Recently in Television Category

The NY Times has an article about the sad fact that late night television has a severe lack of female writers behind the big host shows. For example, the Jay Leno Show, David Letterman or Conan O'Brien has not-a-one woman writer.

Courtney's friend and Daily Show writer Hallie Haglund says in the piece, "When you're writing for late night, you're writing through one person's prism, and that person at the shows you're looking at is always a dude." Indeed.

As Miriam noted the other day that it's Sesame Street's 40th anniversary, Global Voices Online brings attention to one character in particular that is making a significant impact in efforts to destigmatize HIV and AIDS in South Africa - the world's first HIV-positive muppet, Kami. Says Global Voices:

While Sesame Street is seen in over 140 countries, each version addresses local issues and has different Muppets. Golden-yellow Kami made her debut on the South African Sesame Street co-production, called Takalani Sesame, in 2002 in response to the country's HIV/AIDS problem. The world's first HIV-positive Muppet, she helps educate kids about the disease and confronts issues related to being HIV-positive. The name Kami is derived from the Setswana word "Kamogelo," meaning "acceptance."

She's also a child, a 5-year old orphan nervously came onto Sesame Street, scared the other characters wouldn't accept her - but they did with open arms. She informs viewers about the virus in easy-to-understand ways like showing folks that hugging someone with HIV is okay, as well as talks about coping and loss (as she lost her mother to HIV). She was also interviewed by Katie Couric, gave a message with Bill Clinton about HIV/AIDS and was named a UNICEF ambassador for children.

So we should have been surprised when folks in the U.S. were apparently up in arms about the character, saying she wasn't appropriate for children, despite the fact that South Africa is - as Global Voices reminds us - believed to have the highest number of people with HIV in the world. This is not to mention that 280,000 are children and there are 1.4 million orphans in South Africa because of AIDS.

So the question of an HIV-positive muppet on the American version of Sesame Street? Pshhhh, it's not even a question to be considered. But what folks don't seem to recognize is - how 'bout that, people in the U.S. are living with HIV/AIDS too! This does come from a personal place of hope; my friend Ebony from high school was born with HIV. She was an orphan too. She had a wonderful life full of people who loved her, but if she maybe had Kami to grow up with, I don't doubt that could have helped her childhood in a significant way.

For now, props to Sesame Street on their anniversary for addressing the reality of the world, and the reality of people's lives.

As of yesterday, Lou Dobbs no longer has a spot on the CNN airwaves.

This is a big win for the activists who have been rallying to get him off the air for a while now:

Over the years, Lou Dobbs has consistently used his CNN platform to spread hatred and fear. He played a critical role in skewing the immigration reform debate in 2006, leading to the derailment of that effort, and his obsession with the issue of immigration and with defeating immigration reform continues unabated. Adding to his repertoire of hate and fearmongering, he has recently aligned himself with the "birther" conspiracists and their racially tinged attack on the legitimacy of Barack Obama's presidency. From his CNN platform, he has bolstered the claims of those on the fringe by asserting repeatedly that President Obama has failed to produce adequate proof that he was born in the United States. His recent focus on the birth certificate conspiracy issue has reinforced what immigration reform proponents have long known -- that Dobbs has a long history of the worst kind of pandering by promoting hate and ethnic and racial division.

Later Lou!

A new report from the Parents Television Council, Women in Peril, found a 120% increase in depictions of violence against women on television since 2004. (In the same time period, violence that occurred irrespective of gender only increased by 2%.)

Cumulatively, across all study periods and all networks, the most frequent type of violence was beating (29%), followed by credible threats of violence (18%), shooting (11%), rape (8%), stabbing (6%), and torture (2%). Violence against women resulted in death 19% of the time. Violence towards women or the graphic consequences of violence tends overwhelmingly to be depicted (92%) rather than implied (5%) or described (3%).

Even more disturbingly, there has been a 400% increase in the depiction of teen girls as victims of violence.

The report notes that the portrayals of violence against women, especially young women, "with increasing frequency, or as a trivial, even humorous matter, the networks may be contributing to an atmosphere in which young people view aggression and violence against women as normative, even acceptable." (Emphasis mine)

h/t Sociological Images

So conservatives think they're calling out feminists on the lack of response to David Letterman's recent reveal that he has slept with several members of his staff. Where are the protests, the outrage? To that, I have a similar reaction to Tracy at Broadsheet: We simply don't know enough to do anything.

As far as we know, Letterman's affairs with staffers were consensual. Workplace canoodling happens all the time, and so are young women frequently drawn to male superiors. Many find power imbalances to be very sexy -- and more power (or less, as it were) to 'em. There is nothing inherently wrong about a sexual relationship between two adults who are at different points in their careers. It would be awfully patronizing to suggest that women aren't capable of meaningfully consenting to sex with a workplace superior. That isn't to say I don't pass personal judgment on Letterman for sleeping with young women who were from the sounds of it at the starts of their careers -- oh, judgment abounds, believe me! But is it illegal, is it sexual harassment?

She acknowledges a few potential situations around this story, and if we find this is the case - yes, Letterman will have a sexual harassment suit to deal with. And yes, the power dynamics of sexual relationships at work between superiors and their staff can be fucked up. But it would also be fucked up for us to label these women as powerless victims who didn't know what they were doing when as far as we know, it was consensual sex. Do I personally think it's gross? Did Letterman do a really stupid thing? Totally. But that doesn't mean what Letterman did was illegal. People have sex. And he's not a politician preaching sexual morality; he's a late night TV show host. When we see something to get up in arms about - even offenses committed by liberals - we do it. But for now, is this really worthy covering?

What is worthy to post about is the fact that conservatives can act all enraged that feminists aren't enraged all the while making comments about Letterman's wife being ugly and equating Letterman's doings with the rape of a 13-year old - all for the sake of trying to call us bad liberals out. And they're just replaying the classic conservative view of women - that we're too stupid or not mature enough to make our own decisions (hello, "informed consent" laws). Now that's some hypocrisy for you.

UDPATE: Reader fsu points out that Shakes has been covering the story.

That is all.

Congrats to American Idol! They've just upped the ante on their already-hugely successful show by bringing on Ellen DeGeneres: comedian extraordinaire, media mogul, talk show host, inspirational speaker, prolific dancer, same sex marriage advocate, and all around bad ass woman.

I'm a huge fan of this decision because I think Ellen is hilarious and lovable and her presence will most likely make me enjoy the show a lot more on those (rare I swear!) occasions that I tune in. But it seems like the move has also spurred something of a different reaction in the blogosphere and beyond: namely, that of questioning:

Will Ellen DeGeneres make American Idol "gayer"?

One problem with this question that I'm going to have to point out right away is that- and I'm truly sorry to break this to you America- American Idol is already pretty, really, very gay.

Another thing is that the presence of someone queer does not always a "gayer" show make, just as the presence of a person of color doesn't always make the show more geared towards people of color, or even necessarily more tolerant of them.

This is especially true if that person is tokenized, toned down, glossed over, marginalized, or heavily censured, all of which I hope Ellen is not subjected to on American Idol.

That being said, she's already given interviews in which she alluded to being "the people's judge," and for this reason and more I am hopeful and optimistic that Ellen's presence will make the show more queer friendly and just generally more tolerant and inclusive.

So I'd like to devote a huge Friday Feminist Fuck Yeah to the intelligent and- dare I say- progressive decision of American Idol to choose such a down to earth, inspirational, and compassionate queer feminist as the newest addition to their show.

I just moved to Brooklyn (Fort Greene stand up!) and I'm definitely loving my new neighborhood. However, as a last tribute to my old neighborhood, I thought I'd share this feminist gem, snapped in the east village. I know there's been some lively discussion on this site in the past about the merits/morality of altering public property in the name of feminism, and I think that needs to be an ongoing discussion because I don't know that it was ever quite resolved. But for the record I tend to think that "renegade feminist" acts like this one usually do more good than harm. I don't know about you, but I can always use a little something to make me look twice at that objectifying image or heavily touched up ad and remind myself not to be fooled by the BS, or to ever take it at face value. So for that jolt of a reminder, I appreciate the person who put up this sign. The verdict is still out on whether or not these kinds of street sign tactics are viable for long term effectiveness.

What do you think-Was the ad problematic in the first place? (I say yes.) Are you moved to put a sign up every time you see a bothersome/un-feminist/offensive image? Would it make a difference if we all did this all the time? Should it matter whether or not this is technically "legal"?

The Women's Media Center points out the names being thrown around for regulars on CNN's new Crossfire-like show are pretty...male:

So far, the names mentioned in consideration for the show include Roland Martin, Errol Louis, Cenk Uygur and Steve A. Smith on the left and Roe Conn, Joe Watkins, Steve Malzberg and Joe Pagliarulo on the right. Hopefully the names of the women candidates being considered for these slots will be released soon. As we often note at the WMC, despite being 51% of the population, women hold only 3% of clout positions in media. And as the the recent success of Rachel Maddow has shown, news consumers are hungry for a break from all-male news shows.

