I don’t get the gay, gay gay Logo channel, but thanks to the power of the Internet, I was able to purchase and download their latest entry into the reality-dating show category: Transamerican Love Story, starring a trans woman and eight bachelors who vie for her heart. Before you slap your forehead, know that the setup is nothing like There’s Something About Miriam, a similar show where the entire “haw haw” gag was that the bachelors didn’t know the star was trans. The entire cast knows that Calpernia Addams is a transsexual, and they’re all up-front in the first episode about their own dating histories too. Interestingly, the cast is quite a mixed bag of sexual preferences and identities and experiences (or lack thereof) with trans women. Less interestingly, the guys are mostly a bunch of boring schlubs… but that sort of fits with the “frog prince meets princess” theme they keep subtly inserting.
(Some light spoilers coming up.) The most interesting thing about Transamerican Love Story is exactly how ordinary they’ve managed to succeed in making it. There are definitely more queers & trans people around than usual, and host Alec Mapa alone seems to be deliberately raising the gayness quotient of every episode by 300% percent. But as Addams said in an interview with ABC News, “When they actually see the show, they’re going to be surprised. They’re going to see a girl next door from the south living in L.A. and trying to date.” And that’s pretty much what the show is, more or less the same as “the Bachelorette,” but with a little bit of dealing with trans issues here and there–always getting an important mention, but never allowed to interfere too much. Heck, they threw the creepy “I only date pre-ops” car salesman, who used to have his own (failed) trans-porn site, off the show in the first episode. (And just when I was looking forward to being appalled by his fetishizing “best of both worlds” statements in a future episode…)
The “ordinary straight girl next door” at the center of all this is Calpernia Addams — who, it must be said, is far from your average “plucked off the casting couch” reality-show star. Although she’s certainly not a household name, she’s probably one of the most famous trans people in this country — first entering the spotlight in a brutally real tragedy, as the girlfriend of Private First Class Barry Winchell. Winchell was murdered by a fellow soldier in a fight originally sparked by the fact that he was dating Addams — a story later used for the film Soldier’s Girl. But wait, there’s more! Addams also wrote a book about her experiences, helped organize and performed in the landmark trans-inclusive Vagina Monologues in Los Angeles a few years back, and does activism and consulting related to media portrayals of trans people. And now she’s starring in a reality dating show.
I probably sound a little like a gushing fan. But what really won me over to liking Calpernia Addams was not her creative work or media activism. It wasn’t even the fact that she apparently named herself after Wednesday Addams’ great aunt, who was sentenced to dance naked in public for witchcraft–although that’s kind of awesome in its own right. No, it’s actually the fact that she cracks my shit up with stuff like this:
Moving this up to the top because the book comes out today and it’s fabulous. Go get it. Really, go now! You can read an excerpt here. And more on the book from AJ himself here. Order it on Amazon by clicking the image below. -ed
I don’t do book reviews as often as I’d like, mostly because I don’t get around to reading non-law books as often as I’d like. But it’s something we’re going to start doing more often at Feministe. We’re also working on developing some sort of books section of the site to post reviews and thoughts; in the meantime, if you scroll down a bit, there’s a red Amazon box on the middle column of the site that has some of our book recommendations. We selected them ourselves, so it’s not an Amazon-bot or anything, and they do all come highly recommended. Please check them out.
I did get around to reading the book Still Broken: A Recruit’s Inside Account of Intelligence Failures, from Baghdad to the Pentagonby AmericaBlogger AJ Rossmiller. Quick full disclosure: AJ is a friend in real life, and he gave me a copy of the book. That said, he made it very clear that there were no strings attached, and no obligation to review it or even read it. I did read it, but had decided beforehand that if I didn’t like it, I simply wouldn’t write about it. I ended up really liking it, though, so here we are. He also tried to buy an ad on the site; because I’m reviewing the book, I rejected payment on that ad, which should be going up tomorrow (in other words, no one here made any money off of it). So, while AJ is a friend and while there will be an ad for the book on this site, this review is neither a favor nor an obligation nor something I have any financial interest in doing. Ok? Ok.
