Ode to Dollhouse

Written yesterday, revised today:

And, so it goes. Dollhouse has been given the boot. I can't really blame Fox for canceling Dollhouse (unlike when they cancelled Firefly), but I do wish it had lasted. And not simply because I discovered a major crush on Fran Kranz.

I'm not surprised because Dollhouse had some consistency issues; I'm saddened because the good episodes were up there with some of the more ingenious inventions of Whedon's other work.

When Pushing Daisies was cancelled, I quoted Whedon:

"Two roads diverge in a wood, and I took the road less traveled by and they CANCELLED MY FRIKKIN' SHOW. I totally shoulda took the road that had all those people on it. Damn."

I don't think Dollhouse was cancelled because it was on the road less travelled by. At least, I don't think that is the only reason. Sure, part of the reason is that it couldn't be practically explained in a soundbite. There was no "cheerleader kills vampires" or "nine people stare out into space and see nine different things". But part of it was that the show took a few stumbles early on (and then again later on), and sometimes the philosophical offerings of an episode were far more interesting than the episode itself. And I speak as someone who only truly "flames on the sides of my face" hated Instinct. Part of that was probably due to it having to forge a new path in the television wilderness. It couldn't simply recreate the system that works so well for the 19 bazillion Law and Order and CSI type shows on television. And creating something new involves working out how to make it work. And working that out means failure.

I think Dollhouse was cancelled because... well, it was a weird show that was about people you wouldn't want to eat lunch with let alone spend your friday nights with, and about the philosophical ponderings of what makes a person their specific person and the value each person holds. It was a show that asked us to look at how we see people, how we see ourselves, and whether or not it was ooky to rent the body but create another person to be housed within that body.

And the show suffered from a lack of cohesion; I started this by saying it wasn't the less travelled road that killed Dollhouse, but I'm reversing that here. Because pretty much every traditional weakness is determined by the very premise. It couldn't have the necessary cohesion because it didn't have a set of fixed characters who evolved slowly. It had a set of fixed characters who evolved slowly, a couple of characters who existed in drugged out child-like states and so had difficulty evolving at all (and whose very evolution was a radical and revolutionary act), and the new and temporary characters those drugged children embodied from week to week. All of that is the show; it isn't a problem of the show. And because it was the show, it was often used to the show's benefit. But because that was the show, someone popping in on an episode like Briar Rose would be completely thrown if their next episode was Belle Chose.

That isn't to say the show didn't have some real weaknesses separate from the premise. I have previously complained about structural theme of the show versus the nature of the stand alone episodes. There was also the "why?" question in relation to action. Like, "Why did Ballard rent out Echo to sleep with and marry that guy in the season 2 premiere?" or "Why didn't Adelle think to restrain the potential serial killer/leave a guard with Uncle?" or "Why don't they just shut this damn House down if every week there is a Major Issue?"

Some other questions emerged as well, like, "What is the refund policy for a Doll that stabs you in the midst of a non-stabbing engagement?"

And yet, I really, really, really liked Dollhouse. Some of it stemmed from those moments when everything hit on all cylinders, when Topher and Saunders discussed the conundrum of being a built person housed within someone else's body - and knowing it. Or the whole Nice Guy thing that went down in Belonging. Some of it stemmed from the pantsless scene in Echoes. Some of it stemmed from the fact that I really, really, really missed Whedon. Like, really. I know, I know. He's written some comic books. I've read them. I love hearing his voice in my head when I read them (not his actual, somewhat lispy voice, but his writerly "here are my words" voice). But I missed that visceral feeling that my show was on, that it was Whedony, that I would see the actors I liked doing the type of stuff I also am made to like by virtue of its Whedonosity.

I liked Dollhouse because although the balance in form had never truly been reached, the balance between the larger thematic message - the so-called "plot", if you will - and the evolution of the people - the "characters" - was spot on. I'm a character-driven gal. I hate it when the world moves the characters along; I much rather the characters to move the parts of the world, and each other. Dollhouse was character driven; the characters changed each other. And yet, the show never let you forget that these characters existed because their world was f'd up, because there were forces beyond their control that influenced and, for some, created them. That the forces contained within those gates would eventually come crashing down to earth and destroy almost everyone else.

After Fox burns off the rest of the episodes in December, I'll miss this show. I'll miss what it could have been, yes. I'll miss the crazy idea I had that Rossum was really just standing in for Blue Sun and that I'd finally see the world corporations ruled as Whedon seemed to be setting up in the early days of Firefly. But I'll also miss what it is. I'll miss the not-quite moral characters, and the slow, tentative grasps toward some sort of family unit. I'll miss Adelle, and Boyd. I'll miss Victor and Sierra. I'll miss Dr. Saunders. I'll miss Topher.

And I'll hope that at some point, Whedon will return to television. On CHUD, Devin Faraci is challenging Whedon to change the world - and I hope he will. I've already proven that I'll follow Joss Whedon from project to project, be it computer, television, film, or radio. But, and this stems from my years of watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Whedon on my television screen feels like home. And I like that feeling. So he can create all the internet and on demand media he wants. I'll be there to gobble it up; but I look forward to another show in the future that starts down the path less travelled. Hopefully, some day, there will be others traveling that road too.

You's A Dick

Not you. Well, maybe you. It kind of depends on who you are.