No joke. Who would you want to see on this new show? (My top picks would be Melissa Harris-Lacewell and Rinku Sen.)

For the Buffy fans in the house, and I know there are a lot of you, a remix. The creator explains it this way:

In this re-imagined narrative, Edward Cullen from the Twilight Series meets Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It's an example of transformative storytelling serving as a pro-feminist visual critique of Edward's character and generally creepy behavior. Seen through Buffy's eyes, some of the more sexist gender roles and patriarchal Hollywood themes embedded in the Twilight saga are exposed - in hilarious ways. Ultimately this remix is about more than a decisive showdown between the slayer and the sparkly vampire. It also doubles as a metaphor for the ongoing battle between two opposing visions of gender roles in the 21ist century.

Thanks to reader Jerelyn for the heads up.

ABC News took on reality television's recent focus on exploiting larger women like the show Samhita recently reviewed, "More to Love" and decided to talk to her about it some more! Here are some thoughts Samhita gave the author:

To Feministing editor Mukhopadhyay, that perpetuates the impression that these women are to be pitied and fetishized for their size.

"On one level, it's good to have more images of larger women on TV because that act alone changes the way we look at people," she said. "But so many of them have low self-esteem, they're self-loathing, they talk about how no one loves them. It becomes this sort of spectacle. You really do wonder if all the stereotypes you've heard of fat people are true. On that level I do think it's exploitive."

Damn straight. Check out the whole piece.

Spoiler Alert.

The censored episode of the upcoming season of Family Guy enjoyed a public reading in L.A. The Washington Post reports:

The episode, in which Griffin matriarch Lois becomes a surrogate mom for a college friend and her husband, really focuses on the "will she/won't she" abortion question only in the third act, after the couple dies in a car accident. What follows is a trip to a family-planning center, where Peter, initially encouraging his wife to end the pregnancy (and thus avoid her crazy-while-pregnant phase), is stopped by a group of antiabortion activists who try to change his mind with a video featuring Ziggy the Zygote, who just wants a hug.

Family Guy is a college student staple, and I watch every episode. As a feminist, I cringe at the domestic violence against Lois and then cringe at the inevitable accompanying scene where she exacts her revenge. As Samhita pointed out, the hilarious part about Fox's decision not to air the episode is that its audience will likely find it wholly uncontroversial-- to hazard a guess in the absence of polling, Family Guy's audience still doesn't include elderly voters or anti-choicers. The only thought-provoking topic I foresee in the episode could be the struggle between Lois' individual choice vs. a family decision. Lois ends up getting the abortion, after delivering a speech on the value of bringing new life into the world. There is no discussion or apology afterward; it rolls immediately to credits.

It looks like the episode is non-unique to the Family Guy lexicon, offering a little bit of offense to everyone. As equal-opportunity offenders, the writers clearly lean liberal. According to the WaPo article, this episode apparently tackles abortion apologists, abortion protesters, the characterization of pregnant women as insane, surrogate parenthood, experiences in family-planning centers, and a hearty family decision on whether to carry out the abortion. As per usual, the episode will include references to Hitler and Osama Bin Laden. I, for one, can't wait to watch.

Related:
What's with Family Guy's Rape Jokes?
Family Guy Abortion Episode Will Likely Not Air on Fox

Betty Draper takes aim at stereotypes, thanks to Mad Men's women writers

If you're anything like me, you can barely contain your excitement that season 3 of Mad Men begins on Sunday. It took me awhile to get around to watching the show (I didn't bother to get a converter when TV went digital, and won't shell out for cable), but finally my coworker Dana Goldstein convinced me: "Ann, it's all about sexism and vintage fashion. How can you not watch?"

And indeed, I love how the show paints an unvarnished picture of '50s gender roles and how the female characters are so three-dimensional. They don't easily map onto the sorts of stereotypes prevalent in TV shows and movies set in all decades. The bookish achiever (Peggy) is also kind of a slut. The slut (Joan) is also kind of a bookish achiever. And the devoted wife (Betty) is primed for a feminist awakening. (I've often wondered if the character was named after Betty Friedan.)

So I wasn't surprised to learn that 7 of the show's 9 writers are women, and in this upcoming season, women directed 5 of the 13 episodes. Compare that to elsewhere in Hollywood...

According to the Directors Guild of America, the labor union that represents film and television directors, about 13% of its 8,000 directors are female. Women comprised 23% of television writers during the 2007 to 2008 prime-time season, a 12 percentage point decrease from the same period a year earlier. Nearly 80% of TV programs in the 2007 to 2008 prime-time season had no women writers...

Maybe if all TV shows and movies had a better proportion of women writers, actresses wouldn't be considered past their prime at age 35 and would be given way more substantive leading roles. Turns out women-written movies and shows also tend to be pretty fucking popular.

I did notice that the seven Mad Men writers pictured all appeared to be white. While the show has touched on the issue of race (namely, when lead character Don Draper has an affair with a Jewish woman, and when one of the copywriters dates a black woman), it is a far less common theme than gender. I wonder if that would change, too, if the demographics of the writers did.

Who else is counting the minutes 'til Sunday night?

Related:
Funny ladies of Hollywood discuss getting "old"
An Entourage of Their Own
Unnoticed sexism: Movie Trailer Narrators
Women Make Money at the Movies, But Don't Say Much
On roles for women of color in Hollywood

Also see Amanda's writing about Mad Men, and two posts on Racialicious. (But be forewarned, they're spoiler-ridden!) Plus, watch Jezebel's 15 feminist moments from Mad Men.

Yesterday, Jessica posted her criticism of the new show on ABC, Defying Gravity, rightfully noting the anti-choice attitude she felt the pilot reflected. It turns out that the daughter of the lead writer and producer of the show reads Feministing and passed our critique on to her dad, James Parriott. He sent us a statement regarding his stance on choice with regard to the show.

I don't want to give away the plot on the blog. But our position on the show is that abortion should be legal and the choice of the woman. But, too often, the Right to Lifers, paint the choice position as being glib, easy and insensitive. What we, in our storyline, say is that that simply isn't so. It's a tough, considered choice that can have repercussions -- but it is a choice that must lie with the woman.

Thematically, this show is about man's self determination vs. the need to follow orders. It's about what we can't control vs. what we can -- and the grey area in between. It's about the price we pay for both.

Zoe makes the decision to abort (against the govt) to achieve her dream. It isn't an easy decision (as right to lifers often portray it). It's an agonizing decision that Zoe will carry the rest of her life. But is was her decision to make. Not the government's.

Donner makes a decision on Mars that he regrets. He followed orders (by Goss; the government) and lost two people dear to him. He's paying the price of not following his own gut.

Jen, in growing her bunny (making the choice of having her "baby"), will also pay a price. She'll endanger the crew and the ship for something that never should have been allowed to grow in the first place. (again, this is a choice message, not right to life).

We have a scene upcoming, where Ajay, who knows Zoe aborted a baby, will tell her directly that she made the right choice. Sometimes we need to make our own path and her path is in space. She should not worry about her aborted baby - Hindus believe that the soul simply moves on to another body.

Even religious Paula will come to challenge her own right to life beliefs.

So... we explore the subject from a number of directions. I imagine we'll take heat from people on both sides of the issue - but they should certainly wait and see how the story develops."

It is rare that we write about popular culture and those involved actually respond to us. James Parriott has been the lead writer and producer for a variety of shows, including Ugly Betty, Grey's Anatomy among others. I am a huge fan of Ugly Betty and I felt that it took a progressive stance on gender, race, immigration, sexuality and class issues so I will check out the next few episodes of and see how the plot develops. And not just because I have a crush on Ron Livingston. I know, a shameful crush since he delivered that one line that took dating books by sexist storm.

Others have written before about their (un)feminist guilty pleasure of watching television shows like American Idol and America's Got Talent, and the problematic practices these shows often have behind the scenes. Despite the obvious cheesiness, as well as the more problematic and unfeminist aspects of these shows, there's something about them that keeps me tuning in. I don't know if it's the dramatic story-line videos that make me feel like I am actually getting to know the contestants and identifying with their struggle, or just the reminder that there are other people out there who are pursuing their dreams without letting the threat of criticism or rejection prevent them from doing so. Or maybe it's watching people sweat through songs and the undeserved power I feel in being able to judge from the safety of my own home a skill I don't have or plan on getting anytime soon...ever. ;-)

Anyway, I'm invariably less than satisfied by the feminist values, but usually I suck it up and take from the experience what guilty-but-oh-so-sweet pleasure I can. Until now. This just cannot fly.

Remember the Virginia teen we wrote about who was suspended (and recommended for expulsion) when she was "caught" taking birth control at school? She's featured in a segment for The Colbert Report...

