feminist blogs

I suppose as a blogger who regularly dispenses unsolicited opinions about female issues in film media, the premiere of the Sex and the City movie means I have to do this.

In one of my last semesters of college, I lived in a house with about ten other young women. In our living room, there was a communal DVD set of several seasons of Sex and the City. On any given evening, you could generally find at least one house resident watching them, which usually attracted others. This is how I first encountered the show - in the center of a circle of other young women working out their lives and identities. We loved the characters' friendship, mistakes, and freedom. We aspired to it. And their stories became our own mythology. What woman of our age with even a passing familiarity with SATC hasn't found herself thinking at some occasion in her life: "This is just like what happened to Carrie."

Years later, though, I see this show in a much different light. What I notice now is the rampant materialism, the borderline neurotic navel-gazing, and the way that, for all the characters' independence, they still end up conforming to established cultural norms for women revolving around monogamy, marriage, and motherhood. There is a lot of discussion in the show about women's roles, and each character breaks the mold in her own little ways. But, as the show progressed, and as the movie reviews pour in, it seems apparent that the saga is more talk about redefining women's roles than demonstrated action about it.

There is nothing really wrong with this, as it is. But, due to those little mold-breaking ways, SATC has a reputation as a feminist influence. In terms of feminism, I think it does more damage than it does good. It paints a pretty picture, but does little to challenge the underlying social structure that feminism questions. The sexually-liberated career women are still variously fixated on marriage, maxing out credit cards, and, frankly, themselves. It's similar to the storm that recently broke out in the feminist blogosphere about the dismissal of minority feminists by leading, more privileged, white feminists. Whoever thinks SATC is feminist, needs to seriously expand her understanding of the battles feminism is up against. And it's exactly this insular quality that keeps the show from being anything but a lip-service fantasy.

I don't have a particular objection to Manolos, or to marriage. But I do have an objection to these things touted as the only expected or possible end of women's stories. SATC has fetishized a fantastic lifestyle that moves comfortably within the establishment. It's entertaining. It's worthwhile. But it's not feminist.

And, most importantly to me, it's not the type of women's stories I want to see from Hollywood. There are a lot of women filmmakers out there working way too hard to get serious, female-focused dramas on screen in an environment mostly open to only romantic and/or quirky comedies and period pieces. SATC: The Movie is going to bring women to the theaters in droves. But it's also going to give Hollywood the message that all women audiences are worth is more froth, more fluff, and less feminism. And it will do nothing to gain more respect for female-focused movies from male audiences, which is something women filmmakers absolutely have to do in order to move forward.

I'll probably watch this film, much farther down the road. But I'm already disappointed - and hopeful that the next generation of women gets a better set of stories to use as their own mythological touchstone.

Last week Public Citizen petitioned the FDA to ban Ortho Evra, the birth control patch, stating

the amount of estrogen released from the Ortho-Evra patch varies widely among individual women, and those who absorb too much were at greater risk for blood clots and and other painful side effects.

"The considerable safety concern of high-dose, variable estrogen exposure tips the balance of risks and benefits against the availability of Ortho-Evra as a contraceptive," wrote Sidney Wolfe, head of the research group.

This is just the most recent move in a long history of controversy over the patch. And looking back over the Feministing reader birth control poll, some of you out there are using it. Personally, I used the patch for 6 months when it was first released, to very mixed results.

What do you all think about the possible ban? The FDA is unlikely to do anything, they contend that the risks are well known, and properly disclosed. Is banning Ortho Evra the right move?

One common thread I’ve noticed a lot in posts about Grand Theft Auto, Baby Mama, Madonna, and others recently, is hostility to criticism of something the poster enjoys. Simplifying it, some of the comments come off as “well, I like it, so it can’t be that bad” or “it’s funny, so don’t take it so seriously.” I think it’s natural to want to defend something you enjoy, and reject the idea that it is sexist or damaging. I feel it too. But that doesn’t mean we’re right to defend it to the end. Liking something does not negate its ability to harm. Enjoying something that is anti-woman doesn’t make you a bad person. Or even a bad feminist. But thinking about why you enjoy it, and looking at the negative side could help you be a better one.

