tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16008639045757693882024-03-14T10:56:23.549-07:00Fame and Other Happy EndingsA forum for discussions about current events and politics, pop culture and philosophy. A refuge for artists and revolutionaries. Come share your ideas. We love to talk about anything!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1600863904575769388.post-85697194976473208302016-03-04T09:57:00.000-08:002016-03-04T09:57:02.430-08:00This Is NOT "Real Housewives"
“It happened that a fire broke out backstage in a theater,” writes Soren Kierkegaard, “The clown came out to inform the public. They thought it was a jest and applauded. He repeated his warning. They shouted even louder. So I think the world will come to an end amid the general applause from all the wits who believe that it is a joke.”
It’s ironic that FX is airing “The People vs OJ Simpson” right now, as Americans once again face their great Achilles Heel: race. For, despite the gains made in the last 60 years that have made our country more inclusive; despite electing our first African-American president, many in white America continue to harbor deep-seated resentment toward other races. It still remains, as Toni Morrison said, that “In this country American means white. Everybody else has to hyphenate.”
Until this time in modern history, white Americans have not had a viable political candidate behind whom they could throw their support; no one who clearly articulated their angst regarding their perceived loss of power. Enter Donald Trump. Perusing the comments section of many online articles regarding Trump’s cringe-worthy run for the White House reveals a scathing potpourri of racist sentiments straight out of a 1950’s Klan meeting. In fact, a cursory reading of such comments would give one the impression that white resentment has been simmering there, just under the surface, for quite some time, waiting for the right demagogic mouthpiece to articulate it.
In many ways, Donald Trump is the right’s Barack Obama: that one candidate who storms onto the otherwise staid political scene and threatens to shake things up, to bring “hope and change” to the disenfranchised and disillusioned. Yet, while Obama appealed to a large cross-section of American voters and advanced race relations in this country, Trump, although promising to take on the establishment, is also brazenly un-PC, calling out Mexicans and Muslims, mocking the disabled and women. And he is winning.
Barack Obama’s election, while it may have advanced our race-stunted society by leaps and bounds, has also served to deepen the angst of the white, male Republican base. For years we have heard them rail against reverse discrimination, affirmative action, and political correctness,” all code words for their terror at losing power in an increasingly inclusive social landscape; and, for years, we have ignored them, believing that they would just go away. But this is America, and in America, race never goes away.
According to sociologist Julien Freund, “There is an essence of politics…There are no politics without a real or potential enemy.”
Donald Trump is giving a voice to all of the American white male hysteria. The enemy is illegal immigrants, who we need to keep out by building a “yuuuuuuge” wall on our southern border; the enemy is Muslims, who we need to forbid from coming into our country and kill the families of terror suspects; the enemy is China, who we will really piss off with some “yuuuuuuge” tariffs. Basically, our enemies are anyone who doesn’t look like “us,” and by “us,” he means white Americans.
At a recent Trump rally, a protestor interrupted Trump and his only question to her, which he repeated into the microphone three times for perfect clarity was, “Are you from Mexico?” It’s very easy, when people are worried about unemployment, to place blame. Hitler famously did this with the Jews. It didn’t matter that the Germans had just lost World War I, and that the Versailles Treaty was a consequence of that; the Germans needed an enemy, someone on whom to pin all their blame. Until now, Hitler’s rise to power was seen as a poignant lesson in what not to do; but Trump seems to use it as a playbook. A former ex-wife even admitted that he kept a copy of Mein Kampf on the bedside table. Guess what? It is working.
It’s not the fact that we have spent exorbitant amounts of money fighting an endless war in the Middle East; it’s not that we continue to spend equally exorbitant amounts of money on our military-industrial complex. The reason the economy is down, the reason jobs are down, Trump says, is because of the Muslims and the Mexicans. Since American education became solely focused on memorizing answers to test questions and not on using basic critical thinking and analysis to solve problems, many gullible voters are buying into this. After all, it is always easier to blame someone else than it is to take the blame yourself.
It remains to be seen whether Donald Trump can sustain his support through the Republican convention and actually win the nomination. His party is already in panic mode and is pulling out all the stops (and old politicians) to try and derail him; but this only emboldens his fiery base by harkening back to the days of Goldwater or Reagan, both staunch anti-establishment heroes. It’s like that fiery base of hysterical white supporters are so desperate for a mouthpiece for their racism, that they aren’t even paying attention to half of what he is saying. They want their power back; they want to be on top again; and they aren’t going to let anything as inconvenient and boring as the lessons of history stop them.
If Donald Trump wins the presidency, we will all be forced to deal with the consequences of his trending global insults, either through wars, terrorist attacks, or tariffs. Trump’s election would actually weaken America’s stance in the world and hurt us economically. (Who’s really going to pay for that $10 billion wall on the Mexican border?) In fact, the only people who would prosper would be the military-industrial complex, because we would be in a perpetual state of war, kind of like we are now, only worse, because ALL of our allies would turn on us. Trump wants to be friends with Vladimir Putin, and we would end up fighting with them in Syria and Ukraine.
It’s easy to just laugh it off, as we watch this Republican debacle unfold; it’s easy to reassure ourselves with “It can’t happen here.” This has been one of the least civilized primaries in American history, and as Marco Rubio and Donald Trump engage in veiled insults about each other’s penis size, it’s easy to shake our heads, and turn the channel. But this is not just another episode of “Real Housewives.” This is the future of our country, and this is not just a script. Donald Trump’s words have real, global implications.
As we watch this debacle, we can only hope the American people heed the words of Bobby Kennedy and not Donald Trump. Kennedy believed, “The problem of power is how to achieve its responsible use rather than its irresponsible and indulgent use -- of how to get men of power to live for the public rather than off the public.” Hopefully the American public will realize that life is not a reality show, and that words do have consequences.
<b></b>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1600863904575769388.post-36540074563107421802016-02-16T22:06:00.000-08:002016-02-16T22:07:50.976-08:00Hillary Clinton in Hell
Gloria Steinem once famously said that “the personal is political,” and that is exactly why Hillary Clinton does not have my vote. You see, her personal conduct has been at odds with her public declarations of feminism for years. Sure, she uses her appeal to women to get votes when she needs them, but the rest of the time, her conduct has resembled that of the most reprehensible misogynist, the kind who discredits rape victims, and makes any woman who dares to come out and challenge the “Good Ol Boy” establishment into a vile, home wrecking whore.
I had to laugh at Madeline Albright’s pathetic attempt to shame women into voting for Hillary by exhorting us that there is a special place in Hell for women who do not help each other. Was she talking to women like me or women like Hillary? Because if the Devil is giving out real estate in Hell to women who don’t help each other, then Hillary must have an executive suite. Through the years, we have heard countless stories from women with whom her husband has had trysts; we’ve also heard from women her husband has supposedly raped or to whom he has exposed himself, and the one thing all these stories have in common is her gutless reaction.
She is the one who tried to shame these women into silence. She is the one acting like a man and calling their characters into question. And now she is pleading for the votes of women in America, and beseeching them, as if she were a real feminist, to come together and support each other.
Let’s step back in time for a moment and ask ourselves where Feminist Hillary has been all these years? Where was she when her husband was having an affair with Marla Crider, during his first political campaign in 1974? Where was she when he allegedly raped Juanita Broaddrick in a Little Rock hotel room in 1978? Where was she when he was sneaking in the back door to rendezvous with former Miss Arkansas Sally Miller in 1983? Or when he was having a 12 year relationship with Gennifer Flowers? Or when he was exposing himself to Paula Jones in 1991? How about when he was abusing his presidential power and then lying about it under oath when he had “sexual relations” with Monica Lewinsky in the mid-90s?