The anti-choiceness is just dripping off of ABC's new space-drama Defying Gravity. (So disappointing, because I was stoked about having another SciFi-ish show to watch in addition to the new V.)

Defying Gravity is set in 2052, when it seems abortion - and even pregnancy tests - are illegal. Also in this future world, astronauts are super hot twenty-somethings who fuck a lot and everything else looks pretty much the same as 2009. So yeah, I'll try to take it with a grain of salt. But shit like this just irritates me:

You see, this character got an abortion. As punishment, she will hear a crying baby for the remainder of this episode. Her colleague - presented as the hardened woman who advises her to get an illegal abortion - is later shown as a bunny murderer in the second episode. (Well, sort of.) But wait! More crying baby scenes, please!

Okay, on to the feminist bunny-murderer. (She's actually performing tests on rabbit embryos, but that's crazy babykiller talk!)

According to commenter Devin (and confirmed by wikipedia), it's Sarah Haskin's 30th Birthday today. So Happy Birthday Sarah! In honor of the big 3-0, here is her latest Target Women segment.

Seth MacFarlane, writer of the Family Guy a show filled with dirty jokes and political anti-correctness announced on a panel at Comic Con that he is producing an episode about abortion in the upcoming season of Family Guy, but it looks like 20th Century Fox will not air the show.

MacFarlane revealed he's producing a controversial episode about abortion for the upcoming season. But he and others on the panel said that Fox was unlikely to air the episode.

"20th Century Fox, as always, allowed us to produce the episode and then said, 'You know what? We're scared to f--king death of this,'" MacFarlane said.

The episode will probably be available on DVD, he added.

A Fox spokesperson said that no decision has yet been made on the matter.

There were few details offered about the content of the episode, but given the show's penchant for political incorrectness -- it has in the past featured a character wearing a McCain/Palin button on an SS uniform, among other flourishes -- it's unlikely Planned Parenthood would use the episode in a PSA anytime soon.

They are not sure if they will air it or not and it doesn't surprise me that Fox would be "afraid" to air it. I wonder if another network would air it. This is brilliant marketing for them, since Family Guy is known for pushing the envelope and if they release it on DVD, they will sell that many more.

I guess no one is seeing the real humor in that unless you are avidly pro-life and anti-women's right to chose, abortion is not really a fringe topic that is so edgy it must be banned from TV. Again not shocking, but maybe they should try something easier like period jokes, until they can get with the really big scary stuff.

via Think Progress

Update: Fox released a statement that they will not be broadcasting the episode.

GLAAD has released their third annual Network Responsibility Index, a review of LGBT representation on television. I found this report particularly interesting as I'm a pop culture addict who constantly finds myself consuming deeply problematic media that seldom represents my community.

Some key findings:

• HBO led all networks with 58.5 (42%) of the network's 140 total programming hours featuring LGBT representation. This is an increase of 16% over the previous season. Of HBO's 14 original series, 10 included LGBT content and of the four that did not, three were sports news programming.

• For the third year in a row, ABC led the broadcast networks in LGBT-inclusive content. Of its 1,146.5 total hours of primetime programming, 269.5 hours (24%) included LGBT impressions and 9% were transgender-inclusive, making ABC the most fair, accurate and inclusive of the five broadcast networks.

• For the first time since GLAAD began this analysis, the network rankings changed and Fox rose to third place with 82.5 (11%) LGBT-inclusive hours, out of 782.5 total primetime programming hours. This is an increase from last year's analysis, in which Fox's LGBT content was tallied at 4% and received a "failing" grade. However, Fox also aired some problematic LGBT programming.

• CBS saw the greatest decline among the broadcast networks this year, dropping to last place with 60 hours (5%) of LGBT-inclusive content, out of 1,148 total hours of primetime programming.

• Of the 10 cable networks evaluated, Showtime was the only network to receive a Good rating, airing 20.5 (26%) LGBT-inclusive hours, out of 77.5 total hours of primetime programming.

• TNT had the biggest increase among all networks. In last year's NRI, TNT received a Failing grade for airing a single hour (1%) of content. This year, TNT rose 18%, airing 13 LGBT inclusive hours (19%) out of its 69 total hours of original programming.

• TBS only offered a half hour (1%) and A&E aired two hours (1%) of LGBT-inclusive programming out of 39.5 and 166.5 total hours of original primetime programming, respectively. This resulted in the networks tying for the lowest ranking and score among the 10 cable networks evaluated.

Some of my thoughts, with a few minor spoilers from this past year of TV:

There is a new series starting tonight on FOX called, "More to Love." It is the brother show of The Bachelor, but the difference is that this show is for "big" girls.

MORE TO LOVE, the new dating competition show from Mike Fleiss ("The Bachelor"), follows one regular guy's search for love among a group of real women determined to prove that love comes in all shapes and sizes. The inspirational new series is hosted by iconic supermodel Emme.

Luke Conley is a 26-year-old former college football offensive lineman who stands 6'3" and weighs over 300 pounds. He's a successful sub-contractor and real estate investor who has his sights set on building a long-lasting ...relationship.

My first instinct when I saw the trailer was how I feel whenever I see trailers for these dating/marriage reality TV shows, "this is bullshit." And as I watched, my opinion didn't change. The problem with these reality TV shows about marriage and finding the one isn't just about how they are sexist, but how they make fetish of romance and love and play on outdated ideas about romance. I have to say of all my guilty pleasures, The Bachelor, Tough Love, Who Wants To Marry a Millionaire and Millionaire Matchmaker are not on the list (I am more of a Top Chef, Fashion Show, Project Runway kind of gal), but most definitely because I have a specific ambivalence to weddings and the romantic industrial complex (to put it nicely).

But that is not what is unique about this show. More to Love is different because it features women that are fat. When I am using fat here, I am using it as a descriptor, not as a pejorative. Similarly, Marianne Kirby writes at the Daily Beast,

So when I say fat, I mean it as a descriptive term, not an insult. I work toward a concept known as Fat Acceptance--the idea that, really and truly, your body is OK just the way it is.

Unfortunately, the general TV watching public may not have the same attitude. The reality is that the nature of these shows is making spectacle of people, so now the gaze has shifted to fat women and the men who love them. (A very common fetish in the porn world.)

Outside of the fetish spectacle of the whole thing, my second thought when seeing an ad for it on TV was relief. I am fat and I appreciated seeing other fat women on TV, not on a show about weight loss, but on a show about accepting themselves as is and finding love as is. But as I watched the commercials, something continued not to sit right with me and Kirby hits the nail on the head,

Does every fat woman have a story about the date invite that was actually a humiliating joke? What about the one where the fat girl strikes up a conversation with the cute guy at the bar...and he asks for her thin friend's phone number? I try to remember that meeting a good partner is a challenge for everyone, but it's hard in the face of these stories not to feel like the show's producers are conflating "fat women" with "pathetic, sad women" and leaving it at that.

Still, as I started watching the first episode, I could certainly identify with these women's dating struggles, even as I sat comfortably on the couch next to my husband. The show's creators have tapped into something with this. But then they fall back on stereotypes, yet again.

The women on the show look amazing; great fashion, great hair and makeup. They are all individually gorgeous, even if they don't look a thing like the mainstream beauty ideal. It feels really great to watch them strut and shine. But...they are all strutting around huge plates of food.

So while the mere act of these women being on television does disrupt beauty standards, you have to wonder what the desired outcome of this show is and what the producers are playing to. Are they using catchy almost feminist ads to shore up support, only to break it down when you actually watch the show and realize these women are "pathetic?" Are they creating a fetish of fatness for Americans to tune in in awe, to make jokes and laugh about how these "fat girls" are trying to find love?

While MTV's 16 and Pregnant has become a pretty popular show (has anyone watched episodes? Thoughts? Our Bodies Our Blog has an early review), anti-choice folks are capitalizing on the series having created a website, 16andpregnant.com, to convince visiting show fans that abortion is physically and emotionally harmful.

I'm not positive that the website was created after the show was, but regardless it's a crisis pregnancy website that's coming off as a reliable and unbiased source of information that is, of course, completely inaccurate and dangerous. While it's priority to work towards exposing crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) for the harmful and deceptive faux "clinics" they are (after all, they're likely the ones creating these sites), what work can be done to address their online presence? After all, the first place a young person will often go for information is the internet.

At least I was happy to find that the MTV show has a section for viewers curious about pregnancy where they lead them to Planned Parenthood for (the right) information. Good on them.

h/t to the reader who alerted us to this!

At Broadcasting and Cable, they are reporting that:

The working logline for the potential drama series being used internally at HBO is that it "follows the life of Calliope Stephanides and the epic family history that may hold the answer to her complicated sexual identity."

This one scares me a bit. I read the book a few years ago, and while I love his writing the plot is offensive in a couple of ways. Basically ishis main character is intersex. (Not sure what that terms means? Go here).

