women as sexual agents. So, how do we move in this new space in a way that is empowering to women? Because it seems like this sexual empowerment we've been looking for gets coopted by the media to meet male fantasies in ways that make me pissed off (like selling thongs to pre-teens. Seriously? This is empowerment?) So, do we close ranks around Ms. Suleman because she is a single woman who's choices are under attack? Can we do that and still as a movement talk about the implications of her choice? Do we get to judge her choice as good or bad?

Can we even help but judge?

When is a positive female role model not a positive female role model?

So, I was reading some of my favorite blogs, when I came upon this article in the LA Times about Rihanna and Chris Brown that I saw while reading a post on Idolator (a music focused pop culture blog that I enjoy). For those who haven't heard about this, Chris Brown (a young R&B star who hit #1 with the song "Run It" as a 16 year old, and recently had a hit with "With You" who has been referred to as a young Michael Jackson) recently turned himself in for alleged felony domestic battery after what appered to be a physical altercation with his girlfriend Rihanna (who is a pop star in her own right, and is probably best known for her hit "Umbrella", although between you and me, I like "SOS" more). This assault happened right before the Grammy's and is believed to be related to their pulling out of performing live. There have also been reports in the gossip blogs/magazines about people who saw Rihanna at the hospital, and it appears to not have been a mild assault (not that any assault would be OK).

Now, there is a lot that can be said, and has been said, about misogyny in hip-hop. Love Hurts is an article from Vibe magazine that was linked to in Feministing about domestic violence in hip hop culture that is much more well researched and thought out than I'm ready to do at this point. There is a long tradition in hip-hop and R&B around objectifying women, and talking about "smacking my bitch up" or "keeping hoes in line". There are many hip hop artists that worked their way up from hustling on the street, and have told their stories in music. And there are more hip hop artists, and kids who've grown up on hip hop, who have learned the language and emulated the attitudes they've seen portrayed. There is an interesting point in the Vibe article about how women in African American communities have had more success than men in certain aspects, and that an emasculation in one area can lead to a sense of needing to be hyper-masculine in other areas, including "keeping your woman in line". Kevin Powell refers to this as "Bootleg Masculinity" (You might remember him from the first season of The Real World. He wrote an essay about ending violence against women that can be read here). But this really deserves a separate post.

Anyhow....that is a long walk to get to this quote from the LA Times article about how the assault by Chris Brown against Rihanna might impact the stars:

Although Rihanna has not been accused of doing anything wrong, some companies may shun her as well, she said.

"The reason why she has been used as a celebrity endorser is that she represents something very positive and in particular a strong female role model, and when she is associated with a situation like this it can have an impact," Green said.

What pisses me off is the idea that somehow being the victim of domestic violence makes Rhianna no longer a good role model. As one of my friends in my other blog put it....would it make her a better role model to sit back and take it and not speak up? What are we to take from this kind of thinking? Does this imply that Rihanna did something to deserve it?

One of the fallacies in the cycle of domestic violence is both parties believing that the victim "did something to deserve it". The perpetrator says "I wish you hadn't made me do this", and the victim thinks "I shouldn't have pushed them". What's really interesting is the "cycle of violence", where there is a honeymoon period, followed by building tension, then a violent act. At times for people on the recieving end of the violence, the tension in the second part can become too much, and they may intentionally do something they know will set of the perpetrator, just to get it over with. Does that make the violence their fault? There is this cultural myth about forces in men that are beyond their control. Men become violent or rape when women push them too far or are too seductive. Eve bit the apple first, but Adam was unable to resist her tempting him, so while they were both punished, she recieved the additional punishment of pain during childbirth. It is interesting how a culture that calls women "the weaker sex" can also confer upon women this power that men find irresistable.