Where was the feminist Hillary Clinton? She was defending her husband, threatening the women, and painting them as liars, refusing to acknowledge anything they said as truth or that her husband could possibly be capable of such conduct .
According to Marla Crider, who found a letter from Hillary to Bill, discussing their future together, the Clintons had a “secret pact” that included both of them becoming president; and even before they were married, Hillary was ready to discount any other woman who got in her way, because even back then, Bill was a cheater. Hillary knew it and she married him anyway, her sights set on more grandiose goals than mere fidelity.
“They are not the ones who can help you achieve your goals,” Marla remembers Hillary saying about Bill’s other girlfriends. “If this is about your feelings for [Marla] this, too, shall pass. Let me remind you it always does. Remember what we talked about. Remember the goals we set for ourselves. You keep trying to stray away from the plans we've put together. Take some time, think about it, and call me when you're ready.”
Hillary’s bullying tactics went from the more subdued threats leveled at Crider, (showing up to Clinton’s Arkansas campaign office unannounced and making subtle comments), to outright surveillance and harassment.
Juanita Broaddrick remembers Hillary grabbing her hand at a campaign event, staring directly into her eyes, and stressing that they appreciated “how much she had done” for Bill (which Broaddrick took to mean keeping her mouth shut).
Sally Miller was visited by Clinton’s people in the 1980s, and they offered her a federal job if she kept quiet about her affair. “They said 'if you don't take the job, we know where you go running and we'll break your pretty little legs,'” Miller says. “They said life isn't going to be fun anymore - and they meant it.”
According to Ms. Miller, “Nothing happened in the Democratic Party when they were trying to get Bill into the White House that Hillary didn't approve. She was the motivator, his bodyguard, and she continued to target me after the election.”
Sally Miller has been followed, threatened, and has even lost a job because of her affair with then-Governor Bill Clinton. She believes that Hillary is the one orchestrating the attacks, and will continue doing so if she gets elected.
Marla Crider recalls that Bill said Hillary “gets me started, kicks my butt, and makes me do the things I've got to do,” even way back in 1974, during his first political campaign.
Hillary Clinton may be partially responsible for kicking Bill’s butt into the White House, but her motives are suspect. They made a deal. First he would win, then she would, which explains her unwavering commitment to him and the vengeance unleashed on any woman who accuses him of sexual misconduct. Apparently, Hillary sees Bill as her only ticket to the presidency. How feminist is that?
Linda Tripp, who was Monica Lewinsky’s confidante back in the Clinton White House days, says of Hillary, “In her mind she would be part of a coronation instead of an election. This has been planned for so many years. I remember one of the quotes in my first week in the Oval Office which was the week after Clinton's first inauguration. Everybody had this little mantra, 'Eight years for Bill. Eight years for Hill.' And when I asked a senior person, 'What does that mean?' He said, 'Well eight years for his administration and eight years for hers. 'So this is a runaway train. Nobody is going to stop it.'”
So, Hillary Clinton believes she is entitled to be president. Why? Because she “stood by her man” and defended him from all the women who were speaking up and telling the truth? Because she and her husband made a pact and therefore it has to come true? Neither of these are reasons to vote for her, and as Bernie Sanders continues to stun the nation by capitalizing on the enthusiasm of many women and young people, that realization is finally hitting home for Hillary, and she is getting desperate.
Hillary is trying to shame me into voting for her because I am a woman like her; but that’s where our similarities end. See, unlike you, Hillary, I am a feminist; and it’s not just because I have Gloria Steinem or Madeline Albright on my payroll. I am a feminist because I believe that women really do need to support other women, and that rape is real. I believe that men who abuse their power and take advantage of women in inferior positions by using that power dynamic for sex, are not good people and do not deserve to be protected. I believe that a true feminist would have never defended her husband the way you did after all these years, in your blind pursuit of power.
Karl Marx likened marriage to legalized prostitution, and you, Mrs. Clinton epitomize that perfectly. You have sacrificed your ideals for power; and you have become so intent on making history that you don’t even see the women you are stepping on to get there. You have prostituted yourself politically, willing to do anything and discredit anyone to make your dream come true. So now, as we watch you beg and plead, shame and cajole, even bark like a dog, to get our votes, I am on the side of karma, and that special place in Hell, where you will have to stare at the faces of Paula Jones, Juanita Broaderick, Monica Lewinsky, Marla Crider, Gennifer Flowers, and Bernie Sanders for eternity. Hope you enjoyed the ride, Hillary. Hope it was worth it.
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1600863904575769388.post-38386452142278791252016-02-04T21:25:00.000-08:002016-02-04T21:25:56.478-08:00Return of Kings, Donald Trump, and the Fear of the Heterosexual White MaleFear is a terrible thing. It can cause people to overreact, lash out violently, and respond to hate-fueled ideologues spouting dangerous rhetoric in a quest for what is perceived as diminishing power. Heterosexual white males have been living in fear for the past four decades. As society has become more inclusive, these HWM have responded, in increasing and mind-numbing numbers, to more alarmist calls to action. The violent anti-choice religious movements of the 1980s and 90s, with their bombing of abortion clinics and killing of doctors, gave rise to such “back to the kitchen,” male supremacist movements as the Promise Keepers, which also spawned militia movements and increasingly xenophobic leaders who directed their hatred toward immigrants.
The 2016 presidential election has seen an unprecedented level of support for this mainstreaming of hatred, as one of the Republican front-runners, Donald Trump, continues to receive support for his outrageous speeches and policies by an electorate of these HWM who are continuously being told that their power is quickly evaporating because of illegal, “criminal” elements from Mexico and the Middle East. As the frightened HWM take a dose of Pepto Bismol, they have consolidated their support around this candidate, whom they believe will magically cure all their ills by building a wall on our southern border, because, in Trump’s words, “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.”
Now, usually American presidential elections, although always combative, have relied on a sense of decorum and fact-based argument; and although the rhetoric can get testy, the more megalomaniacal you are, the less of a chance you have… Until now….
2016 seems to be the year of “anything goes.” It’s almost as if the American public, and the HWM in particular, have so bought into inflated stories of their impending demise that they are actually finding the most deranged voices around which to rally; and the “neo-masculinist” group Return of Kings is capitalizing on their fear.
This group, founded by writer Daryush “Roosh V” Valizadeh, himself of Muslim heritage, prides itself on bringing back “masculinity,” by calling for a legalization of rape on private property, and fighting a war against feminists, homosexuals, the transgender community, and overweight women. They had planned to hold “tribal meetings” in 43 countries this weekend, where women, transgender, and homosexual men were not allowed to attend. These meetings have since been cancelled due to significant international backlash and Australia threatening to deny Valizadeh a visa, which caused him, in true Donald Trump fashion, to threaten to sneak into the country through its porous borders.
What is going on here? When did our dialogue and passion for social progress degenerate into fat-shaming, homophobia, and misogyny? Well, one could argue that it has always been there, lurking in the darkest corners of traditional conservative movements. HWM have been railing against affirmative action for awhile now, even though they continue to represent the CEO’s of most major companies. But every so often, an ideologue like Donald Trump comes along, and makes what used to be hate speech a very real part of the modern political dialogue. It seems that these megalomaniacs get an inflated sense of validation, and invincibility, from any inkling of support they receive.