We need more attention paid to intersex folks and their lives. The book was an Oprah's Book Club selection. But instead of doing a thoughtful representation of an intersex person, Eugenides uses Calliope's intersex status as a way to add drama to the plot. My main problem (besides some weird language he uses to talk about Calliope) is that he implies that the reason Calliope is intersex is because of incest between Calliope's grandparents (that's the "epic family history") that the quote above references.

Trying to tie being intersex with something like incest is offensive for a few reasons. One, it once again emphasizes the idea that this is some huge abnormality that only happens when something goes really wrong, like a brother and sister having children. Actually, it's a pretty common occurrence and 1 in 2000 babies born could be classified as intersex. It also sensationalizes Calliope's story, and the lives of all intersex people.

I'm not the first to criticize the way Eugenides dealt with this is his book, a number of other activists and authors already have. But I'm pretty sure, from reading that logline, that HBO will fall into the same traps.

Via Isak

If you're a television junkie or history buff, don't miss a new documentary on a too often forgotten pioneer in the industry. According to the film's site, Gertrude Berg, was the creator, principal writer, and star of The Goldbergs, a popular radio show for 17 years, which became television's very first character-driven domestic sitcom in 1949. Berg received the first Best Actress Emmy in history, and paved the way for women in the entertainment industry.

I thought this excerpt from the director's statement was really interesting:

In Yoo-Hoo, Mrs. Goldberg I'm delighted to document the amazing accomplishments of the talented Gertrude Berg. I am in awe of how this woman would wake up at six in the morning, write her shows, and then go off to the studio to produce. Without missing a beat she seamlessly performed Molly to perfection. Here is a woman who wrote the most positive portrayal of a Jewish mother and her family during the decades that severely threatened American and European Jewry. It is more amazing still that she crafted such a warm maternal figure in spite of her own mother's mental illness. Berg created the "perfect mother" she never experienced in her own life.

Mary Alice Carr has a really poignant piece up at the Washington Post about why she has chosen to never go on to O'Reilly's show again after having faced his hypocrisy in the past.

[O]n Tuesday morning, when an O'Reilly producer called and asked me to come on the show to "discuss the reasons why women have late-term abortions," I held fast to my pledge. I told his producer what I thought: that I had had that conversation on air with O'Reilly five years earlier and that he agreed with me at the time that the decision was between a woman and her doctor. That O'Reilly then went on to pretend we had never talked about it and continued condemning women and doctors. That the nation and those of us in the pro-choice community are reeling from the murder of a doctor who helped women. That we hold O'Reilly responsible for helping to create a climate in which hate was allowed to fester. That I refused to dignify his irresponsible behavior, not to mention his deplorable reaction to Tiller's shooting.

O'Reilly had the opportunity to apologize for his words, and he didn't. He had the opportunity to say that this tragic outcome was something about which he felt sorry. He didn't. When restraint and perspective were called for, he fanned the flames higher. In fact, on his June 1 "Talking Points," he played the martyr, saying his critics were seeking to stifle any criticism of "people like Tiller -- that and hating Fox News is the real agenda here." On his show the next day -- the show I declined to appear on -- he again called a murdered man "Dr. Killer."

I admit that after the call from the producer, I hesitated. What an opportunity, I thought, to sit across from O'Reilly and call him out for what he has done and where his responsibility lies. To speak for everyone in America who is hurt and scared and angry. I have never been a Fox News hater; clearly, I've used the show for the benefit of my movement and my organization, and I've answered his questions on some of the toughest issues around. Didn't I have the right to also call him out for his speech?

But then I realized I just couldn't. Because if the murder of a man in a house of worship wasn't enough to make Bill O'Reilly repent, what hope did I have?

Naturally, I don't have the kind of profile or connections that land me in a seat in front of the jerk myself, but I can say from my small world of fighting with people on the internet at a certain point you have to decide what you can and can't do. It is really powerful that Carr said no, because it is such an incredible opportunity for exposure. But bet the producer didn't understand why she would chose not to. The problem with going against conservative pundits is that for them it is funny hour, their news spots are just more time for them to act like jerks and say off the wall things (that they unfortunately believe) that gets them higher ratings. For people like Carr who have dedicated their lives to actual policy change, it is not worth doing a show like that just for publicity if it doesn't result in fair exposure, confidence in the movement or is attached to a campaign goal. Perhaps it is time we stop giving him the opportunity to talk to us since he is so unapologetic about his relationship to the assassination of Dr. Tiller.

We talk about this a lot at Feministing, how we choose to devote our energy and to who. It was an early moment in my career at Feministing I remember sitting in a panel with Lynne D. Johnson and Professor Angie Colette Beatty at WAM and Dr. Beatty was talking about how she had given up talking to brick walls. I always think about that when I am engaging in especially painful conversations that don't seem to be moving, my words not being absorbed but merely bouncing off the density. At a certain point you have to think about if you want to talk to a brick wall, is it even worth it? The sad thing is that Bill-O has such a huge viewership and it is an incredible opportunity. But perhaps facing him head on is not the way to do it, perhaps the way to do it is to campaign against media consolidation and ownership and fight to give more voice to the pundits that do say the things we need them to and train new, up and coming voices.

This is the preview for a new WE TV show, I Want to Save Your Life.

Not only is this creepy, it's just plain wrong in so many ways. Do we really need ANOTHER television show that tells women they are ruining their lives because of what they put in their mouths?

First of all, this guy is like a stalker, following her around, monitoring her. He's creepy beyond belief. Secondly, this once again, for the millionth time perpetuates the myth that everyone who is overweight is secretly and guilty sneaking ice cream sundaes. We should know by now that weight is much more complex than that. Thirdly, this shit is just sensationalist. I want to save your life? This woman does not look like she is at risk of dying because of a few extra pounds.

Also, why is it always skinny white guys who have discovered the secret of weight loss and are going to teach it to women?

As the reader who sent this in said (h/t to caryb):

Since this show is about women, this is yet another example of how women's bodies are community property, and this time the justification is health and in the promo, the woman isn't even that fat, which makes this even more ridiculous. These things are never about health, they're always about body politics in my opinion.

I hope this show goes the way of the dodo.

Note: After posting this, I amended the title and added the quotes around the word "overweight." I did this because I disagree with the suggestion that these women, or women of any weight, are not the norm. Also the show obviously is using it's own screwed up standards to decide who needs these interventions.

This is me trying to keep my cool. What do you think?

So this morning, around 10am EST, Jessica will be appearing on the Today show with Kathy Lee Gifford to talk about her new book, The Purity Myth. Unfortunately, as the mainstream shows tend to do, they've decided to turn it into a debate with this woman, Lakita Garth, who is regarded as an "abstinence champion."

If you're near a TV, check it out, and send Jessica some positive feminist vibes for what's likely to be a difficult conversation.

If we can find a video of it, we'll post that after.

UPDATE: You can live stream the show here.
Sorry, that link seems to have old segments from yesterday--I'll post the link to the actual segment once I find it.

I feel like I may have been the last person on earth to watch the video of 47-year-old Brit Susan Boyle taking all the "Britain's Got Talent" folks by surprise with her beautiful voice. This morning, nearly 40 million people have seen the clip on YouTube. So what gives? Why is this striking such a global chord?

Well, from a feminist perspective, there are some really compelling explanations. First of all, Susan Boyle defies just about every one of the "ideal beauty" standards that have such a tight grip on the recording industry. She's not thin, she's not blonde, she's not manicured, she's not young. The fact that she's white may be the only way in which her physicality conforms to stereotypical definitions of Western beauty. Her reception when she walked out on stage was such an exquisite example of the way in which we, as a society, vilify overweight people--projecting all sorts of negative assumptions on them because of their perceived weight. The audience members' faces said it all--"She's overweight and ugly, so she must not be talented."

As I write about in my book, psychologists have a concept called "the halo effect"--essentially that we often project unrelated and unearned attributes to people based on their beauty. We see a hot women on the street, for example, and automatically assume she has a great, easy life, a loving partner, a successful career--all because her hair is shiny and straight and she wears a size two! The reverse effect is ever-present these days; when a woman is overweight or doesn't fit the conventional standard of beauty in some other way, we assume all sorts of completely unrelated thing about her--she's lazy, unhappy, untalented, unloved.

Susan Boyle brings all those ugly thoughts to the surface and then highlights their absolute ridiculousness with her gorgeous singing voice.

But that, my friends, is not really why this video is being forwarded like nobody's business. I don't think the majority of us are really willing to look at the ugly scripts in our heads, the fat discrimination, the self-hate (oh so relate to our merciless judgment of others). Instead, I think Susan Boyle represents a certain kind of surprise that we are desperate for in this time of economic recession. The typical power brokers have been revealed in their corruptness and brutality and now we want the little guy/lady to succeed, to have her day in the sun, to indicate for all the rest of us, that we, too, can still dream.

