Syndicate and Hague

I’m not entirely sure how to start this, so I will start by saying I’m going to obscure some specifics in this to protect someone I care about while still trying to communicate the larger implications/issues in the decision that was handed down.

Megan and I were asked to participate in an interview with a media outlet with a fairly large distribution. The interview was - in general - about relationship decisions and dynamics and whether the choices we made in ours caused us to fight less or made our relationship different from others.

I was surprised, and a little impressed, that they would be willing to interview a married couple about something that had nothing to do with our status as a “same-sex” couple. Of course, it was my friend who was hunting down people for the story, and we came to mind because Megan and I make a big effort to look at the major stumbling blocks of relationships - chores, responsibilities, money - and make explicit, managed decisions about things so that we don’t wind up passive-aggressively damaging the relationship due to resentment/grudges.

Also, we really like being happy.

Anyway, tonight the word came down that we couldn’t be interviewed because they didn’t think that it was “surprising that a same-sex married couple would *insert doing the thing we do here*” and needed a straight married couple for it.

My initial surprise at the wonderful banality of us doing a story that had nothing to do with our genders was misguided. It wasn’t the institution of media that didn’t care, it was our friend who analytically looked at the topic and decided we would be a great couple to speak to it.

And here is where the diatribe comes in:

In this instance, they didn’t want a same sex couple because then they couldn’t play traditional gender roles against the “change” that they perceive is going on. Essentially, the decisions themselves weren’t the story, but the perceived decrease of male authority in the household was the story.

Media is one way we interpret our existence. We consume it, we are influenced by it, and I think we often forget how contrived things are. People in general don’t spend a ton of time thinking about audience and how carefully interview subjects are selected to influence a certain desired perception in the audience. Yes, liberals deconstruct FOX News, but venerated news outlets spin constantly as well.

This is why it drives me crazy when straight people say things like “Well, we don’t have a ’straight’ pride parade, I don’t understand why you have to do that sort of thing.” Heterosexuality is inscribed and reinforced as dominant, and homosexuality is so threatening that - unless a story is specifically constructed around it - it cannot exist. It cannot be banal, it must always be controversial. Decisions are made on a daily basis about what can be spoken to and what cannot be, and without us running around waving flags and making our presence known, we would be swept under the carpet forever.

The media outlet’s decision on this was one part homophobia, one part sexism, and one part reinforcement of the aberration of female equality or power in a heterosexual relationship.

That last one is what really kills me about this. Let’s give the management the benefit of the doubt on the homophobia and say that wasn’t a factor (::ha::). The point of explicitly wanting to frame the discussion around a straight couple making decisions that, for some reason, you wouldn’t expect them to make should force the question: why is this an issue? Usually, it’s about some traditional female role that is being upended:

• she’s making more money now, how does the guy feel?
• the guy decided to stay home with the kids, is he being mocked?
• she has a more advanced degree, does that make him feel inferior?

I’m sure you could add to the list, because you read/watch/hear these stories all the time. And they reinforce to us as a society that we should feel surprised by these showings of female authority/power. That we should be concerned by the lowered status of men in these relationships. It inscribes a very specific kind of spin and serves as a form of societal push-back onto a select group of people who either represent a changing society or people fear are representing a changing society.

It’s messed up.

Anyway. I wish I could actually talk about what we were going to talk about, because it’s interesting, but I wanted to be able to be critical without jeopardizing anyone’s job. It’s crappy times out there, you know?

This isn’t really a movie review.

I sometimes wonder why sooo many crappy awful movies for dudes get made. And then I came across statistics - via Traction - that in 2008:

• Women comprised only 16% of all directors, executive producers, writers, cinematographers, and editors working on the top 250 domestic grossing films (a decline of 3% since 2001 and of 1% since 2007).
• Only 9% of directors were women - no change since 1998
• 22% of the films released in 2008 employed no women directors, executive producers, producers, writers, cinematographers, or editors. No films failed to employ a man in at least one of these roles.
• 90% of the films had no female directors.
• 43% of the films had no female producers.
• 79% of the films had no female editors.
• 96% of the films had no female cinematographers.