Still Broken is described as “a riveting and sobering portrait of Bush-era intelligence failures and manipulations, laid out by someone who witnessed them up close and personal.” While “riveting and sobering” certainly apply, I would suggest that it’s more along the lines of “infuriating,” “mind-boggling” and “thoroughly depressing” — and simultaneously wry, engaging and easily readable.
AJ graduated from Middlebury College having studied political science with a focus on the Middle East, always with the goal of working in intelligence. The events of September 11, 2001 were, for him, a call to action, and after graduating college he decided to go to work for the Department of Defense, despite his general opposition to the Bush administration and the war in Iraq. AJ and I aren’t exactly politically in line — at least from the book, he comes across as far more moderate than I am* (I don’t know whether that’s accurate in “real life” or not, as our written presentations of our ideas are rarely comprehensive) — but he is is exactly the kind of person that I would want in the Pentagon and on the ground in Iraq. He’s smart, well-versed in Middle East politics, patriotic, passionate, honest, brave, hard-working and endearingly idealistic. He is also more interested in doing his job well, gathering accurate intelligence and protecting U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians than he is in pushing a particular agenda or ideology. While he makes it clear that those characteristics are extremely common amongst his co-workers and military personnel, the chain of command in the Defense Intelligence Agency manages to pervert and compromise good intel work on every level — often with disastrous results. (more…)
About a month ago, I wrote a post about Guitar Hero III. The main gist was that as a big-time previous fan of the series, I was thoroughly unimpressed with the the changes that have been made to the game, which are quite misogynist, exploitative of women and completely insensitive to the fact that the game has a female audience. To my great surprise, the post became a big hit (and troll target) and was linked to in all kinds of forums and blogs that would normally never give me a second glance. This was also to my slight dismay, because I didn’t spend much time on that post, and frankly, I don’t think that it’s very good. Anyway, lesson learned.
The point is that I now feel compelled if not required to say a few words about Rock Band.
I saw it yesterday. And it is good. You should see it too. Thoughts (including spoilers) below the fold.
I have mixed feelings about Michael Moore, but this film is excellent — his cleanest and best yet. It’s obviously liberal, but not blatantly partisan. And while he does the standard Michale Moore outlandishness, it isn’t over the top, and it drives his point home.
The strongest part of the film, I thought, was the emphasis on the profit-maximization scheme of insurance companies, and how they exist primarily to make money on screwing people who are insured. Of course, I’m a little biased, since I went to pick up my birth control the other day and it was $50 because I’ve apparently maxed out my pharmaceutical benefits for the year. I also have a bill for hundreds of dollars worth of physical therapy, which I was told my insurance would cover but — surprise! — it’s refusing to pay.
But that’s nothing compared to the people who have died of cancer, or the kids who died in the ER, because they weren’t approved for treatment.
The section about the history of our current system — and the Nixon clip in particular — was pretty powerful. The fact that our health care system was hatched explicitly to provide as little care as possible while driving up insurance company profits is disgusting; the fact that politicians and insurance companies flagrantly sacrifice all of our health, and that they do know how much harm they cause, is unconscionable. Moore did an excellent job of emphasizing that point.
He also properly eviscerated politicians for taking down universal health care plans, for being bought off by insurance companies, and for labeling any call for national health care “socialism.” Some of the footage — like the George W. Bush “three jobs is uniquely American” line in the trailer — is priceless. Some of the footage — like the Nixon stuff mentioned above — is terrifying.
I hope that this film will be a wake-up call, but I doubt it. Modern American cultural mythology is deeply wrapped up in both superiority and individualism — American children are raised with the idea that America is great precisely because America is #1. There’s an assumption that our doctors are the best in the world, that bright young medical students move here to learn, that when you have a serious medical issue you’re fighting to come to the U.S. for treatment because nowhere else compares. There’s an idea that it would be horrific to be injured in a foreign country — even in a developed one like Italy or France — because you just wouldn’t get the same standard of care that you’d get here. It turns out that none of this is actually true, but the film so thoroughly challenges our deeply-held assumptions that I wonder how receptive American audiences will be to it, and to the fact that we’re ranked very, very low in terms of health care compared to the rest of the developed world. American cultural pride is very much tied to our superiority; questioning that can not only feel like anti-Americanism (which Moore does address), but is so far outside of what we’re used to hearing that I worry too many audience members will simply refuse to believe it. I’m a decently-traveled coastal liberal, and I had a hard time swallowing some of it.