I wish Susan Boyle's explosion on the global scene would make people less brutal in their physical critiques. I'm not optimistic. You?

Check out radishette's community post!

Community blogger Lynne C. had a post that she wrote for Feministing reprinted in the Toronto Star. And yesterday we got a radio interview request for another Community blogger to speak about the issues she's been covering.

I think this is totally bad ass - and part of the reason we wanted to start the Community site. The idea was to highlight all of the amazing feminist voices out there and to try and get more mainstream attention paid to more feminist perspectives - and that's happening. Woot!

Yeah, you read that right. According to Salon (via Reuters), HBO and Comedy Central executive producer Ben Karlin is developing a new comedy series called "Women's Studies." Julie White (of Six Feet Under, Nanny Diaries etc.) will likely star as "a onetime famous author who, after a tumultuous period as a feminist It Girl, is now a professor at a small liberal arts college in the Northeast."

Oh the story lines one can imagine...

Via newsday.com

FOX is setting out to prove that love comes in all shapes and sizes with the new inspirational dating competition series "More to Love." Executive-produced by Mike Fleiss ("The Bachelor," "The Bachelorette"), the unscripted series follows a single average guy with a big waist and an even bigger heart as he romances several confident and secure plus-size women. Each week, the husky hunk will wine and dine a group of curvy women to determine if they have more love to give or if they are truly more than he can handle. When the size of competition narrows, he will have to decide if one full-figured lady will become his true love.

Ugh. I am all for representations of people with all sorts of body shapes and sizes, but the size euphemisms are gross. And why the assumption that plus-size people can only date each other? There is so much offense-worthy potential in this show it isn't even funny.

In case you missed it!

Via Womanist Musings, we find that ABC decided to use their show, What Would You Do?, to address homophobia in a sports bar in New Jersey, where they tested folks' acceptance of a gay couple being openly affectionate. A straight couple was also used as well as another actor making homophobic remarks to see how patrons would react.

Overwhelmingly, the real patrons showed intolerance for snide remarks like his, even as the gay couple escalated their touching and affection.

"I would rather have 12 of you than four of him," said one man apologetically to the couple.

"Seriously, this is not your [expletive] bar!" yelled an emotional woman to one harasser, in defense of the gay couple.

Later, a real patron who did harass the couple seemed to retract his views after the hidden cameras were revealed. An expert interviewed by ABC News attributed his transformation to the surprising peer pressure to be tolerant.

"Tolerance has become an American value," she said. "People work hard to give others the impression that they believe similarly, even when they don't."

But things aren't nearly as peachy as ABC seemed to want to make it. As Renee said, how tolerant were these folks actually being when even the ones who defended the couple said they still didn't want to see them being "overly affectionate"? Not to mention Pam poses the question, "If they really want to test American tolerance, how about selecting a interracial or minority gay or lesbian couple to participate in that experiment?"

Pam also pointed out which location this experiment was done - New Jersey has civil unions on the books - which is critical to take into account (although I'll admit I've experienced an overabundance of homophobia and racism in that state). There's no doubt the degrees of tolerance would vary greatly state-to-state - so to call it an "American value" is (sadly) a bit of a stretch, albeit a damn good goal to have.

Thoughts?

I can't believe I missed this episode (and that I have to wait weeks till the full episode is available online)! Outside of the mouse-on-teen violence, I really liked this clip - especially how it points out that by focusing on purity these companies/singers are actually focusing on sexuality, just in a "safe" way.

Thanks to Lucas for the heads up.

For more pics, check out Women's Glib.

America's Next Top Model doesn't have the best track record when it comes to sexism and photo shoots, so I guess this shouldn't shock me. The show had the models dress up like little girls as a way to promote...purity?

This issue is really important to me, the issue of teen girls and being what I call 'out of control.' I did a survey on my talk-show website, and I found that one in five girls that are teens that we surveyed actually want to be a teen mom. Purity and innocence is something that's being lost and as you Top Models are doing this photo shoot, you guys are role models, too. The assignment was for you all to embody different little games that little girls play on the playground.

I write about this a lot in The Purity Myth (cough, buy it, cough), but I'll say it again: fetishizing "purity" and "innocence" generally just means that you end up fetishizing little girls.

UPDATE: Community blogger LTB also wrote a kick-ass post about this (long before I did, it seems - my bad!).

Last night was the series finale of the L Word. The show has lasted six seasons, and in my opinion, it was about three seasons too long. I love having representations of queer women on prime time TV but I have some serious issues with the way the show was handled the last few seasons. And the series finale? Frustrating. I'm ready for something new.

So Feministing L Word watchers--what did you think about the series finale and the show overall?

The View ladies began by making Rachel Maddow stand up to demonstrate how tall she is (wow, show us your lesbian amazon self! ugh). She's positioned right next to Elisabeth but manages to not look like she's going to give her a sharp elbow. Impressive. And Elisabeth even compliments her--says you have to acknowledge people who do well "on both sides of the issues." Interesting...

Talking about Rachel and her partner Susan (pictured right), who have been together for ten years. They met because Susan hired her to do some yard work during the time when Rachel was working on her dissertation. Rachel: "Sort of gay desperate housewives!"

Rachel came out by putting signs up on the bathroom stalls of her college dorm. Holy shit. Somebody anonymously mailed her parents one of the posters.

Rachel says she closes her eyes in the makeup room and leaves when it's done, pays no attention.

On the state of the nation: "We need someone with big ideas who will take big action."

On polls: "If you ask the American people who do you trust on the economy, the Republicans or the Democrats, Democrats have a 30% lead."

I so respect Rachel's rare mix of absolute brilliance on the issues, wise analysis and articulate communication on those issues, and humility and grace to boot. Wowzer.

There's a really disturbing campaign of hate being directed at Cerrie Burnell, a host of the children's television show CBeebies, who was born missing the lower section of her right arm.

"Is it just me, or does anyone else think the new woman presenter on CBeebies may scare the kids because of her disability?" wrote one adult on the CBeebies website. Other adults claimed that their children were asking difficult questions as a result. "I didn't want to let my children watch the filler bits on The Bedtime Hour last night because I know it would have played on my eldest daughter's mind and possibly caused sleep problems," said one message. The BBC received nine other complaints by phone.

Charming. In fact, some of the comments were so disturbing, they had to be removed from the site. WTF is wrong with these parents?

Burnell responded recently, saying that the negative comments "are indicative of a wider problem of disabled representation in the media as a whole, which is why it's so important for there to be more disabled role models in every area of the media."

Ampersand nails it:

Even if a child is disturbed by seeing Burnell's arm, so what? It's up to the parents to explain to the child that all people are different -- not up to the BBC to fire their host so that parents are spared having to parent their children.

That said, I think we know the core issue here isn't frightened children -- it's prejudiced adults.

Headline from Reuters: E! looking for "Hot Girls in Scary Places"

That is all.

From the age of a wee toddler, my grandmother would watch Jessica and I every day while our parents worked. And how she loved "her shows," her favorite being All My Children.

Perhaps I watch it partly as a silly way to still feel connected to her (she passed away some years ago), although I'll willingly admit that I'm also just simply addicted to the absurdity of it all. Either way, following a daytime soap comes with its feminist guilt; many soaps perpetuate sexist stereotypes to the extremes - AMC has the glamorous yet highly dramatic Erica Kane as well as the aggressive and money-greedy Adam Chandler. (And let's not even get into the race and class dynamics.)

But I will say that out of all daytime soaps, AMC is actually not all bad. It's the first daytime show to have a contracted gay character, Erica Kane's daughter Bianca, who came out on the show in 2000. And last year, they introduced daytime's first transgendered character, in which the producers brought in GLAAD and other trans folk to consult them on shaping the role.

And today, they're featuring daytime TV's first lesbian wedding between Bianca and her partner. GLAAD released a statement applauding the show for the wedding - although this doesn't come without its soap drama, which is included in AMC's video on today's episode after the jump.

I'm a few weeks late on this one, but the L Word, the famous Showtime original series about lesbians in Los Angeles, is in it's final season.

I have to admit that the L word had a pretty significant impact on my coming out. Now, I wouldn't say that I wouldn't have come out if it hadn't been for the show, but it definitely helped. It was so nice to have representations of lesbian relationships, lesbian sex, even lesbian drama. I even remember when I started watching the show when I was in college, at first secretly on my own and then with friends when we realized we were all watching it.

The L Word is definitely the show we all love to hate. There are many critiques to be made about how lesbian and queer women are represented, about what's missing from the show. There is much diversity lacking. It isn't really representative of the queer community. But, despite all this, it's still a reflection of our lives and relationships, however limited or sensationalized. In a world with so few representations of our lives, it matters.

The last three seasons of the show have been particularly overly dramatic, and many people have questioned Ilene Chaiken's vision. This final season seems to be no exception, with much sensational drama already taking place in the first few episodes. But, as with the rest of my queer friends, I'll be watching every episode down to the last one.

