-
sponsorship
Samantha, maybe Chris Brown really is a good guy. Maybe this is a one-time mistake, albeit a big one, by a young man still growing into adulthood. Maybe he has learned his lesson by facing public disapproval and losing lucrative endorsement deals. I don't buy it. Men, whether they're 19 years old or 49, don't just accidentally or involuntary raise their hands to strike someone. It is a conscious decision, even if it is a snap decision, to dominate, humiliate, and silence, the person they aren't able to control or convince using ordinary verbal skills. Whether Rhianna forgives him or not is really beside the point.
What's distressing is that so many young women have been voicing sympathetic accolades for Brown and disdain for Rhianna and saying that she probably did something to provoke (read deserve) Brown's anger. Check out any of the many blogs or entertainment news Web sites covering the "Chrianna" imbroglio and you'll see pages and pages of criticism directed at Rhianna from young women who are certain—even without any verifiable proof—that Brown's actions were little more than a momentary lapse in judgment. Anyone who saw the pictures of Rhinanna's bruised and battered face and lips could see that she was the victim of more than a simple errant slap.
Brown has spoken openly about growing up in an abusive home where his stepfather regularly and brutally beat him and his mother. The violent pattern exhibited by men who grew up in violent homes is well documented, so why should we expect Chris Brown to be any different—or any more worthy of our sympathy?
All these young women defending him are being swayed by silly infatuation with a teenage heartthrob. Brown's star power, his winning smile, his cute baby face, his silky voice, and playfully sexy music videos all make for a very appealing combination. However, those qualities do not negate his other less appealing, and possibly dangerous, side. If there is a silver lining in this overcovered story it is that more young people are talking about physical abuse in relationships, and that Chris Brown will be forced to examine his actions and hopefully get some help to break the pattern of violence that he grew up with and learn to speak from the heart instead of with his fists.
-
sponsorship
You know, there's something about the whole lipstick level concept that doesn't make any sense to me. The theory is that lipstick is an economic indicator; supposedly during economic downturns, women will purchase comparatively cheap lipsticks rather than buy high-end frocks. But the whole thing seems like fuzzy logic to me. Either that, or from years of freelancing, every trend piece of this sort reads more blatantly as evidence of a reporter's ability to sell a so-called story that may or may not exist than evidence of an actual, real-world trend. What is more than evident if one surveys the latest fashion "trend" stories is that 21st century women are completely schizophrenic. Flats are in. Actually, high-heels are the new black. They're bringing sexy back. Wait, no, in fact it's really all about the return of masculinity by way of the '80s power-shoulder. Tie me up; tie me down. What's the word for what comes after postfeminist? Schizofeminism? The real trend piece is about whatever internal conflict is raging within women, not what's going on economically.
-
sponsorship
The media adventures of Meghan McCain have become a bit of a hobbyhorse for me, so I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised when four e-mails showed up in my inbox with a link to this Daily Beast article she wrote about the difficulties of dating in the wake of her father's failed presidential campaign. McCain's first article for the Tina Brown startup, a semi-reported piece on how poorly the GOP has adopted to technology, was a strong start and a subject upon which she has a certain purchase. Her second effort, an "exclusive" sit-down interview with, um, her mommy, had the whiff of seventh-grade civics project writ embarrassingly large, but I guess journalists might as well use the access they get, right? (Maybe she just interpreted the old chestnut "If your mother tells you she loves, you, check it out" as a story assignment.) But now she's turned to writing this "Looking for Mr. Far Right" column, wherein she moans that "One extreme fan of my mother's recently told me I could be ‘his Cindy.' And then asked me if I ever wore pearls because they probably would look as good on me as they do on my mother. No, I'm not kidding. Any guy that has a fetish for older women in pantsuits and large pearls obviously only finds my last name attractive about me."
Oh, Meghan. I feel for her, I really do. That's weird and terribly awkward, as I imagine much of her life must be. But still, writing about how your political dad kills your love life probably isn't the best way to distance yourself from that particular issue or establish an independent identity. It sure is a great way to get page views and stay in the spotlight, though.
-
sponsorship
Meghan, I just watched the THe Heartbreak Kid, a terrible Ben Stiller movie that came out last year. Stiller plays a 40-year-old who finally meets the woman of his dreams, but then she turns out to be a nightmare. The movie is unbearable because the dream girl's antics are so over the top. It's like There's Something About Mary filtered through a sick, twisted mind. She turns out to be not just a flake, or annoying, but an ex-addict in debt who likes to be smacked in bed. Here, we are way outside the boundaries of your average rom-com, and because I wasn't expecting that, I found it difficult to watch. But it's taken me days to realize how subversive it is. The movie is a cynical commentary on exactly the type of rom-com structure you so aptly describe. It flirts with the possibility of blissed-out love once, then twice, then a third time, and instead of a happy ending, it opts for the darkest final twist possible. I can't say I recommend it, but it does effectively rip through the genre.