But definitely these people in the first act of This American Life's most recent episode Bait & Switch.

Here's the accompanying article.

I'm, to put it mildly, not exactly happy with the idea of bait cars. I understand the impetus to make those criminally minded think twice about taking a car that looks like the perfect target. At the same time, I don't see how this isn't entrapment. And, possibly owing to my own admitted ambivalence toward the police and their authority, I see this as a potential conflict of interest.

In the article, there's one quote that stands out to me as particularly problematic.

"Let me ask you something: If you see a car with the keys in it, would you take it?" Tate said. "There are hundreds of people walking by these cars, and they make the choice to keep walking. The bottom line is this: If you see a car that doesn't belong to you, don't take it."

And sure, that is the bottom line. But that bottom line gets blurred when the person leaving the car open and inviting to be stolen is the person who is responsible for catching those who steal cars. The car would not have been there if the cops didn't think they could lure someone into taking said car.

And so, here we have a crime (or, in the case of Mark Ledford and Asia Ward, not even that) facilitated by the officers in question.

The same sort of morally grey case building has been highlighted before by This American Life, notably in Arms Trader 2009. That case had all the hallmarks of this one, had the same moral questions of setting someone up, of giving them all of the opportunities to commit a crime they otherwise may have never had the inclination to commit, and then arresting them and trying them for that crime. Another case highlighted in Act II by the This American Life episode Turncoat discussed Brandon Darby, a radical activist-turned-FBI informant who pushed two fellow (and fledgling) activists into more extreme actions than they otherwise would have participated in.

The moral implications of a nation whose policy it was to facilitate fake terrorist actions in order to smoke out people who would or could potentially turn to terrorism disturbed me. I would really rather not have a government goading people who perhaps do have some inklings or some potential to do some pretty bad shit, who have the potential to become arms dealers or crazed lefties throwing homemade bombs at Republican National Conventions, but who would very probably never get to that point on their own.

And in that comment by Sgt. Oliver Tate, it becomes clear as to why. No one should steal a car, or try to smuggle weapons to enemies of America or make plans to bomb places; but there is no moral high ground in creating the perfect storm effect, to push all of the buttons, on those people you suspect may have the want to steal a car or smuggle weapons or make bombs but who - without your help - would have none of the know-how or drive to do so.

What makes the case involving Mark Ledford and Asia Ward all the more abhorrent is what it demonstrates about the people who do plant the necessary buttons, who create those perfect crime-doing scenarios. It is that they don't care about the motivations. Mark Ledford called the car in to the police. He confirmed with a neighbor that she, too, called the car's presence in. And after he got no indication anything was going to be done, he decided to do something about the car himself. Smart? No. Criminal? Not in the least. And instead of admitting that they fucked up, instead of looking over their records and seeing what they could have done differently, instead of looking at the whole "bait" car itself and wondering if leaving a car unattended in a neighborhood may do more to unsettle the neighbors than it would ever accomplish in catching the criminally-minded-but-lazy, the police decided to leave out several salient details and set about bringing a case against Ledford and Ward. Instead of working to make the streets safer, the cops then were just being dicks.

And that's the problem with this "greater good" strategy. It gives too much power to those in authority. It trusts that those in authority are somehow more moral than the average person on the street. It trusts that in the event the authority is proven wrong, the authority will humbly admit to its mistake and take the necessary steps to correct it. And it does not allow for the formation of a crime independent of the entity responsible for stopping said crime. It makes the organization a facilitator in the crime it gets rewarded for preventing. And that? Is pretty heady. It is also possibly among the worst solutions to the problem.

The Dems Are Getting On My Very Last Nerve

Why? Well...

From Sharon Lerner and The Nation:

None of the bills emerging from the House and Senate require insurers to cover all the elements of a standard gynecological "well visit," leaving essential care such as pelvic exams, domestic violence screening, counseling about sexually transmitted diseases, and, perhaps most startlingly, the provision of birth control off the list of basic benefits all insurers must cover. Nor are these services protected from "cost sharing," which means that, depending on what's in the bill that emerges from the Senate, and, later, the contents of a final bill, women could wind up having to pay for some of these services out of their own pockets. So far, mammograms and Pap tests are covered in every version of the legislation...

...The fault for the initial omission can be laid at the feet of Democrats, who shied away from the issue, not wanting to invite controversy, according to women's health advocates who tried unsuccessfully to get women's preventive health care included in the basic benefits package. Some of the concern had to do with cost. Adding any required service to the basic benefits package would mean the Congressional Budget Office would give the bill a higher score, or price tag, leaving it more vulnerable to attack by budget hawks. But another part of the problem clearly stems from the fact that women's bodies have become political lightening rods, even when abortion is not the issue.

Consider what happened when the subject of women's preventive healthcare services came up in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP) in July, after the minimum benefits package had already been determined. Because some essential care for women wasn't included in the list, HELP committee member Senator Barbara Mikulski proposed an amendment that would require the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to stipulate that basic women's health services would be covered. The language said nothing about abortion, referring only to "preventive care and screenings."

Yet the voting on the amendment went exactly along pro- and anti-choice lines...

From Ezra Klein:

as Rep. Jim Cooper points out in the interview below, the biggest federal subsidy for private insurance coverage is untouched by Stupak's amendment. It's the $250 billion the government spends each year making employer-sponsored health-care insurance tax-free.