A big part of my coming to feminism is, as Melissa aptly describes, is taking the “red pill” and acknowledging the sexism and misogyny around us. That’s one of the things I have always liked about Feministing, the constant coverage of the barrage of anti-woman sentiments across all aspects of life. It’s easy to stop seeing all of the things that put women down because there are so many. A good kick in the ass reminder, while depressing at times, helps fuel action.

That’s not all there is to feminism, but it’s a big step to start, and a long, but valuable process. So often it feels like we’re trying to remove dimensions of things to make them easy to understand and decide. Whether it’s popular culture, or politics, or race, it seems like everything should be boiled down to good or bad, yes or no, us or them. And no one wants to be on the “wrong” side. But life’s rarely that simple. And in order to make the changes we want to see in the world, I think we need to acknowledge that, and embrace it. The bad news is a lot of the issues we address here on Feministing are complicated and messy. And touch on things we don’t think about, or don’t want to think about more deeply. The good news is that’s not going to stop us, and I know we’re all up to the task.

*Title not a reference to my fondness for Friday happy hours that last all night, or watching 3 hours of Twin Peaks at a time.

Via Racialicious, there’s a good interesting article from The Nation, Race to the Bottom, partially a retread of the sexism v. racism issue in the Democractic presidential primary process. Good overview of what's been going on if you're not living and breathing this stuff. But there’s one section of the article that stopped me in my tracks. It’s part of a quote from Frances Kissling,

The implications of all this for the future of feminism depend significantly on the outcome of the primary, says Kissling. "If Clinton wins, the older-line women's movement will continue; it will be a continuation of power for them. If she doesn't win, it will be a death knell for those people. And that may be a good thing--that a younger generation will start to take over."

Er, I’m hoping there was some context that got removed, because damn. What a great way to make a struggle a war. Watch out older feminists. If Clinton doesn’t get the nomination, start packing for Shark Island now. I mean, come on now. Obviously I support young women (or a wider perspective attributed to younger women) playing a more important role in the feminist movement, but that doesn't have to mean older women are kicked out entirely. Sheesh.

Definitely check out Latoya’s take on the whole article over at Racialicious.

After leaving my last (very long) steady job, I was terrified about money. Because there’s no financial buffer but what I save. Even though I only have myself to support, it’s something I think about every day. That’s probably a result of knowing how hard my mom worked when I was growing up to give me everything I needed and some of the things I wanted. Really, I'm obsessive.

This is all only to say that I think about money a lot. So, discovering the blog Feminist Finance a few weeks ago was fantastic for me. The writer covers practical tips to get out of debt, to buying local produce, the importance of mentoring, and a lot more. If you’re part of a couple, she’s also got a lot of interesting content on dealing with joint financial lives.

A recent post notes a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit against a company founded by Michael Bloomberg. Check it out.

Via my fellow Skepchick Amanda last week, I found this fantastic post from Thus Spake Zuska about the way gender stereotypes are exploited in the press and her handy checklist to those wishing to write about her or other female geeks:

• Are you planning on describing me as (A) not what you'd expect, (B) surprisingly pretty, (C) a rarity, or (D) all of the above?
• Will you be emphasizing my Womanly Attributes? (A) Yes, (B) Yes, in detail, or (C) Yes, in detail, with references to giggles and cupcakes.
• Will you also explain how technology has unsexed me? (A) Yes, (B) Yes, while simultaneously infantilizing you, you "geeky super-normal enthusiastic girl"!
• Are you planning to include intimations that I slept my way to the top? (A) Yes, (B) No, just an attribution of your success to Powerful Male Associates. Who you probably slept with.
• Will you end by asking when I'm going to give up all these crazy ideas and go back to full-time Womanhood? (A) Yes, (B) Yes, because you scare the boys.