If you take a moment to think about what that means - that the vision behind the movies, how things are interpreted, how things are portrayed, how our attention is directed, how a story is cut, how a story is told, who the protagonist is, who we should care about, who we should forgive, all of it is predominantly controlled by the male perspective - it’s a bit overwhelming.

It seems beneficial to remind ourselves that as self-congratulatory as we can be about women’s progress, we started at such a position of disadvantage that we’re still not even close.  Actually, there was an article in Jezebel back in August that got this topic stewing around in my head.

In an article about an NY Times scan of the big studio schedules by Michael Cieply, they highlight one of his paragraphs trying to explain the disproportionate dominance of male directors.

In one respect, homogeneity among its film directors might actually help Hollywood in a business sense. Studio films, year in and year out, continue to pull in crowds worldwide at least in part because they look, sound and feel like what has gone before.

What can you say to that? I’ve been under the impression that Hollywood has actually not been pulling in the box office numbers they need to in order to sustain their business model, but whatever. It also completely ignores how movies influence our culture at large, and how alienating it is for people to rarely see accurate representations of their lives in film. That was one theme that came up in The Celluloid Closet in regard to queer representation in film - that there were almost no representations of real queer lives in film (this was in 1995ish).

So when we went to Whip It last night, I was thinking about all of this and paying attention to how the movie showed women’s bodies, lives, sexualities, and humor in a female-directed, female-written film. I’m not saying that the movie was some groundbreaking work of feminism - it was a fluffy, feel-good, entertaining movie - but the representation of these different aspects that I noted were actually significantly different from other mainstream films I’ve seen recently.

• The skating scenes, of which there were many, were striking in that they focused on the competition, athleticism, brutality, and sexiness of roller derby - as opposed to focusing just on the sexiness and turning the female characters into playboy versions of roller derby girls
• It is really nice to see the quirky, female character as protagonist - the character that gets to develop and discover aspects of herself and become a more complete person - rather than as the girlfriend of and foil for male protagonist development
• Speaking of that, it’s also nice that though the romantic relationship had an impact on the main character, it wasn’t the core of the female protagonist’s transformation. I hate how hugely rare that is, but it’s refreshing to see
• I just really liked the range of female characters, the ways the different ages of the female characters contributed to friendships and relationships and their interactions with each other

What I want: more movies with female protagonists, written/directed by women. Let’s just balance things out.

Yeah, this was a little late. I spent all my blogging time finishing a freelance project so you were cheated out of your first issues post so I could make money. Disgusting. It’ll never happen again. (What will happen is that my three graduate classes will become an excuse. Sad.)

One of my pet issues has become equal pay for equal work. I had one of my “I’m not gonna take it anymore” moments last winter, and have been paying a lot of attention to the issue since then (and promoting it to my female peers).

I’m going to insert a caveat here before I start - I’m talking about gender-based equal pay for equal work because McCain and Obama have clear stances on the issue. Unfortunately, the racial disparities in pay aren’t being addressed explicitly by either candidate so I can’t position them on what they plan to do (if anything) about that gap.

As I have a certain insight into my own industry, I’ll address the argument that is raised by people who want to downplay the significant disparity in male vs. female pay (we women are making 77 cents to the male dollar). People who dismiss this will say “but women leave the workforce to raise children” or “but you’re comparing all jobs and there are more women in lower paying jobs” and I want to make it clear - even controlling for those two things, women still make less.

Take a look at the comments on this feministing article about pay in technology. Don’t even pay attention to the actual story, just read some of the comments. I’ll pull in a couple for you:

I have a friend who like me helps build software who quit her job recently because she found out the man sitting next to her, doing the same thing she was and who had the same seniority, was making $30,000 more.