-
sponsorship
OK: So I caved in and saw He's Just Not That Into You. Which was actually better than I expected. But what's most notable about it is how the film tries to negotiate its requisite happy ending while continuing to position itself as a somehow "authentic" vision of dating culture today. This is a romantic comedy, after all. So it has to find a way to fulfill the usual girls-meets-boy, girl-hates-boy, girl-marries-boy structure. In this regard, it might be instructive to compare HJNTIY to Bride Wars, which faces a similar problem: It both wants to puncture the bubble of bridal fantasies and blow that bubble up even bigger. Two isn't a trend, of course, but what both He's Just Not That Into You and Bride Wars do is invent a "realistic" twist that isn't expected—in the first case, it's that boys/men are going to be mean and indifferent to girls/women over and over, and women better stop sugar-coating the real truth. (E.g.,"You're just too mature and pretty for him.") In the second, it's that even a fairy-tale couple can come unraveled in the midst of wedding planning. Spoiler alert, but Anne Hathaway doesn't end up marrying the seemingly sweet guy she gets engaged to.
We all know romantic comedies can't stand much realism. But rom-coms are often the best window onto the subterranean gender issues in the culture. (Think about all those screwball comedies.) And both these films are strangely pernicious, I think, because after patting themselves on the back for giving the viewer a dose of bitter medicine, they turn around and get ... super-conventional, in a super-fantastical way. First, both main characters end up happily in love with the right guy. Just a few short months after Anne Hathaway dumps her fiance, she gets together with her best friend's brother; they're married (and pregnant!) a year later. Second, and worse, they end up with the right guy in the most joyless fashion; there's hardly a lot of fun along the way—as there is in, say, His Girl Friday. Third, everyday gender relations seem awfully screwy, too—in ways that would mess with my head if I were a guy. In He's Just Not That Into You, there aren't any guys who call a girl wanting her to go out with him only to find she doesn't want to. In the film's gender lexicon, this isn't even a plausible scenario—which must be leaving some real-life men feeling they fall short of the male Lothario standard set here. In Bride Wars, neither Kate Hudson nor Anne Hathaway do much of anything but catfight and micromanage their weddings, but by the same token, the men in the film seem largely checked-out. They're neither witty nor deeply insightful, though Kate Hudson's beau seems ... adequate, I suppose.
Who would want to be the kind of arrogant, emotionally deaf doofus that all these people seem to be? Maybe what's really bothering me is that these films seem spiritually bereft. While pretending to be about the joy of love, they are peddling a kind of weird fear and self-loathing. If a third comes along, we'll have a trend. Call it the year of the romantic tragi-comedy.
-
sponsorship
Last night was an eventful one for television: Twitchy Fallon officially joined the White Dudes With Monologues club and a revitalized The Bachelor had its "dramatic" finale, sending a certain segment of the population—women who can still tolerate the show—into a tizzy. This has been a comeback season for ABC's long-running dating program, which, to my mind, provides one of the ultimate dichotomies in present-day American life—red or blue? Rich or poor? Someone who believes you can find love on The Bachelor or someone who does not? This season's resurgence has been credited to the fact that the bachelor in question, sweet and dull Jason Mesnick, a one-time runner-up on The Bachelorette, has a son. After all, it is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a toddler must be in want of a wife (as opposed to football players, princes, heirs, and navy men, who are maybe just after some tail). Plus, any man with a little kid, even the kind of man who would put that kid on national television, can't be a total cad, right? Wrong.
On last night's finale, Jason proposed to cheerful former cheerleader Melissa. They were so happy they declared their love for each other multiple times and then jumped into a horizonless pool with all of their clothes on. But then, on the After the Rose Ceremony special that airs immediately following the finale, but was filmed six weeks later, Jason explained that something had "changed." When the cameras left, apparently so did their chemistry (one of the most interesting things about The Bachelor has always been trying to find the sex between the platitudes; maybe it just wasn't any good?), and now all Jason can do is think about Molly, the big-eyed lady (chicks on The Bachelor are exclusively referred to as girls, never women) he'd thrown over in the finale. Melissa got mad ("You bastard"), Jason cried (again and again and again) and then made a play for Molly, who accepted his apologies and smooches. Adding another layer of absurdity to all this "drama" is that the Molly-for-Melissa switcheroo had been very accurately predicted weeks and weeks ago by one very dedicated, uhm, reporter, named Reality Steve (so popular this day after that his site appears to have crashed).