That money, however, subsidizes the insurance of 157 million Americans, many of them quite affluent. Imagine if Stupak had attempted to expand his amendment to their coverage.

From Salon's Frances Kissling:

We started down this road in 1976 when the Hyde Amendment passed and when, in 1980, the Supreme Court upheld the principle that the federal government had the right to enact policies that favored childbirth over abortion by restricting funding for abortion. Most Democrats saw that giving antiabortion taxpayers greater moral standing than women who choose abortion was a political power play. After all, taxpayers don't get any other say in how their taxes are used. Pacifists' dollars support war; anti-bailout Americans saw their taxes go to banks just this year. Except on the issue of abortion, if you want to be a tax resister, the only thing to do is not pay your taxes and go to jail.

And Chris Hayes:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I vote for the Democratic candidate in elections typically because there are two or three parties, and the Dems are generally the ones who profess to be the best on the issues that I care about. And some of those issues selfishly (though not wrongly) are ones I care about because they directly relate to my status as a woman. But part of that means I expect the party I vote for to not use women and their needs as a bargaining chip with those people I didn't vote for. Part of that means I expect the party I donate to, the party I defend, the party I vote for, the party I am a part of to put some friggin' fight into keeping what will directly help women. As Chris Hayes says, "It is very hard to say 'Trust us' right now, after this has happened."

I understand that the healthcare bill, as it stands now, does a lot of good. Ann at Feministing has a nice list going (which I only noticed because Emily covered it). But as it stands, I want a party who will vociferously go to battle instead of what I've got, which is a party that will compromise on the rights I hold dear and then tell me to trust them, that it will all be okay in the end - and then hold Roe over my head like an ax ready to chop when they want my vote or my money when they've already done plenty on their own to gut it.

November seems like it's going to be another Planned Parenthood donation month.

A Very Happy 40th Birthday to Sesame Street

Forty years ago today, Sesame Street went live.

Around 16 years later, I was around to be their demographic.

By virtue of not knowing any other channels existed (I spent my weekend early mornings enthralled by the bass fishing I watched on tv), I was a PBS kid from the start.

And my absolute favorite program was Sesame Street. Well, that and the bass fishing.

I don't know how much Sesame Street affected me, because there was no click moment; there was no moment in my life when there wasn't Sesame Street. I'm not sure how much I really learned. I could never recite the alphabet backwards. The two-headed monster sketches did absolutely nothing for my pronunciation abilities. I never mastered double dutch. Letters and numbers I picked up along the way, but I'm pretty sure I would have learned to count at some point or another.

What Sesame Street did give me, though, was a path to another world; in the early years, Sesame Street was actually gritty. It still seemed gritty through the '80s. It seemed real, like there were real people and real monsters and real giant birds living side by side on this street with a roving frog reporter. And because it seemed real, the things the show discussed and the way the show discussed them were real. It gave me characters I adored, from Big Bird to Grover, to Oscar to Telly Monster. It gave me Luis and Maria. It gave me Linda and Barkley. It gave me Bob.

I've read numerous books about Sesame Street. I've learned about the effort that went into making the show, the reasons for the different characters, the growing pains, and everything else. But what stands out is how Sesame Street was a show that understood kids, didn't talk down to kids, and then gave a little something for the grown-ups as well.

And so, as my own little gimmick suggests, I'm inordinately fond of Sesame Street. I'm glad it has made it to year 40, and I hope it has another couple of decades left.

Also, check out the Sunday Sweets: Sesame Street. Those cakes are the awesome.

Monday Reading List

Girls Can Be Wild Things Too! by Lauren O. My favorite line is:

I was reading this month's issue of Spin, a magazine I will continue to receive long after I get even more bored with it than I already am because one of those door-to-door magazine-subscription salesman guilted me into it, and I am more susceptible to guilt-based pitches than anything else in the world because I was raised Christian.

But the more salient point is probably this one:

The fact is that when you live in a society that constantly portrays women as curious passive accessories to real humans, you're going to absorb that message to some extent, no matter how smart you are, and no matter how much time you spend studying and defending women's rights (not that that is something Steve Kandell probably does very often). I'm not going to pretend like I haven't been guilty of this, and I'm sure I'll catch myself doing it again in the future, thinking of white men as default humans and of the rest of us as deviations from the norm.

You Can Take Your "Just Joking" and Shove It by Andrea. Because I really, really hate it when someone says something wickedly offensive or insensitive, and when called out on it goes with the "just joking" defense instead of being an adult and actually apologizing for hir own myopic meanness.

Being Transgender Is Dishonest from silver unicorn at the Community at Feministing:

Transgender people don't fit into these ideas of gender, so we are dishonest always. I can't say I am female without being accused of lying about what my assigned biological sex. And I can't say I'm male, because that isn't my gender identity nor is how I'm usually perceived, so that of cause would make me dishonest as well. And I certainly couldn't say my gender identity is anything other than female or male, because those options don't even exist in a lot of people's eyes.

It's Been A Year Since Obama Ended Racism in America, and isn't that just great? My favorite part in it all is this:

Whenever a homeless white person asks me for change, I always sneer at him and say: “You can’t be serious. You’re white. Look at Bill Gates. Why don’t you go invent an operating system instead of trying to freeload off of society you lazy white man.”