Valizadeh has said, “There is nothing the media can do anymore to hurt me, and even if they paint me as a baby murderer, I will still gain readers because of it.”
Compare this to Donald Trump’s comment, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters,"
The similarities in the two men’s speeches don’t end there. Both seem to have a preoccupation with winning.
Valizadeh said, “As long as my name exits the mouth of my enemies, I win, and I will continue to win.”
Donald Trump said, “We will have so much winning if I get elected, that you may get bored with winning.”
Clearly the only people who are “winning,” in this context, are the two men who are benefitting from the increased media exposure that comes with being a firebrand ideologue vilifying feminists as the destroyers of society.
A cursory google search of Donald Trump and women will yield a number of shocking statements that the presidential candidate has made, from suggesting that Fox News moderator Megyn Kelly was on her period (because she pushed him too hard on a point at the first Republican presidential debate) to saying that Carly Fiorina shouldn’t get votes because of “her face.” (“Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?!”)
Both Valizadeh and Trump seem to have a preoccupation with opinionated women, especially women who sometimes use profanity. The Return of Kings Facebook page (which has 12,866 likes) features an article titled, “Why Do Feminists and Social Justice Warriors Use So Much Profanity?” where they extol the righteous virtues of the “manosphere”:
“Ad hominem attacks against people are comparatively rare in disagreements. And perhaps best of all, there is a great amount of social support for people who are embarking on ways to better themselves as men. The manosphere is, by and large, a portal of intelligent Y-chromosome carriers who have at least a decent amount of humility and class. Using massive amounts of profanity for the sake of being ‘edgy’ or ‘cool’ will not win anybody social brownie points.”
Donald Trump has a preoccupation with opinionated women as well. He said that Rosie O’Donnell, “is disgusting both inside and out. You take a look at her, she’s a slob. She talks like a truck driver, she doesn’t have her facts. She’ll say anything that comes to her mind.”
He also said Arianna Huffington “is unattractive both inside and out. I fully understand why her husband left her for a man—he made a good decision.”
Apparently, to Donald, having an unattractive “outside,” is the same as having an unattractive “inside,” which is why he makes such a big deal about women’s appearances. (Apparently this does not also apply to himself.)
Similarly, the Return of Kings Facebook page features this Chinese proverb, “We ask four things for a woman—that virtue dwell in her heart, modesty in her forehead, sweetness in her mouth, and labour in her hands.”
There is also this from the article “Introduction to Japanese Girls,” on the Return of Kings website, “Conditioned to act girly, almost childish (when they’re happy or content), Japanese girls come from a culture that strongly discourages rudeness and arrogance in women. In short, the exact opposite of America… Coming from a culture where the women are taught to be big-mouthed, rude, and disrespectful, the American visitor to Japan will at once be pleasantly surprised by the poise, demeanor, and courtesy of the Japanese girl.”
Not surprisingly, the Return of Kings website also features articles on Donald Trump; although they have not come out and publicly supported him… yet…
So, what do we make of all of this? Should we just ignore the ideologues in the hope that common sense will prevail and they will just go away or do we stand up and expose the dangerous hate speech that they are disseminating far and wide?
Martin Luther King Jr’s words ring as true in the present day as they did decades ago, “We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.”
Our collective silence in the face of dangerous people will never be seen as a victory; for the dangerous people take silence to mean complicity, and they will continue to drum up fear amongst their followers. Australia is right to deny Mr. Valizadeh a visa, as international outcry has forced Return of Kings to cancel their planned “Tribal Meetings.” Even though we live in an age of greater equality and greater sociopolitical opportunities for many, Donald Trump and Return of Kings remind us that we can never become complacent; for there will always be those commanders of hate, banking on the fear of the “endangered” heterosexual white males, to sustain them and raise them to undeserved heights. We the people must always be vigilant.
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1600863904575769388.post-82806548637705516912010-08-05T00:17:00.000-07:002010-08-05T00:17:23.049-07:00California's Proposition 19: It's a Lifestyle Preference. Deal with It.Proposition 19, the California initiative to legalize and tax Marijuana, is an annoying necessity, like having to get out of a nice, warm bed on a cold winter morning to let the cat in. Why are we still having the Puritan debate over Marijuana legalization in California, in 2010?<br />
<br />
Smoking pot is a lifestyle; it denotes everything the conservative movement disdains, qualities that they do not possess. Americans may not agree on whether or not we should legalize pot, but they certainly agree that it exists in our society. For today's Baby Boomers it was a rite of passage, as much a fabric of the tapestry of life as frat parties and sweaty makeout sessions in the backseat of a car. The 60s happened, and pot has been a reality ever since.<br />
<br />
We elect presidents who openly confess to doing it; we listen to music and see films that speak to a shared experience, a tacit understanding of profound perception shifts, without even batting an eye. Why are people still going to jail because of it?<br />
<br />
Opponents of Proposition 19 use exaggerated imagery of spiking crime and "reefer madness" as a way to deny everything that pot smoking represents; its inherent threat to traditional American culture. Their fierce opposition only reinforces the fact that, like in Arizona, American traditionalists are rising up to rabidly resist what they perceive as a wholesale attack on their values. Californians legalized medical Marijuana 14 years ago. It's only logical that full freedom from persecution follows; but Proposition 19's opponents are acting like Proposition 215 never passed. and that there is no such thing as a legal precedent.<br />
<br />
Those who so vehemently disagree with the equality that Proposition 19 proposes have the right to abstain from using or associating with people who smoke pot. Surely towns and counties would band together to create "safe zones" for Marijuana use. Not all of California is going to turn into Woodstock. The state has politically divided itself very successfully up to now. Conservative bastions like Orange County coexist with San Francisco, and, while the state legislature may suffer from perpetual gridlock, most Californians manage to carve out their appropriate niches without too much geographical turmoil. Those who don't endorse Proposition 19 can safely congregate, like they do now, without being exposed to the attitudes they deplore; but surely they can all agree that a person's lifestyle preference should be his or hers to freely decide.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1600863904575769388.post-55555097903047317852010-07-27T22:51:00.000-07:002010-07-27T22:51:27.739-07:00Don Draper: Mad (White) ManThe real question, I thought, as I watched the "Mad Men" season 4 premiere on Sunday night, is: What are they mad about? AMC's smash hit debuted Sunday to its highest ratings ever, with 2.9 million viewers tuning in to revel in the exploits of the enigmatic Don Draper. This is 5% more people than tuned in to the season 3 premiere last summer, and proves that the show is continuing to draw new viewers. Now, sure, the title is supposed to be a play on the fact that they are ad men, and that these men are impetuous and lacking in moral clarity, therefore, a little "mad" (as in the crazy sort). But, if we look at the portrayal of Don Draper and his cohorts of mischevious misogynists, could the "mad" in the title really being referring to the impending loss of white male power in the 1960s?<br />
<br />
Could "Mad Men" be a reflection of white male angst in 2010, the same kind of angst they felt in the early 60s as they stood on the precipice of the massive social change that would ultimately challenge their exclusive social supremacy? We are living in a mad world right now, with economic hardships, the first African-American president, and unemployment fanning the flames of racial conflagration at every turn. The news is rife with stories of racial tension in cities all across the US, and the Tea Party has turned their paranoid delusions of "reverse discrimination" into a white, disaffected rallying cry.<br />