Both myself and my partner are scientists in the biotech industry, and we are essentially the same level– a Bachelor’s Degree. He’s worked for 1 year longer than I, however, he has consistently made 5-8k more a year than I. He has also always had it “easier,” meaning his bosses have never micro-managed him or made him work extra hours to the extent that my bosses (all male) have. It’s very frustrating to come home at the end of the day and share our experiences… he takes long lunch breaks, never works more than 8 hours, has 1 more week than paid vacation and makes 8k more a year than I. He even had a bonus and a raise at the end of the year (me- nothing). And as I type this, my boss is having me stay late tonight, is irritating as hell and I make so much less, no bonuses, perks, etc. What’s more, I graduated in less than 4 years with a near perfect GPA and a more difficult degree, where he took 6 years, had a horrible average and no undergrad research experience like I did (and yes, we went to the same school).

I worked in IT for academia for nearly 13 years where salaries are a matter of public record (because they are paid by taxpayers). Despite this openness, I found that I have consistently made less than equally qualified men, on the order of $5-10K.

i work at a dotcom and i’ve had the exact same (literally, down to the #) experience as JessicaNOW’s friend. I found out that the guy sitting across from me (who has less experience and skill than i do) was making 30% more. when i found out, i did a salary survey in my area for my job and sent it to the head of HR. in response, they did an investigation and gave me and my female co-worker, who also has the same title but has been here 8 years (i’ve been here 3 and the man’s been here 6 months), a 8% raise. she and i have identical salaries, so he’s still making 20% more than either of us. i also talked to both my supervisor and her supervisor about the salary difference and they both told me there was nothing they could do about it. there’s a general undercurrent of misogyny here - every woman who has risen to any kind of power or who doesn’t tow the line has been marginalized or ground down until she leaves.

If you have access to pay records at your institution, I highly recommend taking a look at them.

Anyway, this can bring us to Obama and McCain. And Lilly Ledbetter.

You deserve some background on this case. I wrote about Ledbetter earlier this year. But, in summary, the Supreme Court ruled because Ledbetter did not file a complaint within 180 days of her first paycheck she couldn’t sue her employer even though she was making almost half of her male equals.

180 days of the first paycheck with a disparity. SIX MONTHS. You would have to figure out the disparity and sue your employer within SIX MONTHS. Any idea how that court case would go? You would be an opportunist. You would most likely lose.

Obama’s stance on issues of equal pay are aligned with women’s priorities. We want equal pay for equal work. Nothing more and nothing less.

Obama was an original co-sponsor of Congress’s attempt to pass legislation that would reverse the result of the Ledbetter case. (NPR) and has outlined his priorities for women’s pay on his campaign website.

Fighting for Pay Equity:
Despite decades of progress, women still make only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. A recent study estimates it will take another 47 years for women to close the wage gap with men at Fortune 500 corporate offices. Barack Obama believes the government needs to take steps to better enforce the Equal Pay Act, fight job discrimination, and improve child care options and family medical leave to give women equal footing in the workplace.

Expanding Paid Medical Leave: Today, three-out-of-four low-wage workers have no paid sick leave. It is fundamentally unfair that a single mom playing by the rules can get fired or lose wages because her child gets sick. Barack Obama supports efforts to guarantee workers seven days of paid sick leave per year, a moderate proposal that should not impose too onerous a burden on employers.

McCain’s stance on equal pay is to not allow legal recourse, but essentially to trust business to do the right thing.

“I am all in favor of pay equity for women, but this kind of legislation, as is typical of what’s being proposed by my friends on the other side of the aisle, opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems,” McCain told reporters yesterday. “This is government playing a much, much greater role in the business of a private enterprise system.”

Without legal recourse, there is no way for equal pay to be enforced or even exposed. Without legal recourse, businesses can continue to get the “gender discount” when they hire women. Without legal recourse, we will never close the gender gap in pay because without legal recourse, businesses will not change their practices because they are not held accountable for their practices.