Oh wait, I never say that. Because that would make me a giant prick.

But, again, well worth the read. Especially the part about how Obama is a giant dork. Cuz, yeah.

Why It's Awesome To Be a Joss Whedon Fan by pointy. Filled with fairy tale references:

So, were we talking about someone? Oh, yes. That writer. Too many TV writers intoxicate us with the literalized Little Red Riding Hood. Act I: Innocence is victimized. Act II: The hero identifies Evil Incarnate and does battle, as reasons to Kill It Kill It pile up. Act III: The Death Bringer is slain by the hero, and the community is restored to pure wholesome goodness. The good guys live, cuz they’re good! It’s amazing how many people think they’re watching realism when they’re told the latest rehash of this fairy tale, minus all the elements that clue a child in that it’s not real.

Thomas' Reductio:

I don’t think we have a society that is comfortable with women being large or containing multitudes. The survey Lauren links treats “mom” as if it encompasses the whole of the woman, defining her entirely. Women are expected to be one-dimensional, so that if a woman is a professional, and if she is also a mother, any sort of acknowledgement that she’s also a mom is seen as slightly or not-so-slightly inconsistent with her role as a professional.

The Kiva team Stuff You Should Know started has reached $17,700 worth of loans made in just over a month.

And, because I love mustard on my elbow noodles (which really grosses out my mother):

nataliedee.com

Gaining Rights

So, the run down for minorities gaining the rights the majority enjoys seems to be this:

Exist.

Find some people, and justify your right to exist with the same rights as the majority.

Hopefully, this will end with some of those people deciding that you're right, and you do have the right to exist with the same rights as the majority.

Some of these people will now become allies.

You and your allies find some more people, and justify your right to exist with the same rights as the majority.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

The whole premise is based upon needing to demonstrate why you should be allowed to be something more than a second-class citizen, until the good people of the majority grow comfortable enough with you to grant you the rights denied to your predecessors.

The whole premise is based upon making it clear to those around you that you deserve to have access to the same rights and liberties as those who have never had to justify their existence in this kind of instance.

Or, in other words, the minority has to prove that its members are just as good, as human, as full of citizeny goodness as the majority.

Here's my problem with this whole deal. Chances are, large swaths of the majority have had to go through this song and dance themselves. There is only a small sliver of the population who has never had to justify themselves in the "I'm as good as you" way. And yet, we all just keep on dancing.

Here's my other problem with the whole deal. The problem with democracies is that the democratic process does not translate into justice, or equality, or the pursuit of happiness. All it means is that the majority gets their way; and the majority can be, at times, a bunch of assholes. Even when whole huge swaths of said majority also belong to any number of minority groups as well. I love my democratically elected republic government, and I would not trade it for any other form. But a pure democracy (or democratic republic) isn't the sole basis for the just or free society. For that, there need to be safe-guards.

I don't truly know how to articulate it; but luckily, someone else did (in talking about women's rights):

Rights are for all. When only some people have them, they're just privileges. And privileges can be taken away.

Those who don't have to rationally discuss whether or not they should have the right to wed are privileged. That privilege will probably never be taken away. And yet, it isn't a right. Because what those for marriage equality want aren't special rights, but rights to the same damn thing. And the thing standing in their way isn't anything more or less than other people's prejudices. Those prejudices aren't based in justice, aren't based in the philosophy of the American way. They are based in the undemocratic, anti-justice stance that just because this privilege of mine has rarely been challenged or questioned and is simply accepted as matter-of-fact that I have an intrinsic right to decide whether or not you get the same consideration.

That isn't to say that we shouldn't fight injustices by trying to convince other people that our path is the best. But it is to say this: democracy and justice don't just go hand in hand. Sometimes, the democratic process is used to deny justice to groups of people. Sometimes our judicial system does the same thing. But often in American history, it isn't the will of the majority that pushes forward the cause of justice, of equality, of a more perfect union. It is the actions of the few. They are the actions of presidents, of courts, of those who push the unwilling masses forward - because the balance between the will of the majority and the rights of the minority is a tenuous one, and one that must be guarded jealously.

Saturday Sesame Street

In anticipation of Sesame Street's 40th birthday come November 10:

Friday Random Ten

1) So Long, Farewell - The Sound of Music


2) Fly - Sugar Ray


3) Arch Angel - Scott Weiland


4) Taylor - Jack Johnson


5) Richard Cory - Simon & Garfunkel


6) Razor Face - Elton John


7) Fever - Takka Takka

Fever - Takka Takka

8) The House Is Rockin' - Stevie Ray Vaughan & Double Trouble


9) The Girl Is Mine - Michael Jackson & Paul McCartney


10) Rude Awakenings - Dropkick Murphys


Male Bands: 9

Bands with Women: 1 (for the sake of simplicity, musicals will go here)

Women Bands: 0

Men: 24

Women: 5

Monday Reading List

Lawyer Claims Rapist "Misread the Situation" by Cara. I think the title says it all.

Pussy, Pussy, Come Here! by Echidne.