NPR's Juan Williams went on Bill O'Reilly's show and said this about Michelle Obama:

WILLIAMS: Yeah. And let me just -- let me just tell you this: If you think about liabilities for President Obama that are close to him -- Joe Biden's up there -- but Michelle Obama's right there. Michelle Obama, you know --

O'REILLY: But it's not her fault in the sense that --

WILLIAMS: -- she's got this Stokely Carmichael-in-a-designer-dress thing going. If she starts talking, as Mary Katharine suggested, her instinct is to start with this "blame America," you know, "I'm the victim." If that stuff starts to come out --

O'REILLY: Yeah, it'll be death.

WILLIAMS: -- people will go bananas --

O'REILLY: Right.

WILLIAMS: -- and she'll go from being the new Jackie O to being something of an albatross.

As dnA points out, sounds like somebody took that New Yorker cover to heart. Clearly, in the cable news world, an outspoken woman of color is downright militant when she's anything more than demure arm candy. There's no middle ground: she's either a passive object or an active threat.

And in what world is Michelle Obama a potential "albatross"?! The fact that Barack Obama's partner is a strong and outspoken woman is a good thing. Where Juan Williams sees a militant, a victim, an albatross, most women see dignified strength, intelligence, grace, and independence. Talk about going bananas.

Video is below the fold.

I generally can't take these shows. But I couldn't help but watch this episode of Wife Swap that reader Angela emailed us. First of all, one of the women featured was a bad ass doctor/roller derby player. Add in all of the mouth-dropping moments from the husband of a beauty-obsessed pageant mom - like when he says he hopes his daughter will be a man's "accessory" one day - and I was pretty much hooked.

Maybe this can be my unfeminist guilty pleasure...

Okay, I admit it. I was watching the Real World again.

My excuse this time was that I worked hard all day, then came home and had to clean up the apartment for a guest, and I really needed some mind-numbing chill time with my pasta dinner. Just nod your head and humor me, okay?

In any case, the Real World is in Brooklyn (Red Hook) this time around and exploiting every stereotype therein (stick ball! hip hop! pizza!). But what really caught my attention was that there is a transgender roommate (M to F). Kat is post-op, having just returned from Thailand, where she got her surgery, and in the episode I saw, she slowly comes out with each roommate that she grows to trust in the house. Meanwhile, of course, there are lots of offensive comments in the confessional and panning in on her in her underwear. Lots of speculation, like this:

The show this iteration is chockfull of sexual identity "scenes." One of the most bizarre happens when one roommate, Ryan, an Iraq veteran who wants to publish a book, is dared to kiss a performer at a gay bar in Chelsea for $100 and he ends up being kissed on the mouth and freaks out to the point of vomiting (or was that his copious drinking?). When he tells his girlfriend she screams, "Grossssss!" into the phone.

I am so torn about all of this. On the one hand, I know that the Real World is a whole lot more widely distributed than Anne Fausto-Sterling or Susan Stryker. I know that watching this kid have his little transformation from self-proclaimed ignorant to having some empathy and understanding of LGBTQ issues could really make a difference in a lot of Americans lives. Seeing Kat deal with the transition into her post-op body, telling people about her own story and the larger struggle for transgender rights etc. could enlighten so many young people across America who might otherwise have no exposure (or at least, exposure that they knew about) to transgender folks or an entre into LGBTQ issues.

On the other hand it's reductive, given very little analysis or context, and how do we know some kid doesn't tune in to watch Ryan vomit because he's been tricked into kissing a, yuck, gross, transvestite and then doesn't learn a damn thing? In fact, that viewer's discomfort with anything outside old paradigm heterosexual gender binary is reinforced.

Your thoughts?

In this recent Early Show interview with Jennifer Aniston to promote her new flick Marley and Me, co-anchor Harry Smith asked her actually nothing about the film, but managed to - what some are saying "fawn over" - I'd say act pretty damn inappropriately. The best lines:

"You take a pretty good picture. And how old are you now?"
(When she answers) "Well, you wear it well. . .How do you stay in shape?"
"Do people follow you wherever you go?"
"Alright, baby. You look great. It bears mentioning."

Talk about professional.

Samhita beat me to posting Jon Stewart's direct confrontation of Mike Huckabee's anti-gay views. And while I share in the swoon-fest, I think it actually calls for a bit more conversation.

Huckabee has been making the rounds to various media outlets, promoting his new book. A few weeks ago, after the Huckster appeared on Rachel Maddow's show, Pam Spaulding noticed that Maddow chose not to bring up gay rights during the interview -- despite Huckabee's bigoted views. ThinkProgress asked her why, and Maddow responded,

I weighed whether or not to ask him about his anti-gay views, but I really don't care about them very much. Huckabee is a doctrinaire anti-gay theocratic social conservative whose views are well-known and heartfelt. I also probably wouldn't bother asking Sarah Palin about her anti-gay views if I had the opportunity to interview her -- it's just not the most interesting or newsworthy (or ridiculous) thing about either of them.

(Emphasis Pam's.) Maddow is saying her decision was a journalistic one, and Pam's not buying it. But I disagree with Pam that this is "closeted journalism." In the past, Maddow hasn't shied away from discussing gay rights on her show. For example, she covered the Prop 8 fallout.

Tami had a really great take on some of the questions this raises:

But that thinking puts a tremendous burden on successful members of marginalized communities, who already have to work extra hard and overcome myriad obstacles. Does Oprah have a right to be a talk show host, not a black talk show host with an extra burden of addressing "black" topics in a way that is acceptable to the black community? Can Rachel Maddow be just a super-smart, kick-ass pundit and political show host without the specter of her sexuality looming behind every decision? Where does our responsibility to our people end and our responsibility to ourselves begin? What does a community have the right to ask from its most successful members?

(Did you read Tami's entire post? 'Cause you should.)

These questions hit really close to home for me. Like Maddow, I work in political/opinion journalism. And I find myself considering these things in so many situations. Do I assign this piece to a lesser-known journalist who is not a white man (who may have less experience, but who would bring a different perspective and much-needed diversity to the magazine), or do I try to assign it to the well-known author (who is usually a white man, who is often a more experienced writer, but whose name is known and more impressive to our readers)? Do I make my feminist perspective very clear in my writing, or do I make a concerted effort not to have every piece with my byline focus on gender? Am I going to be seen as a nag when I bring up, over and over, the lack of diversity in our pages?

To be fair, I know plenty of white, male editors and writers for whom these questions are also important. But the difference is the weight of the obligation. And it's clear that it weighs heavier on journalists who are women, who are queer, who are people of color. It's not a perfect analogy, but in some ways, it's like child care. When a mother takes the kids to the park, she's just doing her job. When dad does it, he's a hero. That's why it's hard for me to fault Rachel Maddow, and why I force myself to temper (just a little bit) my joy at watching that Jon Stewart segment.

So I'm just flipping through the stations on my television, using the cable guide, and I come across a segment of 20/20 on We. The "info" that describes what the episode is about?

Young, beautiful, dead.

I think I need a glass of wine tonight.

New blog Awesome and Fablous! asked the question today, "Which Huxtable are you?"

This came up in conversation between the bloggers Soraya and Veronica when discussing how folks are more or less saying Michelle Obama is a 2008 version of Claire Huxtable.

I don't know who I'd be, but I'll say always wanted to be Denise - she seemed so free-spirited and unique. (And cool as hell, not to mention.)

In case you missed it...

Via Michelle Obama Watch, which also has Part II of the segment.

I got a bunch of emails from readers about a recent episode of The Office that contained what all agreed was a non-funny joke about rape (though there's never really a funny rape joke, is there?). I hadn't seen the episode and couldn't find it anywhere - luckily, one of my students at Rutgers was kind enough to send it my way.

I generally really love The Office and think that its jokes - even on subjects like race and sexuality - are generally pretty smart and progressive. But I hated this. Thoughts?

Thanks to Alissa for the vid.

You know I can't resist anything Maddow related.

Thanks to Heather for the link.

Courtney loves it. Rebecca Traister loves it. What does Sarah Haskins think?

My take on the Gossip Girl OMG ad campaign, for purposes of this blog post.

Time for a little break in the onslaught of election news and voting tales... This recent article in the Washington Post is basically fundie-bait:

Teenagers who watch a lot of television featuring flirting, necking, discussion of sex and sex scenes are much more likely than their peers to get pregnant or get a partner pregnant, according to the first study to directly link steamy programming to teen pregnancy.

Ok, try to stop laughing over the fact that the Post uses the term "necking." Moving on...

The study, which tracked more than 700 12-to-17-year-olds for three years, found that those who viewed the most sexual content on TV were about twice as likely to be involved in a pregnancy as those who saw the least.