<br />
Yet through all this, Don Draper struts around, posing and grinning, as his marriage crumbles and his assumed identity slowly unravels; and we love him for it. We love his stoicism and feigned strength, even if it is all an illusion. AskMen.com published the results of a survey on the most influential man in America last year, and Don Draper was number one, ahead of Barack Obama or any other living man who has beaten the odds and overcome adversity or worked to improve the planet. American men today want to be like Don Draper.<br />
<br />
A lot of people defend the show, saying that it is an accurate portrayal of its time. I guess that's because Draper's ad agency is run by white men who walk into the office and immediately pour themselves a drink and light a cigarette. The women on the show are nothing more than pretty little accessories, who answer phones, have babies, and swoon over Draper. What would this show look like if it were told from a woman's point-of-view? It would probably look a lot more like "Revolutionary Road" or "Mona Lisa Smile" than James Bond.<br />
<br />
This is pure white male fantasyland. Don Draper assumes an identity; he's a cipher on which disaffected white men can project their idealized lives. American men (white, affluent American men) are hearkening back to "simpler times," when their identity was constructed around their libido and they reigned supreme in society. The women stand around looking pretty, providing Don with numerous chances at infidelity, and therefore, power; all other races are nonexistent. If Don Draper is supposed to be on the verge of some kind of moral crisis in season 4, he's certainly having a lot of fun getting there. American history has already been told from the rich, white male perspective. This story is redundant and needs another point-of-view.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1600863904575769388.post-6478242746969595492010-07-07T13:37:00.000-07:002010-07-07T13:43:52.529-07:00Mel Gibson is a SociopathRadaronline.com reports that Mel Gibson twice punched Oksana Grigorieva in the face while she was holding their baby. The incident is captured on the same tape in which he spews racial epithets, threatens to burn the house down, and tells her that she deserves to be punched.<br />
<br />
This type of behavior should not be tolerated and Mel should be seen as the psychologically unbalanced, out-of-control sociopath he really is. Mel exhibits most of the character traits of a sociopath (<a href="http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html">http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html</a>), such as glibness, a grandiose sense of self, a lack of remorse, shame or guilt about his actions, an incapacity for love, callousness, and a lack of empathy toward others.<br />
Sociopaths, according to H. Cleckley and R. Hare, "never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible"; they are "covertly hostile and domineering," and they "may dominate and humiliate their victims."<br />
<br />
Mel has still not come out and apologized for his racist rant, which was leaked last week. Instead, he and his lawyer have focused on who leaked the tape and whether or not it was Oksana (as if that makes any difference). Mel Gibson has no idea how out-of-control he really is, and if he does, he doesn't care. Everything that goes wrong in his life is someone else's fault, and he uses these adverse events as excuses to spout his hate-filled views to whomever is around. When he was arrested for DUI in 2006, he proceeded to go on an anti-Semitic tirade and sexually harass the female police officer who was on-scene; and in this latest rant, he insults and punches his girlfriend, spewing racial epithets, and telling her she deserves to be hit. This mentality is the same as a rapist who believes that his victim "really wanted it." Mel Gibson is a sociopath, and this is more than a tawdry tabloid story. This is the profile of a very sick mind.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2010/07/world-exclusive-mel-gibson-caught-tape-admitting-he-hit-oksana-you-fking-deserved">WORLD EXCLUSIVE: Mel Gibson Caught On Tape Admitting He Hit Oksana -- "You F**king Deserved It" RadarOnline.com</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1600863904575769388.post-53235485066193278592010-07-02T11:53:00.000-07:002010-07-02T11:53:38.400-07:00The Immanent Credibiilty of Kate Gosselin<a href="http://www.accesshollywood.com/kate-gosselin-no-breast-implants-bachelorette-or-holiday-album_article_34168">Kate Gosselin: No Breast Implants, ‘Bachelorette’ Or Holiday Album Access Hollywood - Celebrity News, Photos & Videos</a><br /><br />I'm so sick of supposed "actresses," displaying obvious evidence of breast implants, who come out denying that anything is fake. Kate Gosselin is the lastest pseudo celebrity to do just that, telling "The View" that she did not have implants and nothing on her is "airbrushed."<br /><br />So, despite the tabloid evidence to the contrary (stories even had her bodyguard helping her decide which size breasts to get), along with everything that our eyes can see, we are supposed to believe her when she simply denies the stories.<br /><br />Sure. Because a lower-level reality star, desperate to remain relevant after DWTS has NO incentive to try and boost her career through surgery. Right. Jon sports the new dragon tattoo, while Kate sports new breasts. Wasn't that reality show originally about a family who had octuplets?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1600863904575769388.post-45569184144212068762010-06-30T09:50:00.000-07:002010-06-30T09:50:18.672-07:00Landon Donovan Lovechild: Is it really a scandal?<a href="http://www.usmagazine.com/celebritynews/news/landon-donovan-my-wife-means-so-much-to-me-right-now-2010306">News - Landon Donovan: My Wife Means So Much to Me Now - Celebrity News - UsMagazine.com</a><br /><br />The revelation that Landon Donovan may have fathered a lovechild is quickly running out of steam on the scandalmeter because he is a soccer player, and now that the US is out of the World Cup, soccer is no longer at the forefront of our cultural focus.<br /><br />Besides, Donovan wasn't that big of a star to begin with. This sudden concern about his estranged wife, his lovechild, and his mistress is feigned. It was a way to make Americans care about soccer in time for the World Cup. <br /><br />Look at the way some of our most popular magazines have begun publicizing all of those "sexy soccer stars." This is a ploy for ratings, and it becomes even more important now, since the American team has been eliminated. <br /><br />Trying to make the Landon Donovan story into a scandal is a weak attempt at publicity. It will disappear in a few weeks, after the obligatory World Cup hype is over.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1600863904575769388.post-64194486672412910122010-06-28T13:51:00.000-07:002010-06-28T13:51:46.516-07:00Chris Brown Cries During BET Awards<a href="http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2010/06/exclusive-video-interviews-chris-brown-breaks-down-crying-during-bet-awards">EXCLUSIVE VIDEO INTERVIEWS: Chris Brown Breaks Down Crying During BET Awards Tribute To Michael Jackson RadarOnline.com</a><br /><br />Was Chris Brown's emotional rendition of Michael Jackson's "Man in the Mirror" authentic or just a publicity stunt to try and resurrect his tanking career? The singer got very choked up during his tribute to Michael Jackson at last night's BET Awards, so much so, that he couldn't even sing some of the last song. RadarOnline.com reported that Brown's performance "stole the show."<br /><br />One gets the sense, when watching Brown, that his tears were more an expression of grief over what once was, then they were over Jackson's death. His career has never been the same since his infamous fight with Rihanna, and his last album "Graffiti," suffered from poor sales and reviews.<br /><br />Will this latest PR stunt manage to revive Brown's floundering career? Will his tears convince people that he is not a violent abuser of women, but really a sensitive artist whose emotions got the best of him? Celebrities interviewed at the BET Awards last night seemed to think that Brown should be left alone by the media and should be allowed to have his career back. One thing is for certain, it will take a lot more public repentance before Chris Brown is going to be trusted again.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1600863904575769388.post-87895592671032153662010-06-27T15:33:00.000-07:002010-06-27T15:33:19.175-07:00The Toy Story PhenomenonLook at the box office snapshot of June 27, 2010. Seven of the top ten movies blatantly exploit the innocence of youth, and obviously to great effect. Why, then do studios keep trying to tell us we should crave something else? I'm sick of critics pretending they're shocked when period pieces, dramas, or romantic thrillers fail. These are AUTUMN MOVIES, people. Haven't you realized that by now?<br />