From the Women Can't Win Files by Pilgrim Soul:

A female colleague of mine at work once remarked that when the elevator doors opened, she would often hear the group inside (if all male) fall silent, as though she had broken up the party. Small cues like that, dudes, are how you tell us you don’t think we get an equal share of the world. If you were making the kind of joke that would make a woman uncomfortable, the problem is not that she interrupted your fun. The problem is that you made the joke in the first place.

There's More To Life Than Marriage by MediaMaven.

Everything You Ever Loved Was Always Horrible, featuring: Short Circuit by Sady Doyle, who wittily and handily explores two movies I have never seen, owing at least in part to my weird-ass childhood where it was the odd thing I saw that wasn't produced by PBS or Jim Henson (and Short Circuit wasn't one of those). And then there's her point, choicely noted:

Because, you know, shit was fucked up. It continues to be fucked-up now, in fact! With any luck, our descendants will look back on our movies and be like, “Jesus, people WATCHED that? And didn’t get how TERRIBLE it was?” Because things will be better for them than they are for us, and they will get to take more for granted, which means we will all seem stupid and somewhat loathsome, which is as it should be.

Blaming the Gang Rape Victim by Tracy Clark-Flory:

She didn't deserve to be raped, but she was raped because she made some stupid mistakes.

It's such a convenient response, because every single day women do all sorts of things that seem reckless, especially after the fact of a crime against them. We leave our houses alone. We use underground parking garages and ride in elevators. We answer the door while we're home alone. We wear makeup. We wear clothing that doesn't hide our breasts and hips. We allow men in our lives, as family, lovers, friends and casual acquaintances. The list goes on and on.

And a comic from Toothpaste for Dinner that describes my life kind of perfectly.

toothpastefordinner.com

I Need To Stop Reading Advice Columns

Freshman year of college, my best friend and I had a section of closet door space dedicated to the most egregious of advice given by various advice columnists, as well as the most out-there letters - letters that sounded they were discarded soap opera plots, ones where wives ran off with their husbands' mothers, or people turning to witchcraft to stop the abuse they saw in their children's relationships. Overall, I have gained much enjoyment from advice columns, even if I don't think I've ever actually gained any sort of insight from them.

But now, it's time to stop. I probably won't, because like all addictions this one will be tough to kick. The straw is this letter:

Dear Annie: I am writing on behalf of pregnant women everywhere. Yesterday, as I was walking up the stairs at work, a co-worker shouted, "Here comes fattie!"

I am seven months' pregnant, and while I have a sizeable belly, I would not call myself "fat." People have also told me that my doctor must have the wrong due date, and that I'm never going to make it the full nine months.

Annie, my doctor says I am exactly on track. Please tell those well-meaning people that their comments are not appreciated by pregnant women, who are often tired, achy, swollen and full of hormones. Here's my advice: If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. — Frustrated in Mississippi

Dear Mississippi: Good advice for all circumstances. Some people see a pregnant woman and their brains fly right out their ears. Congratulations to you.

Okay, how's about a mention that it is never, ever, ever okay for anyone - much less a co-worker - to yell, "Here comes fatty"? Because, just an FYI, it's not. I can understand the letter-writer being upset and having her initial reaction be, "But I'm not fat!" She's not. But here's where the problem comes in; no, this woman is not fat, but pregnant. However, having the "Hey, I'm pregnant, so save your fat-shaming for the actual fat people" be the end reaction there on both parts - pregnant woman and advice columnists - is more than slightly appalling.

Being larger is not an invitation for meanness. Being larger doesn't mean you shouldn't be afforded the opportunity to exist in society without having people comment on your size, your weight, your body shape, your eating habits, etc. But fat-calling happens no matter what activity one engages in, from biking to walking to clothes-shopping to eating, making it the epitome of the no-win situation. What the writers of Annie's Mailbox should have said was, "Get thee to your HR Department!", because yelling "here comes fatty" is unprofessional, inappropriate, insensitive, and should not be permitted in the work place. By not saying that, by not acknowledging that fat-calling is a problem because it is targeting larger people and not in spite of that, what Annie's Mailbox is essentially saying is it isn't right for other people, people who may look heavy by in actuality aren't, to be publicly shamed for their perceived weight.

Bill O'Reilly Threatens to Come to Kent, CT

An excerpt from the Republican-American (a paper we will probably no longer be getting, as my mother refuses to not read the Opinion section, and then seethes with rage at the opinions expressed there - which is good for the NY Times, or possibly the Hartford Courant) article Fox's O'Reilly chides Kent in 9-11 Tribute Spat:

Fox News talk show host Bill O'Reilly has taken aim at the town of Kent for refusing to grant a local man's wish that a town memorial to his son, who was killed in the Sept. 11 attacks, should read: "Murdered by Muslim Terrorists."

I'm down with Kent's First Selectman Ruth S. Epstein here when she rightly points out, "He can do whatever he wants on his own property".

But what Mr. Gadiel (the local man in question) wants to do is to use the collective's money - and the collective's property - to put forth his own beliefs. If Bill O'Reilly wants to come to Kent and explain to Epstein and others why that is an appropriate use of town funds, all the more power to him. It is his First Amendment right to do so, and it is Mr. Gadiel's First Amendment right to pony up the money for his own memorial, separate from the town's, on his own lawn and with his own message. But it is not within his rights to demand the town spend its money, and donate its land, for that message. And to suggest otherwise, to suggest that the individual has a right to the collective's money, for the individual's own purpose and gain, well, that seems like an idea that runs counter to most Republican philosophy when it comes to taxation.

