This 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.

Return of Kings, Donald Trump, and the Fear of the Heterosexual White Male

Fear 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.

When Humbert Met Lolita: Part 2

People.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.




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.



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.



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."



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.



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.

Christina Aguilera Kissed a Girl and She Liked It

Christina 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.


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.

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.

A Feminist Reading of Just about Everything

Caryl 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.


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?

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).

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

Playing Like Girls

My 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).


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sex and the Twenty-First Century

I don’t like when politics intrudes into my movies.
Because, as Goebbels said, “Whoever can conquer the street will one day conquer the state, for every form of power politics and any dictatorship-run state has its roots in the street.”
Politics + movies = propaganda.
Do they really think we do not know this? But maybe we don’t. What is the modern American paradigm if not opportunistic and manipulative? Is it possible to be consciously manipulated? The producers of “Sex and the City 2” think so. Watching this movie just confused me. I wasn’t sure if I should feel sorrier for Liza Minelli, women in burkas, or all of the American women they convinced to see this film, which they billed as some kind of contemporary look at women’s studies and gender roles.
Usually, propaganda in movies has to be somewhat concealed. This movie felt like a promotional piece put out by the Abu Dhabi tourism board. The characters make references to the “new Middle East” throughout the film, and seem intent on reminding us that they were traveling to “the future.” Then we have Aidan walking through the arches at the hotel reciting the names of the seven countries that make up the United Arab Emirates. Aidan wouldn’t know the seven countries, much less waste precious time with his long, lost love reciting them. And what’s with that plot twist anyway? How desperate were they for material? They make Aidan an international rug dealer, who just happens to be on the same street of the same market as Carrie, at the same time? And then she just happens to be pissed off at her husband and her bad book review, so she kisses Aidan and then runs back to her hotel room to call her husband and tell him. Manufactured drama isn’t drama at all. Drama only works when there’s a grain of truth in it.
Samantha also seemed to be drawn out of character, as if wanting to appeal to the large gay audience the series has developed over the years. She was hornier than ever, and in her menopausal haze, seemed to be too tired to even bother with the intelligent, yet provocative conversation for which she has become a fan favorite. Now, her conversation drifts pointedly to sex from the beginning. She utters lines like, “Are you a big boy?” as she grabs her date’s crotch in the middle of an Arab restaurant. He leaves visibly aroused, however, I fail to see how her cheap, to-the-point talk could have done anything other than make him laugh.
I understand the need for rapprochement with the Middle East, but do the producers of this movie really think they can do it with fashion? Carrie and her girls prance around the desert looking ridiculous. My guess is that the first movie was written shortly after the series ended, therefore keeping the continuity; whereas the sequel has completely lost its way, forgetting who all of these characters really are. Their lives are completely consumed by fashion. (Carrie walking through an Arab bazaar dressed in a tacky Dior getup, carrying a lorgnette? A lorgnette?) And, I’m sorry, but if you put a contemporary writer in the middle of the Middle East, she’s going to have something to write about. Carrie decides to mope about her marriage and a bad book review instead.
The women seem completely oblivious to their surroundings, and that is what makes this film so maddening. They laugh and point out the cute head scarves and the Burka bathingsuits, but they are too consumed with their own frivolity to take into account where they are and what they’re doing there. Even Samantha’s final showdown with the town elders is weak. Look how easily they escaped! Look how American capitalism can charm its way through your city, despite your laws and customs. The premise screams social critique, but the producers of “Sex and the City 2” missed that. They only cared about profits, maximizing profits amidst their newfound patrons. I went to see this movie for the ribald banter; the situations to which every woman can relate. Instead I got gratuitous pandering, which is the worst form of flattery.
So, next time (assuming there will be a next time), let’s see Samantha battling menopause, or facing her fears of getting old; let’s see Carrie questioning her marriage to Big; Miranda grappling with being a working mother; and Charlotte grappling with being a mother, but let’s see it in its natural setting, on the streets of New York, which is where it all began. Let’s tackle real women’s issues, the ones that prey on their self-esteem, and not just their rampant materialism. Better yet, maybe we should consider retiring this series once and for all. There’s nothing worse than an idea whose time has passed.