<br />
It's summer and my mind wants to go on vacation. I want sun and fun, beaches and Fantasyland. No stuffy wood-paneled rooms, cubicles, or desolate ghost towns. I want Katy Perry singing about "California Gurls" and Buzz Lightyear, the enduring staple of youth, comforting me with shouts of, "To infinity... and BEYOND!"<br />
<br />
Seven of the top ten movies this week are staples of our youth, and if not <em>our </em>youth, then that of our children: innocent, enduring, and secure. "Toy Story 3," "The Karate Kid," "The A-Team," and "Shrek Forever After" are remakes, variations on a time-tested theme that has proven successful; while, "Get Him to the Greek," "Grown Ups," and "The Prince of Persia" capitalize on the rituals of male adventure, bonding, and virilty.<br />
<br />
These are unsure times. We have enough to worry about, with terrorism, nuclear threats, increased surveillance, and impending economic collapse an everyday reality. We need fantasy and escape, comfort and security. We need to feel safe again, like we did in our youth. <br />
<br />
Impending doom has always dogged us, the everpresent shadow ready to snatch us up at any given moment, but when we were kids, we didn't care. We were bound and determined to experience life, to imbibe of as much as we could before we ran out. Money, alcohol, drugs, and sex: the fleeting summers bonding with friends; memories you carry with you throughout your life, and that placate you as you grow older.<br />
<br />
Security. Cartoon characters that never get old, heroes that never die. Sequels represent summer and are expected by audiences the same way they expect catchy pop songs and risque clothing. These staples are even more in demand today, because times are indeed bleak. So why don't the studios save some money, forego the pretense, and just give us what we want?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1600863904575769388.post-3014133660575507442010-06-27T13:55:00.000-07:002010-06-27T13:55:27.520-07:00Lindsay Lohan Can't Get a Fair Trial ANYWHERE!!!<a href="http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2010/06/exclusive-lindsay-lohan-cant-get-fair-trial-says-lawyer">EXCLUSIVE: Lindsay Lohan Can't Get Fair Trial, Says Lawyer RadarOnline.com</a><br /><br />Lindsay Lohan's lawyer says she can't get a fair trial in Beverly Hills, or anywhere else in California, for that matter; but I've got news for Lindsay and her attorney: She can't get a fair trial anywhere! Lindsay recently announced she was filing a $100 million dollar lawsuit against Etrade for using her first name in reference to a "milkaholic" baby.<br /><br />Etrade is a national company, whose spot aired during the Super Bowl and the winter Olympics, and whether or not they did have insinuating intentions with their overindulgent baby, her suit against them has brought national attention to her drug and alcohol problems. She has long been fodder for late-night talk shows, and the mere mention of her name conjures up images of alcohol-monitoring bracelets and wild parties. So, where in America would Lindsay be able to get a fair trial?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1600863904575769388.post-71249180969308733542010-06-25T13:59:00.000-07:002010-06-25T13:59:49.459-07:00EXCLUSIVE: Fergie Ready To Leave Black Eyed Peas, Feuding With Will.I.Am | RadarOnline.com<a href="http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2010/06/exclusive-fergie-leaving-black-eyed-peas">EXCLUSIVE: Fergie Ready To Leave Black Eyed Peas, Feuding With Will.I.Am RadarOnline.com</a><br /><br />RadarOnline.com reports that Fergie's status with the Black Eyed Peas is uncertain, and that she probably won't be joining the band on its 2011 tour. Will she sustain fame on her own? I believe the answer is yes. Fergie has already proven to be a solo success, and was the face of the band as well. She will profit from a solo career the way Gwen Stefani did when she branched out from No Doubt.<br /><br />Fergie has the looks and the voice to keep her successful, with or without Will.I.Am. And she can act too! (Her performance in "Nine" was great!) I have to admit, it will be kind of nice not to have to hear whatever new Black Eyed Peas' song is out every 20 minutes, like I did last year on the radio. They're good, but they are a little played out. ("Boom, Boom, Pow"??) I felt like I was being subjected to some kind of psyops warfare or something. They have a good sound, and make catchy music, but Fergie can do that by herself, without having to share the spotlight with Will.I.Am.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1600863904575769388.post-83436246077033928052010-06-24T14:55:00.000-07:002010-06-24T14:55:19.656-07:00"Knight and Day," Cruise, Diaz, Fail to Impress<a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/06/cruisediaz-vehicle-knight-day-opens-to-soft-38-million-at-box-office-wednesday.html">Cruise-Diaz movie 'Knight and Day' opens to soft $3.8 million at box office Wednesday</a><br /><br />Ben Fritz reports in the <em>LA Times</em> that predictions of a disappointing opening for the Tom Cruise, Cameron Diaz film "Knight and Day" were right on, as it opened a distant second yesterday to "Toy Story 3." <br /><br />According to Fritz, the film failed, despite studio efforts to generate buzz. He writes, "In order to counteract what appears to have been ineffective marketing and a lack of interest among audiences in Cruise and Diaz, distributor 20th Century Fox held nationwide sneak previews for 'Knight and Day' on Saturday and moved up its release from Friday to Wednesday."<br /><br />Looks like Cameron Diaz's desperate bid for publicity didn't pay off in any big way, yet the actress is <em>still</em> trying. Starpulse.com has Diaz quoted as saying she loves having sex outside.<br /><br />Note to Cameron: Nobody's buying. Can you please stop talking about your sex life now?<br /><br />But, let's not blame it all on her. This movie has myriad things going against it, namely its relevance. It's 2010, and no one really cares about Tom Cruise or Cameron Diaz anymore. They are fond faces from another decade, but we have moved on. "Twilight" is coming out; the World Cup is going on; it's summer, and we're trying to forget our problems and just enjoy life the way all those pop songs tell us we should. Why would we devote over two hours of our hectic and overscheduled lives to watching "The Weird Guy" and "Justin Timberlake's ex-girlfriend"?<br /><br />No amount of Cameron's naughty sex talk would've saved this film. Trying to remain relevant in a Miley Cyrus, "Jersey Shore" kind of world is difficult. This is a harsh and frenetic reality we live in, and you have to constantly be seen to be relevant. Unfortunately for them, Tom Cruise is constantly seen in the wrong light, while Cameron Diaz is just transparent.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1600863904575769388.post-80814034485510574562010-06-24T13:38:00.000-07:002010-06-24T13:38:40.116-07:00Kristen Stewart Rape Comment<a href="http://www.usmagazine.com/celebritynews/news/kristen-stewart-fame-is-like-being-raped-201026">News - Kristen Stewart: Fame Is "Like Being Raped" - Celebrity News - UsMagazine.com</a><br /><br /><br /><br />Does Kristen Stewart have an insecurity complex or what? She reminds me of the nerdy girl who scores the jock in one of those cheesy John Hughes' movies. Her latest publicity piece in "Entertainment Weekly," in which she has her boyfriend defend her, because people like him better, is downright pathetic. Kristen chooses to use two major media buzzwords in her controversial interview with Britain's "Elle" magazine, "paparazzi" and "raped," and then acts like a massive injustice is being done when people criticize her.<br /><br />Come on! When she told "Elle" that she felt like the paparazzi was raping her, what did she think would happen? If she had simply called the paparazzi out on their aggressive tactics, she would've appeared righteously indignant, like Elton John or Princess Diana's brother; but she chose to use an emotionally charged word that was sure to elicit attention and controversy.<br /><br />Robert Pattinson then stands up to defend her in "Entertainment Weekly," by calling out the "nerdy bloggers" who inflated the story, despite the fact that she was criticized by RAINN, a support group for survivors of rape, abuse, and incest. What do bloggers have to do with anything? If it wasn't for those "nerdy bloggers," Robert Pattinson wouldn't be half as famous as he is today.<br /><br />Kristen then uses Pattinson's comments as an excuse to whine about how she could never say that because nobody likes her, and everybody's always picking on her, blah, blah, blah...<br /><br />Dear Kristen, You can't, on the one hand, start taking shots at the media, while at the same time crying and running away. Harsh words spoken in a desperate plea for attention will have the intended results. You decry the media, "screaming and taunting" you, "to get a reaction," but what are you doing to them?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1600863904575769388.post-8229812132626680962010-06-19T11:57:00.000-07:002010-06-19T11:57:40.045-07:00The Glass ClosetCameron Diaz has joined the ranks of Christina Aguilera, as female celebrities eager for some cheap publicity, overpublicize their supposed sexual liberation and bisexuality. Since when has finding the same sex attractive become such a shallow marketing ploy?<br />