All this pre-wife swapping has pissed off some longtime Bachelor watchers, who now think Jason is a jerk and that the show has been wantonly cruel to Melissa. I'm honestly impressed by these folks continued ability to be shocked by reality TV's manipulations—their faith runs deep—but I suspect this evening's interview with Jason and Molly (After, After the Final Rose or something) will assuage their anger. The route might have been circuitous, but the program's delivering its happy ending, as promised. This show's gonna make it to 25 seasons easy.
-
sponsorship
Jessica, Bonnie, the question about how to respond to sexual harassment is complicated; it depends on what you're trying to do. Laurie is right that companies' internal sexual harassment investigations—and the lawsuits that occasionally follow—can be harsh. HR is far more often on the side of the company than of the employee; for more detail, check out Susan Antilla's brutally detailed book about the financial services industry, Tales From the Boom Boom Room.
But I think the question is: What's the goal? Are you trying to have the best possible career, when you can easily find a comparable job elsewhere? Moving on may be best for your sanity. Are you stuck in a job—say, because you're a single mother in a recession-stunned region, with few other options? Register your complaint—but have allies within and outside the company before you do.
Or if your harasser is predatory, serially making life miserable for one woman after another, and you want to put a stop to it, not just for your own sake but for everyone's? Please, please, file with HR, and also go to the EEOC and file your complaint! Do not leave that man in place. Maria Hinojosa, at NOW on PBS, recently talked to some teens who took their companies to court and won. Making the company pay also puts other employers on notice: The cost of replacing your supervisor is less than the cost of fighting your lawsuit.
No matter what you do, your encounter with sexual harassment—which takes you away from full career concentration for however long you're worrying about avoiding your harasser's hands and hostility—is part of why we have a wage gap. On average—in every job category—women working full-time make less than men working full-time, as the New York Times shows so beautifully here. Forget what men do to women on the job for a few months before you quit or complain: What's really disgusting is making a quarter or a third less than your male peers.
-
sponsorship
Hanna, I am definitely an Army brat to the core (I was 9 years old before I realized that the Navy and the Army were on the same team. Go Army; beat Navy!), and I do have a devoted mom, but my perspective is different since it was my dad who was in the military. My father graduated from West Point in '77, so he was actually at the academy when the first class of women arrived. Hearing his stories, as well as interacting with male and female cadets when I was in high school and my family lived at West Point, has had a pretty big role in shaping my opinions on the issue. So biases on the table.
I grew up watching my dad and seeing that military service, by and large, is not a desk job. It requires physical strength, mental toughness, and the ability to potentially kill or be killed. It requires a lot of sacrifice. It's not exactly the kind of job that everyone can be good at, or enjoy, or even begin to do. You need to want to do it, and then you have to actually be able to do it—similar to being a firefighter, a surgeon, or a tv producer. You have to be able to deliver.
Lisa's story is a sobering reminder of that. I feel for Master Sgt. Keith O'Donnell, who in the face of Lisa's pleading, is forced to lamely remind us that "... these are individuals who made obligations and commitments to the country." I feel for Lisa's kids, who could be potentially deprived of their mom. I feel for Lisa herself. I don't have kids, but I can't imagine the misery of being a mom and having to leave them behind and go off to Iraq. She's been discharged for four years, so maybe she just assumed there was no need to plan ahead since she'd get lucky and not get called back up? A nice thought but hardly a responsible one.
But where's her husband in all of this? Off traveling for work, apparently, with no creative solutions or sacrifices to make it work out. Seems to me like he'd have better luck showing up for work with the kids than she would. Which goes to show that while the military is not for everyone, neither is being a military spouse. It's just as much of a full-time job, and to do it well you have to be willing to submit your own goals and career to your significant other—of which my mom, as a military wife, was an amazing example. She sacrificed, and our whole family reaped the benefits. Seems like in this case, neither Lisa Pagan or her husband seem willing to count the cost of either military commitment or marriage—leaving kids and country to pay.
-
sponsorship
When I heard that Rihanna might be back together with Chris Brown, only a few weeks after he was arrested for allegedly assaulting her, I found myself hoping that she was right to forgive him, that he isn't like those domestic abusers who do lash out again and again. I'm not the only one who is feeling compassionate toward Brown: Elissa Jolene Budziszewski at College News writes that Reuters commenters have been largely sympathetic to him. So, apparently, is Kanye, who asked on VH1 Saturday "Can’t we give Chris a break?" I started looking for stats that might show that teenage boys who commit violent acts against their girlfriends are less likely to be repeat offenders than older abusers. I feel for the 19-year-old who hasn't learned to control his anger but wants to change—and for the 21-year-old who still loves him but worries the world will write her off as idiotic for giving him another shot.