You can read more about Obama’s stances on all kinds of women’s issues at his website.

I would direct you to the part of John McCain’s website that had information about his stances on women’s issues if he had one. I guess the only thing remotely related is the section titled “the sanctity of life” and includes titles like: “Overturning Roe v. Wade,” “Protecting Marriage,” “Protecting Children from Internet Pornography,” and “Protecting Children from Online Predators.” So have fun with that.

There are plenty of reasons that women shouldn’t get behind Sarah Palin just because she’s got two X chromosomes, including her adamantly anti-choice stance on women’s rights to make decisions for themselves. Personally, I think that Palin was chosen cynically - to potentially appeal to the radical right Christian conservatives and to disenchanted (sigh, so sick of that meme) Hillary supporters.

All that said, I’m already seeing the sexism that encountered Clinton rearing its ugly, ugly head in discussions of Palin. It’s disgusting and unnecessary and none of us should stand for it. Just as we shouldn’t stand for the misogynistic attacks on Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton or any other woman.

That’s it, that’s all I’m saying on this. Have fun this extended weekend and join me at the Liberty Parade if you’re in Minneapolis!

File under: seething, smoke coming out from my ears.

I am so fucking sick of the sexist bile that is spewing forth from people criticizing Clinton in this race. My particular issue is about this (Via Feministing):

This is bad enough in and of itself. Lending credence to gross sexual harassment (calling Clinton “frigid” in high school–and may I point out that we’re a long way away from that era) by bringing it up during a campaign for PRESIDENT?!?!?! This is why Katie Couric annoys the crap out of me.

But it’s worse, of course, because then people grab onto this as if the douchebag assessment of Clinton as “frigid” can translate to some personality flaw–a humorlessness. Because, you know, bitch can’t take a joke. She should have been nicer when I told her she had a nice ass. Frigid whore. (Ah, if only I could say I’ve never heard that construction. Inherently doesn’t make sense. But it doesn’t matter.)

Then HuffPo has some jackass blogging this idiocy:

By asking Hillary on 60 Minutes about being known as Miss Frigidaire in high school, Couric brought out more of the real Hillary:

COURIC: Someone told me your nickname in school was Miss Frigidaire. Is that true?”

CLINTON: Only with some boys,” Clinton said, laughing.

COURIC: I don’t know if I want to hear the back story on that!

CLINTON: Well, you wouldn’t want to know the boys either.

(Apparently, the real story, as reported by Carl Bernstein, is that Hillary’s high school yearbook predicted she would become a nun, and would be known as Sister Frigidaire.)

I am guessing the “some boys” that Clinton thinks Couric would not want to know were normal intelligent people who had a sense of humor and had spotted someone who did not. I don’t remember too many low-lifes working for our high school yearbook.

Awesome. You. Are. Awesome.

I don’t think this needs to be deconstructed or elaborated upon. It just deserves a two word response:

Fuck you.

So back in the yesteryear of the 1990s, Elizabeth Dole ran for the Republican nomination for the 2000 presidential election. I remember, at the time, having the discussion: would we (my friends and I) vote for her because it would mean having the first female president?

I said no. Not everyone agreed with me. But I’m still of the opinion that sacrificing my actual beliefs for the chance to see a woman–any woman–in office is a bad idea. It would be great. It would be super great! It would be empowering and it would show what was possible and it would also allow the media to show us its ugly misogyny day in and out as it obsessed over the Lady President’s clothes and how emasculating it must be to be a First Husband.

Oh it would be grand to catch up with the other parts of the world that have already had female leaders. Like, um, India or Pakistan or the UK or Israel or Germany…etc? Sigh.

Anyway, here’s where my issue comes in. The president has to make decisions. So if I’m going to throw my weight behind someone, it has to be someone who will make decisions that represent my values. The New Democrats didn’t and do not represent me.