<br />
Diaz told "Playboy" magazine that she "can be attracted to a woman sexually, but it doesn't mean I want to be in love with a woman." She adds, "If I'm going to be with a woman sexually, it doesn't mean I'm a lesbian."<br />
<br />
We haven't seen such masterful parsing of language since Bill Clinton sought to define the word "is" and courted liberal groups while publicly disavowing being a "liberal" himself.<br />
<br />
If Diaz is truly attracted to women, why does she have to qualify it? Why go to "Playboy" magazine, the embodiment of passive female degradation, to extoll her enigmatic sexuality?<br />
<br />
It's interesting that this marketing ploy only works for women. Although there are a few male celebrities, like Fall Out Boy's Pete Wentz, who have admitted to having bisexual tendencies, for the most part, men are sex symbols precisely because they fit into the popular mold of male virility. They wear their rugged sexuality on their sleeves, and are unequivocally attracted to women. What would it do to Brad Pitt's or Robert Pattinson's career if they publicly admitted to being bisexual?<br />
<br />
Women like Katy Perry, Christina Aguilera, Lady Gaga, and now Cameron Diaz are being told that ambiguous sexuality is a strong selling point. They cannot be lesbians, but they can be bisexual; yet these supposed "bisexuals" are never seen out with dates other than men. So, is your sexual proclivity even relevant? If you're married with children (like Christina), engaged to a man (like Katy), or simply engaging in shameless self-promotion (like Gaga and Cameron), then why do we care? It's not like you're a tireless activist for the movement. Your "bisexuality" is simply part of your marketing plan. Shock value, titillation. (<em>yaaaaaawn)</em><br />
<br />
Cameron's disavowal of lesbianism is hardly an endorsement. It's like having a spokesperson who films commercials cavorting with your product, only to turn around and tell everyone that she doesn't even use your product, or she only uses it sometimes.<br />
<br />
Note to Cameron's publicist (and Christina's, and Katy's, and Gaga's as well), just stick to the entertainment. Leave the fight for true equal rights and acceptance to those people who don't have to pretend.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1600863904575769388.post-38483431088369230542010-06-18T11:14:00.000-07:002010-06-18T11:14:38.386-07:00When Humbert Met Lolita: Part 2People.com reported that Bret Michaels was to perform with Miley Cyrus today on "Good Morning America." The promo photo for the performance shows Miley, with a skimpy shirt, pulled up to reveal her waist, wearing one of Michaels' signature cowboy hats. Michaels is seen smiling, with his inflated pout and his arm around her.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The article refers to them as "family friends," but we all know what is really going on here. It's the same old Hollywood song and dance, the "Battle against Age" that forces underage female celebrities like Cyrus to strip down and branzenly exploit themselves, while overage males like Michaels defiantly flaunt their diminishing virility.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
This tired dynamic should bore us all by now, or at least disgust us, but it doesn't. We keep clicking on the photos of Cyrus exposing herself getting out of a limo; we keep tuning in to the reality shows where washed-up celebrities like Michaels desperately try to convince us of their still-relevant sex-appeal.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Maybe these shows comfort us and serve as an escape from the everyday problems of our mundane lives. Maybe if we see Michaels, still rocking in 2010, still attractive to much younger women, we feel a little better about growing older ourselves. Cyrus is titillating, an escape from the bills we have to pay and the problems we have with our own children. We can look at her and say, "Well, things could be worse."<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
But are these images good for anyone (besides the promoters making loads of money off of this double exploitation)? Shouldn't young women be afforded more positive examples of maturity than just another clueless Lolita, taking her clothes off for money? Why can't she be celebrated for being accepted to Harvard or for some kind of writing or directing exploits? And why can't Michaels show us how to age gracefully, without a horde of women surrounding him? Why can't he be celebrated for his wisdom or his business acumen? He did win "Celebrity Apprentice" after all.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Sex is one of life's greatest mysteries, the thing that defines and confuses us the most. We seem to think we can master it through studying the exploitation of others; as if a more thorough understanding of it will be gleaned by reveling in celebrity degradation. When will we finally realize that true understanding does not come from another reality show or scantily clad young beauty. True understanding comes from self-analysis and respect for others, even the clueless young and the undying old.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1600863904575769388.post-2617979623009672932010-06-17T13:37:00.000-07:002010-06-17T13:37:40.864-07:00Battle in High Gear Over Dennis Hopper Estate<a href="http://www.tmz.com/2010/06/16/dennis-hopper-estate-victoria-hopper-battle-galen/">Battle in High Gear Over Dennis Hopper Estate</a><br /><br /><br />So sad that the entertainment industry is mired in greed. Here's another example of a great actor's legacy being tainted by scandal after he's gone. It's important to preserve the memory of Dennis Hopper, and all of the other great actors, without glorifying the scandalous culture surrounding them.<br /><br />True, it was his life. He married this woman after all... and had a child with her. But now this is becoming just another sensationalized battle over money. What is sacred in Hollywood? Is that an oxymoron? Should we be focusing on the dirty war being waged in probate court over Dennis Hopper's estate, or should we let that lie and remember him as the wonderful entertainer he was?<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I love a good tabloid story, but where does sensational reporting become irreverence? Shouldn't we be memorializing the dead and his work? This is where the lines become blurred. We can either ignore the battle being waged between his wife and his estate, or we can acknowledge it and move on. What is the media's responsibility here?<br /><br />Either way, it's tragic, because Dennis Hopper should be remembered for his work and not his personal scandals.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1600863904575769388.post-49969565968500491382010-06-16T09:33:00.000-07:002010-06-16T09:33:28.322-07:00Christina Aguilera Kissed a Girl and She Liked ItChristina Aguilera has joined the ranks of the utterly predictable, telling Company magazine that she is attracted to (GASP!) both women and men. Just as with Lady Gaga, this type of behavior is no longer shocking. We've seen it all before.<br />
<br />
<br />
Female pop stars follow a predictable road to superstardom, marketing themselves as the “good girls gone bad.” They start out as mediocre talents (in Christina’s case, she is actually talented, but real singing now takes a backseat to sensationalism), then turn to the dark side, dressing more provocatively, singing overtly sexual lyrics, cavorting with other sex kittens, and eschewing everything decent and moral.<br />