I also found myself having the occasional knee-jerk individualist reaction to the idea of universal health care. That individualism is also so deeply ingrained in Americans — the idea that I can do it on my own, that personal freedom and independence trumps all — that a system wherein we all contribute in order to help each other is a hard sell. That’s sad and it’s certainly selfish, but hey, libertarianism ain’t thriving for nothing, and last I checked Ayn Rand’s books are still selling decently well. Moore makes the point that plenty of services are already nationalized — the fire department, police, education, libraries — and most of us like that system. But I think that progressives really have to emphasize that point — that universal health care (or “socialized medicine,” as conservatives like to call it) isn’t a new concept, and it builds on a system that we already use in the U.S. for all kinds of things. It’s not a challenge to our highly individualist, I-can-do-it-myself mentality any more than libraries or police forces are.
Moore addressed many of the sticky points (why should I have to pay for someone else’s care? how is this system sustainable? what about the taxes?), but a bit superficially — the nuts and bolts of how universal health care is actually funded wasn’t detailed. We were just told that, look, doctors in England make good money and engineers in Paris have enough income after taxes to live in a nice apartment and take lovely vacations. That’s all fine and good, but the reality is that universal health care will cost us. There’s a decent economic argument to be made that we pay more under the current system than we would under a nationalized system, but Moore didn’t make that argument; he just emphasized that people in countries with national health care are doing just fine.
He also glossed over the issues that people living in places like Canada, England and France have with their nationalized systems. In an interview on (I think) Nightline, the reporter asks Moore about the discontents of citizens in these health care “paradises,” and Moore responds that of course people are dissatisfied with some aspects of their systems, that none of these countries is a “health care paradise,” and that national health care is not a cure-all — but that if you asked most of those people, they still wouldn’t trade in their national health care card for an American Blue Shield card. I thought that was an excellent point, and would have liked to have seen it in the film.
That said, Moore’s films serve an important purpose — they deliver a clear, accessible and valuable message to people all over the country, which is something that liberals generally suck at. Conservatism, by its nature, bows to authority, embraces hierarchy, and encourages its followers to fall in line. Liberalism challenges authority, second-guesses itself and doesn’t do the hierarchy thing quite so well, which makes it a lot more difficult to present a united, simple message. I don’t want to see American liberalism turn into a mindless game of follow-the-leader the way that conservatism has, but I do think there’s value in presenting liberal ideas with confidence and consistency, and without over-analyzing and qualifying everything (or “flip-flopping,” as some would call it). Moore does that impeccably. I have no doubt that fellow liberals — myself included — will pick at the edges of Sicko, and will challenge it. That’s good. But its simple, on-point message and its accessible format is a major boon for progressives.
And with that, I’ll say that the part I absolutely hated in the film was the Guantanamo section. For those who haven’t seen it, Moore takes three 9/11 rescue workers aboard a boat from Florida and attempts to sail it to Guantanamo, because detainees there have better health care then many of us do. He leads into the Guantanamo trip with clips from Republicans talking about how Guantanamo houses the most evil of the evil-doers, the highest-up al Qaeda leaders, and the most dangerous terrorists in the world; he follows those with clips from military leaders discussing the high level of care afforded to the detainees. His point is that terrorists get great health care, but 9/11 heroes don’t. Can you see the problem yet?
Obviously he makes a good point that it’s disgusting that people in the U.S. are denied health care. The point is illustrated more starkly when the people being denied are among the most (supposedly) revered by our government and our population in general. Unfortunately, though, the comparison to Guantanamo detainees seems to push the message that the detainees aren’t as entitled to basic health care, and Moore doesn’t question the premise that they are all actually terrorists. Now, diving into the Guantanamo argument would have derailed the film, so I can see why he avoided it, but using the treatment of detainees as a measuring stick struck me as incredibly problematic (the same way I found his portrayal of pre-invasion Iraq in Fahrenheit 9/11 to be incredibly problematic). We’ve taken these people as prisoners of war, detained them indefinitely, given them no access to public trial or representation, and are operating this military base outside of the reach of U.S. and international law. Yes, we do need to be giving the detainees basic health care. We also need to give U.S. prisoners basic health care. We also need to give U.S. citizens in general basic health care.