However, I’m with Rachel Maddow on this: not a Clinton supporter, but WTF media? On what planet is it acceptable for Chris Matthews to pinch a presidential candidate’s cheek? (Really, he shouldn’t be pinching anyone’s cheeks, but let’s stick with how people with power are treated depending on their gender.)

It’s an ongoing problem for women with power. Back on my previous blog, I highlighted Bush’s inappropriate touching of German Chancellor Andrea Merkel (below).

Then there was the creepy way Senator Harry Reid placed his hand on Representative Nancy Pelosi’s shoulder during a press conference to interrupt her and left it there. The Daily Show did a great job covering that one:

Anyway, the below clip is a discussion of the media attacks on Clinton, Maddow’s desire to defend her despite not supporting her, and the strangely surreal world in which Pat Buchanan and I agree on anything at all.

I have always taken particular delight in people calling me names. Even guilt by association delights me — the “Warrior of Satan” brand that was thrust upon Angie for being pro-choice; the uncountable number of times I’ve been called a bitch, dyke, feminazi or what have you for being feminist; the plentiful times I’ve been called a socialist for believing we have an obligation to those around us; even the times the letters/op-ed pieces/blogs have caused my name and location to appear (negatively) on pro-gun websites or garnered me hate mail at my home.

Bring it. Those kinds of responses mean that you can’t engage on the issues, that you have nothing to bring to the table. Intellectual laziness.

I’ve been thinking about my ideological journey — and what it means to be an educated, opinionated woman–this week, in part because of the way NOW and Gloria Steinem have essentially accused young women of not being feminists for not supporting Clinton’s candidacy.

Hillary Clinton will get my vote in a race against a Republican, but she will never get it in a Democratic primary. She is too hawkish, too economically conservative to represent my brand of Democrat regardless of her gender.

However, she and her supporters are entirely correct when they say that she is treated unfairly due to her gender. From the outfit critiques (so many pantsuits! - side note on that: I think my mother is right in saying that if HC wore skirts, the media would insult her legs) to super close-ups of her wrinkles on Drudge to her “cackle” to the media’s repeated use of her first name while using her competitors’ last names to calling her Mrs. instead of Senator.

Even worse is how a woman isn’t allowed to be a tough leader. That this was part of some 20 year, conspiratorial Clinton plan.

The truth is that female leaders can’t have it either way. If you’re not as tough as the boys, you’re a weak woman (Patti Wetterling, Ann Wynia), and if you are, you’re a cold, calculating bitch with a shrill voice. Don’t believe me? Google any female politician with discernible opinions (any political party) with the word “shrill.” I’ll wait.

You could expand this game. Now search men. Funny, isn’t it, how it’s only used when trying to make the man histrionic and womanish?

You could expand this game even further. Replace shrill with bitch or cackle or giggle or clothing or fashion or iron my shirt.

In this, I risk you giving me other anti-feminist monikers: overly serious, humorless, blahdeefrigginblah.

Here’s the deal though, folks. Sexism is alive and well. And even though Steinem and my cohorts on the left sometimes drive me crazy with what they do with the truth, it doesn’t make what they say any less true. Clinton has it rough because she’s a woman. She really is trying to break a glass ceiling.

If you don’t believe me, dig a little and find out what your male peers make. If you don’t work in a male-dominated office/field, ask some women who do what their experiences are. And remember, always remember, that the women who ascend in terms of power and money are almost always regarded as bitches.

As for me, I know the monikers I’ve been given: bitch, know-it-all, bleeding heart, feminazi, socialist, dyke, opinionated, godless, knee-jerk.

Again, I say bring it. I’ve been engaged in ideological battles since I could speak (a benefit of a highly educated and political family and a father who heartily enjoys playing devil’s advocate and forcing me to actually debate) and I’ve been successfully battling the sexism thrown at me for all thirty of my years on this planet (a benefit of having a mother who was determined to have a strong and independent daughter), so let’s go!

God, Sara, where’s your sense of humor? Don’t be such a bitch…