<br />
There is a difference between expression and exploitation. A woman truly attracted to other women should be allowed to express that in song and action without having to play to the lurid fantasies of a male audience. When lesbianism is exploited for sensational shock value, it becomes nothing more than another way to keep women down. We are again defined by our sexuality, instead of by our intelligence or our talent. This is not liberation. This is subjugation in another form.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1600863904575769388.post-39178309256556179342010-06-15T22:26:00.000-07:002010-06-15T22:26:06.040-07:00Lady Gaga's "Alejandro" video<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/niqrrmev4mA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/niqrrmev4mA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1600863904575769388.post-50522600588053387232010-06-15T22:24:00.000-07:002010-06-15T22:24:11.098-07:00Lady Gaga Bores Me NowOh that devilish Lady Gaga! She's at it again, making people gasp with some provocative clothing and a blasphemous video. But, is any of this <em>really </em>provocative anymore? Didn't we see this exact scenario with Madonna, 20 years ago? We knew Madonna was a marketing genius, who knew how to sell albums; and it worked, for her, 20 years ago. In 2010, we have become immune to it. Lady Gaga is a complete imitation.<br />
<br />
Think about it. Nothing about her is new or original. Her act is like Madonna, and her music, like Abba. The media thinks that we are apathetic enough to buy it. And you know what? We are.<br />
<br />
There is something comforting about stasis. We all remember the exhilirating feeling we had when we were kids, of enjoying something taboo. Lady Gaga is a manufactured rebellion, a heavily corporatized puppet. Watching people create false controversy over her derivative music video is about as exciting as watching Miley Cyrus spiraling out of control. We've seen it all before. Where are all the <em>new </em>stories and why are they considered "boring"?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1600863904575769388.post-78960426026570614292010-06-14T08:19:00.000-07:002010-06-14T08:19:08.639-07:00Ponder This...<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxj5VOfauq9D5uJZzGK0D5RQCtDspsyu7RtdWni5GNUMdTOkzvP8DlVUqK_CjuUk3vweVGLmApHHgDvMO6WLMRb2YZLQiq3AgushuM9kR03Bmz8mkJ3nRf9oX3s4-sxLvMcrGHDb8Ao_c/s1600/kendra.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" qu="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxj5VOfauq9D5uJZzGK0D5RQCtDspsyu7RtdWni5GNUMdTOkzvP8DlVUqK_CjuUk3vweVGLmApHHgDvMO6WLMRb2YZLQiq3AgushuM9kR03Bmz8mkJ3nRf9oX3s4-sxLvMcrGHDb8Ao_c/s200/kendra.jpg" width="137" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Are media images like this good for women?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGh3Ev7uyJ-obi78KyN_kZnU0K3U5btPT7alWajNkkHniY0sZQd4dVbBtuvHTtmUW1ZWST_yr2juSQ6nhTFmyWWnzdjAIsutJ4nydMjV7QlwIdvQTZGENf-sPesTm1ME7vWurr6p9GPzA/s1600/housewives.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="122" qu="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGh3Ev7uyJ-obi78KyN_kZnU0K3U5btPT7alWajNkkHniY0sZQd4dVbBtuvHTtmUW1ZWST_yr2juSQ6nhTFmyWWnzdjAIsutJ4nydMjV7QlwIdvQTZGENf-sPesTm1ME7vWurr6p9GPzA/s200/housewives.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><br />
<br />
What about this?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAEttO9bukQKME1RnwRiwGvQ1El63XKrIONYLMAORaw1JD-kc5G701nAxrynJl-cGHghWGurobGnXUf-vzl_vxv80JThv5aAkFT5a1k4N7Le1KRW0LGc09CLPeldScdmT7Wiuyeq0aevE/s1600/situation.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" qu="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAEttO9bukQKME1RnwRiwGvQ1El63XKrIONYLMAORaw1JD-kc5G701nAxrynJl-cGHghWGurobGnXUf-vzl_vxv80JThv5aAkFT5a1k4N7Le1KRW0LGc09CLPeldScdmT7Wiuyeq0aevE/s200/situation.jpg" width="132" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<br />
Then again, what does this say about men?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiW_dvtejxfAiRpt8UiUTXuMzwCSFg8MNrNfQN88tZDO65ai5Tx1JgcYoE-w3h_R0B1qb4DUIID9yvtacg2F-ZsW3-AyUJGfupsB6zl_BUgk4D0IS4IN_EmLc6SdsS8g97WKUYNJ_P0B_M/s1600/wipeout.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" qu="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiW_dvtejxfAiRpt8UiUTXuMzwCSFg8MNrNfQN88tZDO65ai5Tx1JgcYoE-w3h_R0B1qb4DUIID9yvtacg2F-ZsW3-AyUJGfupsB6zl_BUgk4D0IS4IN_EmLc6SdsS8g97WKUYNJ_P0B_M/s200/wipeout.jpg" width="149" /></a>People (men and women) are all-too-willing to exploit themselves for money.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1600863904575769388.post-67576416248476014902010-06-14T01:14:00.000-07:002010-06-14T01:20:24.143-07:00A Feminist Reading of Just about EverythingCaryl Churchill’s play, “Top Girls,” uses the trope of 80’s women’s liberation as the lens through which it views feminist history. The play features a character, a “modern woman,” who comes breezing into the employment agency, where she works as an executive, on a Monday morning, still ecstatically giddy over spending the weekend with her lover, while his wife was away. “It was just like we lived together,” she says wistfully.<br />
<br />
<br />
Which brings me to this question: Does the modern portrayal of women in art contain any dignity, or is it merely the same message of grateful repression hiding behind a different disguise? The concept of “reality” shows springs to mind. The “Real Housewives” series on Bravo features a group of wealthy women who came into money and power through their husbands. “Kendra” features a young, beautiful wife and mother who came into money and fame through Hugh Hefner (and now her pro-football-playing husband). Is it hazardous to glorify these images of women at the expense of all of the other ones available to us today? <br />
<br />
The feminist would argue, of course, that the media’s decision to glorify these women illustrates how subjugated we still are. These women acquired money and power through their relationships with men; in fact, it is because of men that these women are wealthy or powerful at all; and although they start their own charities and plan their own parties, these are more along the lines of “busy work,” meant to create rating-enhancing drama and lucrative tax write-offs (which, again, benefit their husbands). <br />
<br />
An anti-feminist would disagree. She would see in this media glorification the underlying message of equality; for no matter how they chose to come into their money and power, they were still making conscious choices, a feat that represents true equality. Kendra may never be as famous as the man who discovered her, but she is certainly more famous than her husband. She is the star of her “reality” show, not because she kowtows to men, but because she makes all of her own decisions. People have the freedom to change the channel and find something more “feminist friendly” if they so desire.<br />
<br />
Is that true? If we do change the channel, what other archetypes of women will be waiting to greet us? I thought about why there wasn’t a “reality” show about poor women, single-mothers struggling to get by, or teachers or doctors. When we do see women in these roles, they are fictionalized, decorated, and beautiful. What kind of “reality” is that?<br />
<br />
Maybe I’m making too much of things again, I thought. Maybe images of men are just as shallow. Maybe it’s just a symptom of the times. Honestly, “The Situation,” from MTV’s “Jersey Shore,” cannot be doing anything to advocate for men either. The difference is, however, that there are a plethora of powerful men on TV. Powerful men are all around us; and they usually did not get there by relying on their wives’ money.<br />
<br />
I would like to see the tables turned a bit: a “reality” show that features a group of young hunks with gorgeous bodies, former pool boys and gardeners, whose older wives are the bread-winners. Let’s watch the lively hijinks that ensue when their disparate personalities collide, as they use their spouses’ money and reputation to attract attention. Oh, and they have to stand out on street corners, usually drunk, in the middle of the night, verbally attacking one another, at least once every episode, kind of like “Jerry Springer” in Prada. Think anybody would watch it?<br />
<br />