Saturday Sesame Street

This morning's Saturday Sesame Street is brought to you by the letter "S", as in Sociological Images, because that's where I found it:


I'll admit, it made me tear up a little bit.

Jay Smooth Continues to Amaze

Or, a brief history of the Stonewall Riots and the start of the Gay Rights Movement:



This kind of reminds me of how "pansy" is thrown around as an insult, when in the Real World, the pansy is one tough flower. Which is kind of the opposite of what "pansy" as an insult is supposed to connote.

Women As Bodies: Climate Change Legislation Edition

Hi! I'm all into the environment and stuff. I want to help enact climate change legislation! I have womanly parts, and I'm not into the ladies. Want to know how to not encourage my pursuit of a better world? This video!

Wow, is that bad. You know what this reminds me of? A post I wrote just around this time last year! I'll just quote myself, kay?

It is demonstrably for the man's pleasure in these adverts; and it is more of a bartering system, a tit-for-tat, than it is an actual expression of healthy sexuality. And that is deeply problematic. Women have the right for their sexuality to be their own; men have the right to not be treated like brainless sexaholics.

And here we are again, this time with models stripping for climate legislation. So, let's revisit this in a little bit more detail, shall we?

Ahem. Women and women's bodies are not bartering tools to get men to do good deeds. This is because women and women's bodies are, primarily, for women. To live in. And reducing a woman's (or even these specific women's) contribution to how hot she can make the guys, actually, more than a little sexist. In fact, it is a lot sexist. As is the implication that the way to make guys do something like focus on climate change legislation (or, as in the last post, voting for Obama) isn't through reasoned discussion or facts but by the chance to see some naked ladies. Because it suggests that (a) a woman's only power rests in her ability to sex up a man and get him to do what she wants, and (b) men are animals controlled by their libidos.

But there are some other problems with it; those are that the men are the actors. Men are the ones responsible for getting climate change legislation passed and done (and I say "men", because I very much doubt the masterminds behind the ad thought about lesbian response). Women are cast in the role of encouraging men to do good and fight the good fight, and then reward the great Climate Change Heros with some nudity.

But I can act. I can act, I can write letters, I can call my representatives in Congress, I can write letters to my local newspaper, I can write blog posts, and I can do all of those things while Being A Girl. And a lot of the girls I know can do all of those things while Being Girls as well. And this ad? Doesn't touch on that. It doesn't encourage any female action other than the getting naked bit. Maybe it is assuming those models have already written their letters. And yet, nada is mentioned about that possibility. Nada is mentioned about encouraging other women to write letters, to agitate for change. And what a way to cut 51 percent of the population out of a larger part of the solution than just being the body worth doing something to see.

Oh Dear

Via Chris Hayes' twitter:

My wife and I both thought last night's Mad Men was flat, and that the writing has gotten really stilted. Anyone else feeling that?

Via Whedonesque:

Marti Noxon finally gets to write a Halloween episode. As long as we're passing around the Halloween congratulations, the woman who made sure Buffy kept fighting the good fight while Joss was adding Angel and Firefly to the Whedonverse co-wrote the "Halloween episode" of Mad Men that aired last night.

The combo of the two thoughts makes me even more nervous for her proposed new feminist show.

Changing Last Names

Over at Feministe, Jill has tackled the idea that women should change their names upon marriage in The Name Game. I like the piece a lot, probably because I agree with it wholeheartedly.

There are any number of unfeminist choices I make on any given day. I wear high heels a lot. That is partially because I have always walked on my toes, so having high heels takes away from my weirdness when I'm in a professional environment. But it is also partially because I like high heels; I like the different styles and I like how they look with skirts, and I like the few extra inches they give me. And yet, all of those things I like about high heels doesn't stop my continued wearing of them to be an unfeminist choice.

But getting married, changing my name, are not unfeminist choices on my list. At the moment, I'm not for getting married. Weddings, and their cost, kind of freak me out. It isn't that I don't like being the center of attention. I so do. It isn't that I don't like pouffy dresses. I like 'em a lot. It isn't that I don't like fancy parties with dancing and sit down dinners. All of those things are cool, too. But what I don't like is the idea that participating in a ritual somehow makes my relationship more meaningful than it was the day, week, or month before.

But if I were to ever get married, I wouldn't change my name. I'm a big fan of my name. I like the people who have my last name. I like the life I've had with it. I like how my first and last names go together. I like that people can find me with it.

But more than that, there is this nagging thought in the back of my head, and it is best summed up in this comment by Another Jill on the (long, long) Feministe thread:

more than that– there are some compromises that aren’t fair. Sometimes someone has to lose in order to to accomplish what both people want.

And the nagging sensation in my head is the one that asks, "And why is it that, in most circumstances, it is women who lose?" A while ago, my ex and I were having a theoretical conversation about marriage, and I told him I wouldn't change my name. He was, in a word, appalled. And at some point, I asked him why he wouldn't change his name to mine. "I like my name" was his answer. Exactly. For those women who want to keep their last names but change them for the ease of compromise, I understand that on the individual level, it is an individual choice. But on the whole, if women are the ones expected to acquiesce in this matter whether or not they wish to keep their own last names, and if the option is a completely foreign one to most men, then the individual decision relates to the system as a whole.