So that’s my one major quibble. Overall, though, I thought the film was excellent. I also thought it was very, very funny, and that the humor was more intelligent than in his other films. Anyone else seen it? Thoughts?
For those interested in reproductive freedom, I can’t recommend Helena Silverstein’s new book Girls on the Stand strongly enough. I’ve written about Silverstein’s work before, and it’s very important. While many pro-choicers are able to talk eloquently about the importance of reproductive freedom, and its importance to women’s equality, there is much less discussion of how abortion regulation actually works. This is particularly important when it comes to regulations, like parental notification and consent statutes, that are carefully constructed by the forced pregnancy lobby to appeal to otherwise pro-choice voters.
I will have a longer essay on the book soon at my other home at The American Prospect online. But to give you a flavor of Silverstein’s work, let me quote from her 2004 article “Religious Establishment in Hearings to Waive Parental Consent for Abortion,” which details the extent to which judges force young women — contrary to several provisions of the Constitution — undergo religious counseling before obtaining a judicial bypass:
Other judges argue that to be well-informed a minor must receive counseling not only from those who work at abortion clinics, but also from those who oppose abortion. Interviews with those involved in the waiver process reveal that at least four judges in three Alabama counties condition waiver grants on the receipt of pro-life counseling from a crisis pregnancy center called Sav-A-Life. In these counties, Sav-A-Life counseling has become a routine component of the judicial waiver process. As a judge in one of these counties explained, to determine whether a minor satisfies the criteria for obtaining a waiver of consent, there are several factors involved, there are agencies that need to be involved to counsel with and talk with this person. They used to be called Sav-A-Life, maybe it’s the same now. She has to talk to them about what her options are. There is a hearing that has to be conducted; the burden is on her to prove that she has considered medical, emotional, psychological issues …
A second judge explained that he, along with one of his fellow judges, “will want [the minors] to have been to Sav-A-Life, to see what there is to help them make the right decision.” Asked whether proof of a minor being well-informed depends on such a visit, this judge replied, “I would say yes, but normally rather than simply deny, when that’s happened in the past I’ve said go to Sav-A-Life, and the girl did go to Sav-A-Life, and I granted the waiver. But they know we’re going to ask that so they’ve been to Sav-A-Life before the hearing.”
And what is this Save-A-Life organization? You can probably guess:
The largest crisis pregnancy organization in Alabama, Sav-A-Life, Inc., was established in 1980. Providing “positive alternatives to young women facing unplanned pregnancies,” this non-profit organization offers free pregnancy tests and guidance on how to pursue alternatives to abortion. 145 Like other crisis pregnancy centers (”CPCs”), branch offices of Sav-A-Life frequently offer assistance with such things as maternity clothing, baby clothing, toys, diapers, formula, and other child-rearing accessories.
Sav-A-Life’s mission is unambiguously religious. A self-described “non-denominational, Christ-centered ministry,” Sav-A-Life’s mission, according to the most recent version of the organization’s Web site, “is to establish and equip Pregnancy Centers in order that communities will be reached for Christ and that abortion will be made unnecessary and undesirable in their region.” Sav-A-Life aims to accomplish this through “a commitment to evangelism and Biblical Truth.”
What’s scary is that judges abusing their power to force minors to undergo ideological and religious counseling is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the grossly arbitrary implementation of abortion regulations, and the effects on young women are frequently awful. Silverstein demonstrates this through both case studies and systematic data, and the conclusions are chilling. People interested in women’s rights should definitely read it — the more people who know how these laws actually work the better.