When a study finds two things are "linked," that doesn't necessarily mean one causes the other. Maybe kids who watch more sexy TV have less parental supervision, as Matt at Pushback suggests, and therefore get it on more. But regardless of the study's merits, the abstinence-only-until-hetero-marriage crowd is up in arms, and ready to push their agenda.

Part 2 after the jump.

Via Jack and Jill Politics.

Samantha Bee on McCain's women's health air quotes. Nails it dead. (Wait until about halfway through the vid.) I love her.

Thanks to all the Feministing readers who emailed me late into the night excited about this segment!

Can we just talk about how much I'm been crushing on Amy P. lately? First she got a spot on one of the funniest shows on television, The Office. Then she got her own TV show--all the plans still in the works. Meanwhile she's been acting, rapping, and swinging that big ol' pregnant belly all over the stage with wild, unencumbered abandon. She makes being pregnant look like some serious fun.

And as if that wasn't enough, I've just discovered that she's co-producing this show, Smart Girls at the Party, "a fresh and wholly original digital series that celebrates young girls who are changing the world by being themselves. The show - Smart Girls at the Party - aims to help girls find confidence in their own aspirations and talents, and to prove that you don't have to be famous to be interesting."

My new dream dinner party just become Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, Rachel Maddow, and a whole gaggle of feministing-ers.

Thanks to reader JustCharlotte for emailing us about this charming UK-based television show, Three Fat Brides, One Thin Dress.

In each of the three episodes of Three Fat Brides, One Thin Dress, three brides-to-be have just eight weeks to transform their appearance and well-being, with the prize of the wedding dress of her dreams for the bride who has the greatest success.

But how will they cope with the added pressure of Ms McKeith on the wedding scene? Will they make it to their big day a few sizes smaller? Or will they want to call the whole thing off?

You know, because women would rather call their wedding off than be fat. I mean, is this show for fucking real? It's the same gross sentiment behind We TV's Bulging Brides: That women only deserve love if they're a certain (small small small) size.

Oh dear. Something tells me I'm not going to want to watch this one.

(By the way, Pam has a ton of great posts on the "ex-gay" movement; check them out here.)

First I have to admit, I am not all caught up so take my commentary here with a grain of salt. My honey and I just started blazing through this amazing show, first season, on DVD last weekend. But I just had to shout them out because I've been so affected by the gender dynamics that play out on the little screen on this wildly accurate historical drama.

For those who haven't seen it, Mad Men looks at the inner and outer lives of ad executives circa 1960. Sounds like a potential sleeper right? Except the creators and writers do a masterful job of looking at the time as this sociological flash point. Not only does it portray the rise of advertising culture in a way that makes me understand Naomi Klein, Adbusters, and every other brilliant critique of consumer culture more deeply, but it presents the gender dynamics and family lives of folks at that time in a way that is piercing.

I can honestly say that, even with all of my women's studies classes and feminist reading, I've never really understood how fucking limiting and objectifying being both a working girl and/or a housewife were at that time until I watched this show. I was even more stunned when I talked to feminist historian Elaine Tyler May about it, and she said that Mad Men is shockingly accurate in every way.

The secretaries are seen as pretty little slaves, always available for the vanquishing in a hotel room and never valued for their own ideas or identities. The housewives are completely trapped, sexually and intellectually starved, scared as all hell to counter their husbands' whims and ways, really frickin' joyless. I recognize that these are fairly one-sided portrayals. Certainly some women at that time found ways to feel powerful, work their ideas into the board room (even if under a male name), find joy in care taking and housekeeping, but I also believe that we would be fooling ourselves if we thought that these were majority experiences.

So this week, I thank the creators of Mad Men for really making me understand just how incredibly far we've come in so many realms. Speaking my mind has more meaning than ever.

Make sure to check out Courtney's latest at TAP on the political power of...The View!

Family Guy, which I must admit I enjoy, seems to have a thing for rape jokes. And I'm getting sick of it.

The most recent episode, I Dream of Jesus, featured this conversation with Peter and a waiter (Peter is trying to get the waiter to give him a jukebox record he likes):

Peter: Can I have that record? I love that song. I'll let you have sex with my daughter...

Waiter: I don't know...let's see what your daughter looks like.

P: She's...uhh...(pans past Meg to "hot" girl)...right there!

W: Ok, I'll do her. But can you tell her to cry and beg me to stop?

P: I think that can be arranged.

And this isn't the first time the show has made light of violence against women. Usually, I'd consider Family Guy one of my (Un)Feminist guilty pleasures, but I think I have to cut the show off completely. Sigh.

Thanks to Caitlin for the heads up.

Aw, shit. I like her.

Transcript available at HuffPo.

With a handy metaphor...

She is awesome.

(Transcripts aren't online yet -- I'll update with a link to the transcript tomorrow, after it's posted. Apologies for the delay!)

via Rachel.

Ellen just confirmed rumors that she will be the new Covergirl spokesmodel on her show recently. You can see the clip where she makes the announcement here.

There's been a lot of progress for butch celesbian's lately. First, we have Dani Campbell, the arguable star of the pretty terrible show A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila (come on, Dani was the only reason I watched the damn thing) who brought really hot butch (actually, she identifies as futch, but more on labels in a minute) lesbians to the mainstream. Then Ellen gets married to partner Portia de Rossi in a tasteful and well documented affair a few weeks ago. Then, we've got the also quite attractive and rather butch Rachel Maddow getting her own new show, which has been getting fantastic ratings. Now Ellen is the new CoverGirl?!? What's next? A butch lesbian for president? I won't hold my breath on that one.

So before I continue, a word on language. I don't actually know if any of the aforementioned women identify as butch. Butch is a term primarily used in the lesbian community (although gay men use it too) to refer to a lesbian woman who is more masculine/boyish in their gender presentation. I would say that being butch can be seen as a form of gender non-conformity, that is, presenting yourself in a way that goes against traditional ideas of femininity. Oh, and futch, as Dani self-identifies, a term she coined to describe someone who is neither femme nor butch. It can get quite complicated, and becomes extremely personal to everyone's self-definition. Also, lipstick lesbian is a term that has been used to refer to more feminine-presenting lesbians. Femme is also a term for this, but not all femmes wear lipstick, or would call themselves lipstick lesbians.

I have to say, first off, that I wasn't super-excited when I saw the news about Ellen. In some ways, this makes me feel like we're taking a step backwards when it comes to gender diversity. The message these ad campaigns send is, look, even a lesbian is really still a woman, lipstick and all! What would be really progressive, to me, would be to have a more feminine identified man, who wears lipstick in his everyday life, as a CoverGirl. You know, like the male bodied people who work for Mac? Now, it's totally possible that Ellen does put on make up, even when she's not on camera. But something makes me think it's very possible this isn't the case.

Everyone (dudes included) wears make up in show business. Mainly it's because of the lighting. You look pasty and washed out without it. But the way make up is done for men and women is very very different. Done well, men barely look like they're wearing anything at all. Rachel Maddow, for example, has definitely been kind of "girled" up for her new show. Light pink lipstick, weird short hair whorl. It could be that she is on board with the make over, and likes the hair do. But I have a sneaking suspicion it's also about mainstream appeal. We may be starting to be okay with girls who sleep with girls, but only if they are still really firmly girls. Being gay is increasingly okay, but don't screw with the gender binary.

Oh, and then of course there is the issue of CoverGirl and animal testing. But that's a whole other post...

Some "before and after" pics of Rachel Maddow after the jump.

Bill O'Reilly goes for the bald-faced racism/sexism:

If you can't stomach watching him, here's a transcript snippet (O'Reilly's guest was Rebecca Johnson, a Vogue reporter who had recently interviewed Michelle Obama):

JOHNSON: I found her lovely, actually, very bright, very thoughtful and, you know, an impressive person, intelligent. She was great. I was impressed.

O'REILLY: Now, I have a lot of people who call me on the radio and say she looks angry. And I have to say there's some validity to that. She looks like an angry woman. Did you ask her about that?

JOHNSON: Don't they say that about you, too?

O'REILLY: Yeah, but I'm not running for -- I'm not going to be the first lady.

He forgot to add, "I'm also not a black woman who has to contend with the sexist, racist assholes who listen to my radio show."

Renee breaks it down further:

Michelle is an ABW because she is a woman that is educated, successful and opinionated. Black women have historically fallen into three categories, the licentious whore (read: jezebel), loving nurturer (read: mammy) or ball busting shrew (read: sapphire). Each stigmatization has the specific purpose of creating us as caricatures rather than real people. These stereotypes are one dimensional and the basis of their existence is their reaction to their environments. Black women are universally seen as objects rather than subjects; and personalities like O'Reilly perpetuate these images because it maintains white hegemony.