I'm not looking to get married, not now and probably not ever. But if I do, at some point, end up getting married, I'm keeping my name. If I have children (which I'm also not planning on), I'll want to give them my name. Because it is mine, and I like it, and I want it to continue on. I want my children to have my name (although some days, I think about playing around and giving my hypothetical boy children my name and my hypothetical girl children their father's name, or vice versa). It is a selfish desire, to be sure. But just because it is selfish doesn't mean it is wrong. Because Another Jill is right; there are compromises that have to be made in any relationship. I just don't think I'm automatically the one to make them in these specific matters. (Other matters, yes.)

That doesn't mean every woman should keep her name and give her children her name (if she marries at all). What it does mean is that, at this moment, my (theoretical, subject to change) choice is considered radical and/or political, whereas taking your husband's name or giving your children their father's name is considered normal. I want to live in a world where both options are considered normal, where there is a fair mix of husbands taking their wives' names, wives' taking their husbands names, husbands keeping their last names, wives keeping their last names, children getting their fathers' name and children getting their mothers' name.

I think SarahMC summed it up well on the thread when she said,

Men have bad relationships with their dads, shitty memories of nasty childhoods, unfortunate initials and cumbersome surnames just as often as women do. But you don’t see them ditching their names at the rate women ditch theirs. And that’s because adopting one’s husbands’s name is a patriarchal tradition, and yeah, we still live in a patriarchy. Until we no longer live in a patriarchy, that tradition will be loaded.

One reason men rarely think to drop their surnames is because, from the time they are born, their surnames are treated as though they belong to them. EVEN THOUGH they get their surnames from their own fathers JUST as baby girls do. And yet women still claim their surnames are “really their fathers’.” If that’s true, then the same can be said of men.

Exactly, and yet it isn't. And yet, women's names are still the only ones that are transient, when all names should be potentially so.

Edit-

Alara Rogers' comment managed to articulate something that was sort of there for me in my head but almost completely absent from this post, and it adds more (and needed) nuance to SarahMC's point:

One thing I would like to note is that because feminists have fought so hard to give women the option of *not* changing their names, women actually have more options in this regard than men do. The female headspace includes both “change name” and “don’t change name” as reasonable options. And sometimes, as many posters have pointed out, “change name” is a great option to take, because if you do it when you get married, it’s free and it’s symbolic of your Great Love For Your Spouse rather than your Great Hatred Of Your Dad. But men don’t typically have that headspace available to them, and that’s because feminism has opened up options to women, but no one has really pushed on opening options to men. (Largely because the options men already have are the ones labeled as more powerful or better to have, and people don’t think in terms of “you know, it would be really great if I had the option to be weak and subsumed into someone else’s identity!”… but there are actually men who would take that option if they thought they could easily do so.)

It’s never a feminist act to change your name to your husband’s. It may not be a *sexist* act, it may not be a misogynistic act, it may not be an oppressive act, and you can commit that act and still be a feminist. But it’s never a feminist act. That being said, yes, there are good reasons to do it sometimes. The problem is that these good reasons are only perceived by women. Men hardly ever see these good reasons; thus men don’t have the option of cutting ties with their abusive fathers, or escaping the pressure of being a Junior (sweet jesus, I really don’t understand why there aren’t hordes of Dude Name Jr. changing their names to Dude Wifename because my god, exact same name as your father! *My* dad goes by Tetter, pronounced Teeter, to all his friends because his first and last names are the same as his father’s, and he’s not even a full Junior. And how much would it piss off the dad that you hated if you gave up being a Junior so you could carry your wife’s name? But few guys do it, even though there should theoretically be *more* men motivated to do so, as women don’t formally do the Junior thing.)

My ex wanted to change his name because he didn’t even know his dad. But he didn’t want to change it to mine, he wanted both of us to take a new name together, and I told him fuck that noise, my name is my name. You want a new name, great, but I won’t change mine. (In the end we never got married anyway.) My husband already *has* changed his name, to his adoptive father’s, when he was old enough to decide for himself that he would rather be New Dad’s Name than Old Dad’s Name, but this has made him even more attached to his name and he wouldn’t change it for anyone. So I do know men who have wanted to change their names to escape their biological fathers, and funnily enough, neither of them took their wife’s name or wanted to. It’s just not in the repertoire that little boys are raised with.

Emphasis mine. I highly recommend reading her entire comment, as this is only an excerpt from it.

Monday Reading List

Thoughtful Masculinities (Theory & Practice) from Walking Vixen. Choice quote:

The frontier of gender, as I see it, is very much in deconstructing and radicalizing masculinities, it’s in really taking to heart the notion that “gender” doesn’t just mean women and trans-identified people.

Traditional Americans by Mustang Bobby, a rebuttal to Pat Buchanan's assertion that 'they' (namely white, middle class Christians) are "losing their country". Bobby's comeback:

You can't lose what you weren't entitled to think was yours alone. And you really can't lose what wasn't yours to take in the first place.

Right on. As an atheist, not having the Christian faith featured prominently in my school system helped give me a piece of My America, in a way my mother didn't have and my father didn't have, in the way my grandfather didn't have and my great-uncle and great-aunts didn't have.