Which brings me back to “The Situation” and the fact that much of our society already does. We love to watch people humiliating themselves. Just look at competitive shows like “Wipeout,” on ABC. Men and women trip, slip, and fall off things, all in the name of money. When a society blindly chases profit, as America does, it objectifies everyone, regardless of gender. Until we begin teaching people authentic skills with which they can use to help others, we will continue to worship greed and money; and as long as we worship greed and money, women will go on being objectified, the only way they know how.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1600863904575769388.post-61197727457013213912010-06-09T14:13:00.000-07:002010-06-09T14:20:50.620-07:00A Response to Amanda Marcotte's Slate articleThe modern women’s movement, as Amanda Marcotte points out in her article, “A short history of ‘feminist’ anti-feminists” (<a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2256184">http://www.slate.com/id/2256184</a>), effectively manages to combine the oppressive yearning of a simpler time with the progressive gains that increased women’s collective economic vitality. Sarah Palin embodies what Marcotte calls the “feminist anti-feminists,” women, who while professionally successful themselves, advocate for repressive laws against other women, limiting access to abortion, increasing guilt, and denying women’s true sexual liberation.<br />
<br />
<br />
Sexual liberation doesn’t mean a willingness to succumb to your inevitable captivity. It means escaping from the hysteria-inducing mainstream culture that incessantly threatens women with their inherent ugliness. It means awakening to the reality that you are an intelligent human being, capable of infinite possibilities, with or without the help of a man. Men are our equals. We do not have to swoon for them, or lie there helpless, desperate for their guidance and wisdom. We are capable of wisdom and guidance ourselves. This does not make us unattractive, or in any way worthy of contempt.<br />
<br />
True equality will never come unless women first band together and work toward a common goal. Until we come up with an agreed-upon definition of what we are working for, we will be our own biggest obstacles. Our houses are always divided, jealousy consumes, and the movement stagnates. We have to broaden our definition of what “being a woman” really means. It does not mean simply “virgin or whore,” “skinny or fat.” It simply means “being a human being.”Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1600863904575769388.post-17975044789377755932010-06-07T10:46:00.000-07:002010-06-07T10:46:09.444-07:00Playing Like GirlsMy son’s baseball coach likes to tell the team, when they lose, that they “played like girls.” My son doesn’t even know what that means. I’m the one he grew up playing baseball with, throwing the football with him, and taking him to games. I’m the one he can talk stats with. I know all the players’ names and their positions, and I don’t cheer for teams just because I like their uniforms (Although I must say that the Cleveland Browns’ colors need to go).<br />
<br />
<br />
Which brings me to an important question: As a single mother raising two boys in the twenty-first century, how do I explain feminism to them? It’s sort of an outdated word these days, and the concept has certainly changed since its heyday in the 1970s. Feminism today encompasses more than battles over birth control and abortion (Although these battles still do exist). Women make up 52% of college students and a significant number of the workforce, yet our pay is still lower (by about 80 cents to a man’s dollar). Women still bear the brunt of most household chores; and we still do not have daycare in the workplace.<br />
<br />
When I engaged a woman on Facebook about the concept of feminism, she was quick to label me a man-hater because I advocated for equal rights. There was also some charge of wearing “comfortable shoes” lobbed at me, as she babbled incoherently about the cute stilettos she buys, with her husband’s money, in order for him to take out the trash. The implication was that since I called myself a feminist, I was a butchy, ugly woman, who hates men and wants to tear down all distinctions between the sexes.<br />
<br />
We saw these same arguments being used during the ERA debates. Anti-feminist voices like Phyllis Schlafly, excelled in frightening women with dark scenarios of equality like unisex bathrooms and women forced to look and act like men. The epithets stuck. The ERA was famously defeated, and Reagan ushered in an era of uberfeminine women, reveling in their evangelism and their dutiful subservience to their husbands.<br />
<br />
I don’t even think women today know what being a feminist really means; it means nothing more than wanting to be treated like a human being. If women would take a moment to study the not-too-distant past, they would see how far we have come. Not too long ago, we were expected to forego college, and to throw ourselves, heels first, into a life of service to our husbands and children, the middle-class American Dream. We could not apply for our own credit cards, but had to have our husbands procure them for us. There were no laws to protect us from sexual harassment, and very weak ones to protect us from domestic violence and rape. <br />
<br />
Feminism changed all that; it brought women’s issues to the forefront of the national debate, proclaiming that women could be independent and intelligent and, yes, still sexy. But all women saw in the media were the bra-burners and the lesbian activists and the radical voices screaming that pregnancy is a deplorable, parasitic condition that we must overcome. This is not feminism. This is radicalism. Just as we do not judge a movement solely on its most insane expressions, we should be careful not to base our opinions about feminism on these myopic illustrations, for they do not represent what this movement is really about.<br />
<br />
I will do my part to resurrect the movement, to convince American women that supporting feminism is indeed in their best interests; but I will not be drawn into silly debates about my shoes or whether or not I wear makeup every time I leave the house. There are differences between the sexes. Real feminists do not deny that. We simply believe that those differences should not condemn us to a life of subservience, a life not of our choosing.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1600863904575769388.post-5352648105608733632010-06-02T12:51:00.000-07:002010-06-02T12:51:09.313-07:00What Is Fairness Anyway?It’s easy, when listening to Rush Limbaugh ranting about “Feminzis” or Rand Paul trying to wriggle out of civil rights, to get behind something like the Fairness Doctrine, which mandates equal media coverage of opposing viewpoints as a counterbalance to pundits’ opinions. Michigan State Senator Bruce Patterson, a Constitutional lawyer, has now proposed a bill requiring journalists to register with and receive approval from the “Board of Michigan Registered Reporters,” before they are allowed to broadcast their opinions.<br />
<br />
<br />
Not only is State Senator Patterson’s legislation unfair, it also privileges the same moneyed interests presently in control. His bill is an infringement upon our Constitutionally protected right to free speech, and a form of discrimination. Journalists must pay not only an application fee, but a registration fee as well; they are also required to show proof of “good moral character” and “ethics standards acceptable to the board.” What this means is not defined, nor are the people who will make up the deciding body. <br />
<br />
The required credential litany doesn’t end there. To be considered for approval, applicants must have a journalism degree or a degree in another relevant field, three or more years reporting experience or other relevant background, awards or recognition for their reportage, and three or more writing samples. In other words, those who did not attend college need not apply. Those who, because of arbitrary financial realities, could not attend college need not apply. Those who received a degree in art history, but feel passionately about saving the environment or ending the war, and have the tenacity to express those opinions in a blog or journal, need not apply. <br />
<br />
Fairness is a relative term. What’s fair to me, a single-mother of two children, things like the right to healthcare or equal pay for equal work, may not be considered fair to a millionaire or to a white male with an MBA. Fairness is not about money. Just as we tell our children that they can do anything they put their minds to, so should it be in the larger society. Fairness is not where you went to college, or even if you went to college; and in the United States of America, it should be about more than groveling before some kind of council of elders. It should be about freedom: the freedom of thought, the freedom of access, and most of all, the freedom of speech.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0