But I didn't find any numbers supporting my imagined Brown defense. What I saw instead were numbers about how few teenagers whose boyfriends abuse them report what happened. Three percent of abused teenage students tell an authority figure; 80 percent of teenage girls continue to date the person who abused them.
This doesn't exactly mean that Brown won't change or that Rihanna has no reason to believe that he will. But the odds are against them. I'm curious, though, whether other XXers found themselves sympathizing with him in some way, and what you think that means.
-
sponsorship
Laurie Ruettimann, the author of the original Lemondrop post about sexual harassment in the workplace that Bonnie commented on yesterday, has responded to her in the Fray:
Thanks for the link to the article on Lemondrop. I'm not advocating that women accept harassment. I'm not suggesting that you should quit before you find another job. I am not saying that Human Resources departments are incapable of managing sexual harassment investigations (although many of them are incapable of anything other than eating donuts).
Here is what I'm saying.
*You are responsible for your own career.
As feminists, we often want to fix the system from within. I've been there, and fixing the system from within can be overrated. Thank goodness for those trailblazers and fighters who sue the shit out of companies. Those women make work better for us.
Unfortunately, many of us don't have the means to hire a lawyer and fight a long and brutal legal fight that we'll most likely lose. In this age of social media and external marketplace pressures, I suggest that there is no bigger employee advocate than you. It's important to protect your own interests and act accordingly.
I'm not advocating running away from a fight. I'm an advocate for brushing the dirt of your shitty company off your shoulders.
Fellow feminists, what do you think? Is fixing the system from within over-rated?
-
sponsorship
Various papers report the story of Lisa Pagan, a North Carolina woman who was called back to service four years after being released from active duty. Pagan reported for duty with her two young children, ages 5 and 3. Whether she just couldn't find a baby-sitter that day (her husband travels for work) or she was making a point, no one knows. I remember at the beginning of the Iraq war, various heartbreaking newspaper photos showing moms hugging their toddlers goodbye. Often the mothers would give tortured quotes about their sense of duty and loyalty to fellow soldiers and pride in their expertise. I never know what to make of such cases. I know, they signed up for it. But it seems there is something wrong with a conscription system that doesn't foresee such things. Israel does not allow both parents to serve at the same time, so children aren't left orphans. In reality, the result is that women are left doing pretty menial military jobs for the two years they have to serve.
Does this happen because our military is at the moment strained and desperate? Or is this just another case of society not facing up to the fact that women have entered the work force, and children have to be raised, and the equation just doesn't add up? Abby, you're a military brat with a devoted mom. What would you do?
-
sponsorship
I love Tom Peter's article on the rising number of people getting tattoos in Iraq. So now I'm
keeping my fingers crossed that next season's tattoo drama will be out
of the Middle East - "Baghdad Ink" has such a great ring to it.
It is amazing to think about the fact that there is now a whole
generation of people in Iraq contemplating things like tatoos, tv, and
who to vote for - people who just six years ago lived under a level of
opression and fear that's hard for my independent American mind to even
grasp. That something like being able to get a tattoo makes headlines
is itself a little mind blowing.
And regardless of political opinions about the war, hopefully
stories like this will help people to be able to recognize some of the
incredible change the Iraq war has brought about. Obama did last week
in his speech at Camp Lejeune when he said, "Under tough circumstances, the men and women of the United States
military have served with honor, and succeeded beyond any expectation." Well said, Obama!
-
sponsorship
There's a probably-BS trend story on the ABC News Web site about how Kate Moss' recent weight gain is potentially heralding a trend in the modeling industry of "healthier looking models." Though Moss is undeniably a trendsetter, I find it hard to believe that her newly higher BMI is going to affect the entire industry. Moss denied that she was pregnant in the recent spring fashion issue of New York Magazine, and yet tabloids are still insisting that Kate is up the stick, because these magazines still cling to the idea that a woman couldn't possibly gain a few pounds by choice unless she is incubating a human.
It reminds me of another dubious trend story that made the Internet rounds last fall. Econometricians went through the Playboy archives and claimed that during times of economic crisis, men like their women taller and heavier because of the Playmates chosen. At least every other month, women's magazines insist that the "super skinny" trend is out and that women with "curves" are back in, and yet models and actresses have shrunk considerably in the past 15 years and don't show any sign of thickening. (See the entire female cast of Friends, circa 1994 for solid evidence.) As Willa pointed out yesterday in her apt analysis of the enduring popularity of crap TV, trend writers will be trying to pin America's preferences in basically every area on the new recession. The rise of the "curvy" model is no exception. It's always been my hunch—and this is not an original thesis—that the very very skinny trend came in just as women were really making strides in the workplace, and the obsession with weight is just a way to continue to keep them down. Sure you can be a CEO, but can you do it on 1,200 calories a day?