An autonomous woman that demands respect does not pander to the concerns of the white male power elite and is therefore a threat to their privilege. While he views his questions as innocent interrogations in fact what they are, are an attempt to reduce her validity as a person. If she is angry, the anger is deemed illegitimate. Quite unspoken is the opinion that her anger is based in her refusal to capitulate to the white male power base. Every ABW could be happy if only they would be more like Mammy or Jezebel.

Go read the rest.

Related:
Quick Hit: Defending Michelle
Fox trashes Michelle Obama: The lowlight reel
Obama Sexism Watch: Sexy Silhouette Edition
Michelle Obama Sexism/Racism Watch ("Angry Black Woman" edition)
Michelle Obama Sexism/Racism Watch (Baby Mama edition)
Michelle Obama Sexism/Racism Watch

Alfre Woodard (left) and CCH Pounder (right)

The Oscar-nominated actress Alfre Woodard talked to Premiere magazine:

Do you think African-American women are getting better roles now? You see more African-American [women] onscreen, I guess, but it's hardly anything to crow about. It's not just African-American women -- it's Latinas, Asian-American women. The film business remains the last bastion of close-minded and uncreative behavior in terms of the way we see human beings.

So it was ironic when George Clooney name-dropped Hattie McDaniel [Gone with the Wind] in his Oscar acceptance speech for Michael Clayton.
I don't remember his speech.

He was trying to show that Hollywood has always been ahead of its time.
I don't know what he meant. No other the industry is this backwards in terms of not putting the best person for the task up to the task, rather than assuming you're a specialty act. It's, "I'm not going to let Rosalind Chao play the museum curator unless it says 'Chinese-American woman,'" and then they're going to make her say, at some point, something about some noodles. That kind of bullshit.

This reminded me of something I recently heard the actress CCH Pounder (of the tv show, "The Shield," which I've actually never seen) say on NPR's Fresh Air. She told a story of wanting to read for the part of a judge, but because it wasn't written as "black woman judge," she had to fight for the chance to even audition:

I was watching TV recently (which I rarely do) and saw a commercial for a new show on WeTv called The Locator.

So, the premise of this show is that Troy is a "locator" helping people find loved ones that they have lost touch with, or never met. The commercial I saw showed Troy knocking on a birth mother's door and introducing her to the daughter she gave up. Hold on a second. What if the birth mother doesn't want to meet the daughter she gave up for adoption?!?

Another scenario from the preview above is of a mother wanting to find her daughter, with particular urgency because she has cancer. The kicker? It might be hereditary. There is just something about the premise of this show that just bothers me. People's personal lives and space being violated for the entertainment of millions? I guess it's nothing new for reality TV. Also, they refer to the people they are trying to find as "targets." That just rubs me the wrong way.

I was interviewed last week by Newsweek reporter Jesse Ellison about my thoughts on the new MTV series "Exiled." I'm not a huge fan of the concept, to say the least. Latoya Peterson from Racialicious was also interviewed. The show takes girls from the "My Super Sweet Sixteen" series and sends them off to a foreign country for a week.

In the first episode of "Exiled," which aired last week, our girl Amanda, who is now 19 and seems to spend her days sleeping and sunbathing, is surprised by her family and friends (and, presumably, MTV's film crews), with the news that they are sending her to Africa. Amanda is whisked away to Kenya, where she spends a week with the Masai. She sleeps in a dung hut, is asked to touch cow dung (which she refuses to do), carries water for hours and watches the slaughter of a goat.

Several posters noted that the host families on the show seem like props. "The show falls into the theme of using other countries and cultures as teaching tools for people in the U.S." says feministing.com blogger Miriam Perez. "These people are being used as a teaching tool for mostly white, privileged girls. Why was this girl honored? Because she stopped crying after a few days? She was offensive. She wasn't appreciative."

Latoya Peterson, blogger for Racialicious.com, has a similar objection. "They're taking these extremely spoiled kids and going, 'OK, what's the worst thing we can do to them? Send them to Africa!" she says. "That's a terrible mind-set to have. It's the First World balking at the Third World."

Read the rest of the piece here.

What do you all think about the new show? You can watch the first episode for free online.

We here at Feministing heart Margaret Cho, so we couldn't have been happier to find out she was getting her own show on VH1. If you missed the first episode, you can watch it right here!

Rest of episode after the jump....

Variety has recently released their 2008 "Women's Impact Report," which profiles influential women in movies, television, music, business and technology. Apparently there are only a handful of influential women of color...ugh.

There are certain headlines that I really never want to see. This is one of them:

Dora to explore older, racier market

For those who don't know the fabulous Dora the Explorer, she's the character of a top-rated Nickelodeon television show about a little girl who goes, well, exploring while also teaching children Spanish. It's a great show. But apparently, it's not sexy enough.

Dora the Explorer, the wide-eyed cartoon character adored by young children around the world, is facing a makeover amid competition from older, racier rivals.

Nickelodeon, the children's television network owned by Viacom, has been discussing a redesign of some Dora-themed toys and other merchandise that would make the character appear more feminine, say people familiar with the talks. (Emphasis mine)

Oh dear. Dora wouldn't be the first beloved cartoon character to get a sexy new look, but for some reason I find this more depressing than past "makeovers."

You can contact Viacom, who owns Nickelodeon, here.

Thanks to Morgan for the link!

The next cycle of America's Next Top Model will feature a transgender contestant, 22-year-old Isis. Now, I'm inherently skeptical of all things that fall under the category of "reality TV" -- and we've certainly critiqued Top Model before -- but I have to admit, this sounds pretty exciting.

"My cards were dealt differently," Isis, a 22-year-old former receptionist, tells Us Weekly exclusively in its new issue, on newsstands now.

Hailing from Prince George's County, Maryland, Isis identifies herself as "a woman born physically male."

Will she be a role model?

"I like to help people, but I'm here to follow my dreams," she tells Us.

Monica Roberts has some clips of Isis's runway skills, and is hopeful that ANTM won't bungle this opportunity. She's noted before that Tyra Banks has been consistently respectful about trans issues on her own show, Tyra. Here's hoping that attitude extends to ANTM.

Via.

A little retro (well, retro for me, a child of the 80s) afternoon video inspired by my it's only wednesday and I'm already this burned out? feeling. Plus, sometimes you just need something light and goofy to break up all this deep shit.

One of my favorite tv shows as a kid was Clarissa Explains It All. I loved her, wanted to be her, crazy family and all. So in honor of hump day, a little Clarissa Explains It All theme music.

What's your favorite retro tv show?

Babble has a great post of The 15 Most Sexist Daytime TV Commercials. It has old ones and new ones, but this one, which we posted on last year, is by far my favorite:

Ah, the Rose Petal Cottage. Because it's never too early to start indoctrinating girls about how their "dreams have room to grow" - all the way to the washer/dryer.

So yeah, they didn't give her nearly enough air-time, but our own fabulous "Ray of Light"* Courtney Martin was on Good Morning America today discussing Keira Knightley's stand against digital makeovers. Check out the story and video here.

*A nickname recently discovered at the Feministing retreat because of C's shiny-light goodness.

At Salon, Rebecca Traister has a love letter to her favorite sci-fi protagonist, Dana Scully:

In this summer of Dark Knights and Hellboys and Iron Men, it's refreshing to be reminded -- as we will be this weekend, with the opening of "The-X-Files: I Want to Believe" -- that not so long ago, there was a science fiction series with a woman at its core, a heroine whose major goals were more about disproving the existence of extraterrestrial life than marrying Big, a chick who spent more time chasing fluke worms down toilets than trying on shoes.

Awhile ago, Starziki6 posted some very similar sentiments on our community blog:

Mostly, my love for the show (and I loved this show for eight seasons) had to do with Scully and how unique her character was. She was introduced to the show as its rational, scientific, and spiritual voice. When Mulder got himself into trouble by following his gut, Scully would reel him into reality by using her head. (It also happened that Scully got into trouble from using her head and Mulder could save her by following his gut, but the roles remained largely consistent.)

I cannot love the show more for the way it depicted a strong, smart, beautiful, and ultimately feminist woman.

Unfortunately I missed being able to post the video on this one (apparently its been taken off you tube, media conspiracy anyone?), but we still have the quote.

For those of you more in tune with the plethora of "celebreality" shows on VH1, you might know Brooke Hogan. The daughter of Hulk Hogan, former pro-wrestling superstar whose family was featured on the show Hogan Knows Best. Well Brooke now has her own show (and a fledging music career) called Brooke Knows Best. Well apparently she doesn't know best, because this was her response on the show recently to a prospective roomate's questioning about who she was going to vote for:

You know what? I am actually not that much into voting. I think it's kinda crazy that a woman is running, because I think that women deal with a lot of emotions and menopause and PMS and stuff. Like, I'm so moody all the time, I know I couldn't be able to run a country, 'cause I'd be crying one day and yelling at people the next day, ya know?

Sigh. Hopefully most of the viewers found this as absurd as I did.

Thanks to Maria for the link