But beyond who is or is not to blame, is the concept that "good girls don't". Good girls don't get beaten or raped, that it only happens to other people, bad people who make bad choices (which gets us back up to this power that women are supposed to wield over men, but only in ways that make men behave badly). This is why rape and domestic violence goes so underreported, victims are afraid of what other people will think of them. There are massive ammounts of shame that survivors of domestic violence and rape often experience because they are afraid tha they are "damaged goods". We tell survivors that "it's not your fault" and that "it doesn't change who you are".

So, what's a "strong female role model" to do? This can get into an interesting breakdown of the venn diagram that is identity politics. For instance, I am a libreral, I am a feminist (these are pretty strongly overlapping circles), I am also pro-organized labor and come from a working class background (now we see some divergence). I can't speak from experience about groups I don't belong to, but I can imagine how there would be pressure from different groups to go different ways. On one hand, as a female role model Rihanna might feel pressure to step forward and speak out against violence. On the other hand as an African American female role model there might be pressure to sweep this under the rug, especially because Chris Brown was also seen as a positive role model. Not to mention outside society's beliefs about what it means to be a victim/survivor of domestic violence and the negative pressure of not wanting to be labeled in that way knowing what those labels carry with culture at large. And of course there is the venn diagram of one that is made up of your own experiences and beliefs and what is best for you as an individual.

What is unfortunate is that not matter what Rihanna chooses to do in response to this violence, we are seeing writ large in the media these attitudes towards domestic violence and survivors. Regardless how how she chooses to respond, we are being told that Rihanna is no longer considered a "strong female role model" by those in charge because (allegedly) her boyfriend chose to beat her up. It reinforces all of those messages about being the victim's fault, and that somehow the victim is a bad person because of what someone else chose to do to them. It's just so victim-blaming and it makes me angry.

PS Feministing also has a great breakdown of Chris Brown's dad's statement to the media.

PPS. I know that men are victims of domestic violence and rape, and that there are as many forms of "person on person" violence as there are ways to permutate that dynamic. I don't mean to be heteronormative, but this is a good example of the "stereotypical relationship" and illustrates the mainstream culture's view of relationships and relationship violence.

PPPS. I am not entirely comfortable with my use of terms like victim, and domestic violence because I don't nessisarily think they're the best terms. But they're the ones we use most commonly, so that's what I used here. Expect to see some writing on the concepts of victim and survivor and what naming means and how it can get all sticky and lead to multiple post scrips on a blog post in ANOTHER blog post.

PPPPS. I was thinking about Tina Turner as I wrote this, and how she was able to overcome her abuse by Ike. I would have to read a LOT more to really speak intellegently about it, but her career also struggled immediately after leaving Ike, and the wiki mentioned that she was considered "unmarketable" for a significant time in the US, while still successfully touring abroad. It would be interesting to see if there is any information about differences in attitude towards domestic violence in europe vs the US and how that might have played into this dichotomy, or if the european audience had been unaware of her personal struggles.

Welcome and stuff

I figure I should start by explaining what this blog is, and isn't.

I have a personal blog over on the LJ. It's a pretty scatter shot affair, with stupid quizzes, short blurbs about my personal life, and some half to three quarters baked ranting on issues having to do with pop-culture and politics. It is also primarily friends-locked, which means if you want to read something, you have to get a (free) account and then drop me a line so I can add you to my friends list (If you know me personally and want the scoop on more of the day-to day life of Kelly stuff, you're going to get more of it there). I also have a cooking blog called More Cupcakes that is entirely made up of recipes and pictures of food I've made (cooking is my number one hobby).

This blog is going to be less frequent (more a few times a week than every day), and will hopefully take the half-baked stuff on my private blog, and turn it into three-quarters to al dente here. I'm a fairly politically active liberal feminist, who works in the public mental health field. I work with some of the more vulnerable populations in my area. I'm also intrigued by issues around class, as I am a white collar professional (who belongs to a union) raised by a blue collar family. Not to mention a pop-culture junkie who is equally happy watching foreign or avant garde films and documentaries as I am watching Gossip Girl or Talladega Nights.

So, welcome to my little corner of the blog-y-thingy.