Warning - there's a particularly nasty troll in the comments, but the other commenters, male and female alike, make short work of him.

The New York Times published an interesting article yesterday about the continuing story of the Bush Administration trying to protect drug companies from lawsuits being brought against them for drugs that were approved by the FDA.

The Bush administration has argued strongly in favor of the doctrine, which holds that the F.D.A. is the only agency with enough expertise to regulate drug makers and that its decisions should not be second-guessed by courts. The Supreme Court is to rule on a case next term that could make pre-emption a legal standard for drug cases. The court already ruled in February that many suits against the makers of medical devices like pacemakers are pre-empted.

But, what happens when the company isn’t being honest? If the FDA doesn’t have the information, or doesn’t do its job investigating the information, where does that leave people?

In the case of Ortho Evra (the birth control patch), that question is very much up in the air. When making the results public, Johnson and Johnson applied a “correction factor” to the results of a test showing the higher levels of estrogen in the patch. An attorney for the company explains:

“The judgment was made by the pharmacokeneticists at the time that in doing the calculation, it was probably appropriate to make that correction,” Bob Tucker, a lawyer representing Johnson & Johnson, said in an interview Thursday. “Later on when people looked at it in a different time frame, they concluded that probably the correction shouldn’t be applied.”

Uh, thanks for clearing that up. The patch was then released and advertised with the incorrect information. And since technically the FDA had access to this information (rather hidden in the report), Johnson and Johnson claims they did what they’re supposed to. Only after women started getting sick and dying, did the FDA start to pay attention. And a subsequent study revealed that Ortho Evra can give twice the risk of blood clots as birth control pills.

But, if the Bush administration and the drug companies get their way, consumers won’t be able to sue in cases like this. That’s just ridiculous. Cases against Johnson and Johnson are pending, waiting to see if they can move forward at all. In the meantime, we're all stuck hoping the greedy drug manufacturers and the overworked FDA don't kill us.

On Friday afternoon, Hillary Clinton made good on her promise to make her tax returns public. And the returns are being scrutinized. Which was the point of releasing them. But, there’s this attitude about the money that the Clintons have earned that I don’t understand. First of all, when was the last time someone running for president wasn’t rich compared to most Americans? That’s how it is.

But there’s something else. Stories claim Clinton

had long delayed disclosing details of her fortune, for fear of driving blue-collar and low-income voters to Barack Obama. The Illinois senator and his wife have earned about 4 percent of the Clintons' income during the past seven years.

Um, really? So, what’s going to happen? People will turn from supporting the really rich candidate to the only kind of rich candidate? That doesn’t make any sense to me.

John Edwards, whose dedication to doing something about poverty in this country is, I think, generally accepted, has also made a lot of money. Tax returns made public in 2004 showed that he and his wife made $39 million between 1994 and 2003. Did that stop him from championing what was important to him?

What do you think? Does it matter to you how much money Clinton makes?

There are some things I could nitpick at in Julia Barry's recent piece from AlterNet, "Feminism 3.0: Women and Media", but instead I'll appreciate it for what I believe it's intended to be: a sincere plea for women and their allies to work together instead of fighting one another. I also appreciate that, unlike other articles one might read about The State of the World Today, Barry ends with a list of positive actions to take and links to read. This might not satisfy a feminist already well-acquainted with the nuanced problems of being a "feminist" in the media industry, but it's a nice introduction for those who are learning about it.

Yahoo just launched a new web portal called Shine, “for women between ages 25 and 54, calling it a key demographic underserved by current Yahoo properties.” Topics of the site include “fashion + beauty, healthy living, entertainment, parenting, love +sex, work + money, food, at home, and astrology.” And the site's signature color is, of course, pink.

Would it be possible, maybe, please, for a website “for women” to not be pink? I mean, honestly, I couldn’t even get past that to see what the content is. It’s not breast cancer pink (light pink), so I think that means it must be Sex and the City pink. Hot pink, some sparkes. Yup.

Sigh.