A commenter over at Dawn Eden’s place leaves this remark in her post about how I’ve got chastity advocates all wrong. The commenter quotes a previous comment, then responds:
Tony: ” Virginity is also the greatest gift a man can give his wife. ”
By the way, I have difficulty with statements like this. I think that the loss of virginity is tragic, and it should be retained as an extremely important and *great* gift to the spouse. However, there may be greater gifts. Like… for example… a child, maybe?
Disturbing, in my opinion, that these things are thought of as “gifts” from one spouse to the other (and note who’s doing the giving here). I hope to God that if I ever have a child, I don’t give birth and then hand the baby over to my husband, saying, “For you!”
They explain themselves so much better than I ever can.
Ladies across the country (and Brazil!) are bringing some heat to their guitars, drums, microphones and the like at Rock n’ roll camp. I was able to see S-K perform a benefit show during the second year of the Portland camp, and though they won’t be making a repeat appearance (single tear), lots of other talented women are helping to make the rock happen. Join up!
Or you could just go to this and support the Portland camp by rocking out in the crowd.
Anyway, it’s HOT outside, so why don’t you spend some more time online? For some additional reading, check out Girlistic for some grassroots feminism. Jaymi and April created the site and will have an accompanying magazine later this year. Yay for more feminists getting their voices out there and helping others do the same.
I didn’t forget about reviews for Peaches and Strangers with Candy…they’ll be here soon. In fact, I missed my chance to see Peaches strip down to her pink skivvies this weekend, but did see the 80s giant The Go-Go's.
The ladies have been doing this and that and are touring. See tour dates here. Also, the women have inspired some guys to make a cover band called “We Got the Meat.” Who says only guy bands get the cover treatment?
Speaking of dudes who don’t suck, I heart Dan Savage of Savage Love.
This guy has a way of answering the bonkiest sex questions that is humorous yet factual and helpful. He rocks even more for his un-ironic support of Planned Parenthood, as recently witnessed in last week's column. He’s so right about putting some elbow grease behind your skrill for the PP. I loves it and you should too!
Chang does much to dispel the "model minority" myth simply by exposing the inner workings, pressure and sorrows of first-generation Chinese Americans.
After reading this book, are you inspired to add to the AA fiction cannon? Then you should enter your latest short story in Hyphen magazine's contest, which you can read up on here.
Maybe you’re not a budding novelist or are too lazybones (or busypants) to knock out a short story. That’s cool. You should check out Hyphen magazine anyway, because it’s a smart, sassy mag full of AA pop culture that has a lot of women’s voices in the mix. Ya know, like it is in real life. Check out their site, with EIC Melissa blogging like you want her to.
K, that’s it for now. Coming up for the future:
PROJECT RUNWAY!!!
Begins July 12. This may be the only reality show that requires its contestants have actual talent. Who will be the next Chloe Dao (or Daniel V, my swoonable fave who has a BLOG)? Same setup, but Heidi's carrying a different kiddo.
So, newstyle reviews. Lemme know what you think, yeah?
In this edition, things I slept on and don't want you to miss:
HEAR The Dresden Dolls
Yes Virginia
Roadrunner Records (2006)
--Provocative without being pushy, this Boston duo's latest album is full of clever, personal songs about sex and drugs, among other things. The Dolls will be doing some summer shows and have a book of sheet music coming out next month, while Amanda hosts a vaudeville and short film tour that will hit Brooklyn tomorrow and continue its U.S. trek through July. Check it here.
READ Bitch Magazine
Style and Substance Issue
Summer 2006
--Fashion and feminism are given center stage here. I'm especially in like with the articles on women's magazines and Dolly Parton and Madonna. SFers can go to El Rio to catch some flicks with the Bitch team tomorrow nite, and the mag's anthology is coming out in August. We are so proud of you, Bitch!
AND MORE!
Now, a moment of silence for the breakup of Sleater-Kinney. "Indefinite hiatus"=indefinite sadness for this one and some of bestest people I know. Listen to "Dig Me Out" and shed a few tears for "One More Hour." Hope you can catch them on one of their final (boo!) shows this summer.
It’s ain’t easy being television’s most eligible transsexual bachelorette…
from Holly @ Feministe 01 Mar 2008 2:39 pm
by 