Don't Let A Girl Beat You by Renee. I think the title is self-explanatory, but there is this idea that men are really the sporty ones and girls aren't. Still. And when a girl is really super good at a sport (or many of them), it seems like it is a personal affront to the guys playing against her.

Seven Scenes, For A Reason by Melissa. One of my close friends is what one would consider overweight. She is beautiful, healthy (until she discovered WebMD and began diagnosing herself), and she has a lot of jewelry. I have always thought of my friend as the Fashionista among us, because she always looks so well put-together. I've been envious of her gift since high school. But what occurs to me upon reading this is how she uses jewelry. She has a lot of jewelry; I don't. And now I wonder if what I saw as Fashionistaness, going above and beyond, is really just her spicing up what she can find - being a Fashionista out of necessity.

Things To Remember During the Fall Pledge Drive from Lawyers, Guns and Money. I don't like Ken Rudin. At all. I don't like Ken Rudin at all, and things like this are why. He grates me like very few others, and I much prefer his It's All Politics cohost Ron Elving. In this case, it is because comparing a president's actions to Nixon is kind of like comparing someone's actions to Hitler. Only in extreme circumstances does the comparison come close to illustrating reality, and only in rare moments are those specific hyperbolic statements useful. IE, not here. I'm not a fan of comparisons between Nixon and George W. Bush. I don't think Bush was as amoral as Nixon, I don't think Bush was as talented as Nixon, I don't think Bush was as successful as Nixon, and I think it demeans the truly historic and, frankly, horrific abuse of power and government Nixon perpetrated to drop his name willy nilly.

To whit, Weighing in on White House vs. Fox News: An Apology from Ken Rudin's Political Junkie blog. I still don't like him, but I begrudgingly offer Rudin's apology. If I have to give Rudin something, it is that he didn't go the "sorry if you found what I said/did offensive" route. But he did spend the first couple of paragraphs defending his position on Fox vs Obama Administration.

And, from xkcd:

A Post In Which I Review Dollhouse's "Belonging"

This episode could have been subtitled "What Makes the Nice Guys® So Dangerously Evil". And it was good. The angst, the origin story, the societal implications of demonstrating the horribleness of Nolan, Topher - it was all so good. And, I think it may have had a little something to do with the lack of Echo and the abso-fucking -lutely brilliant performances by Fran Kranz, Enver Gjokaj (of course!), and last but certainly nowhere near least, Dichen Lachman. Oh man. Sierra rocked.

But, since I consistently end with Topher, I'm going to start with him this week. What makes Topher so fascinating is that we are watching him "wake up". We are watching him make up his own moral system. More than watching those figures with compromised morality - Adelle, Boyd, Ballard - or watching those with an established morality - Echo - watching Topher evolve is a brilliant thing. That is partially because there are so few chances to actually watch someone come to morality. Usually, people we watch on television start with a moral code: they falter, they fall, their code shifts to encapsulate new data. But there has always been a code there. Topher has generally been proud of his lack of code, and was able to maintain that lack of code by a lack of contact. He could think of the Dolls as "hot chicks" or "toys". But once contact has been established, once he is pulled from being Science Guy, following orders to the person who has to think and explore and establish right and wrong for the people under his care, Topher runs right smack into morality. And he runs into seeing the Dolls as people, not simply as objects. When he tells Boyd Echo is the one who brought him the painting, tells Boyd that Echo has always been "mother hen" to Sierra, and Boyd asks pointedly if that is something Topher should look into, it flies right past. Because Topher is no longer thinking of Echo as a thing to be fixed but a person with reasons for acting. He is no longer thinking of Sierra as a potentially malfunctioning Doll but as a person with a problem - a problem he is complicit in continuing and one he is determined to solve.

Topher is as asleep as the Dolls wandering the halls. Topher is as able to "wake up" as the Dolls wandering the halls. And Adele's House mostly depends on both Topher and the Dolls not doing that. It isn't like this House is particularly free of the trials and tribulations of compromised engagements, mostly stemming from Echo. But it most definitely depends on the Dolls not evolving into self-aware entities, or Topher getting ooky about sending these people he now sees as people out on engagements. And Topher is getting ooky specifically because there is no one there to play that ooked out role for him now that Dr. Saunders/Whiskey has exited the building. In her, Topher created a safety net, a person who could have and act upon the moral code he lacked. He did it because, as he said, "If you agreed with everything I said, then we would miss something and someone would get hurt." But also, I think, because it allowed him to continue down his amoral path, unthinking of the consequences of his actions because he made sure someone else would be. The burden of being moral, of being vigilant, of caring, was placed on someone else's shoulders so that Topher wouldn't have to carry the load. With Saunders having now absconded with herself, Topher is alone with morally compromised people or immoral people. When he tries to reach out, to provoke some moral stance from one of his counterparts, he's not given what he needs. Instead, his lack of morality is met with the exact lack of judgement he doesn't need and can't work with or through:

TOPHER: You can't let them do this!
DEWITT: They're not going to do it. We are. And when I say we don't have a choice, know that I mean it.
TOPHER: Aren't we supposed to care for these people? Dr. Saunders would never have allowed...
DEWITT: Which Dr. Saunders would that be? (TOPHER RECOILS) The avuncular physician so brutally cut down not five feet from where you were standing? Or the last woman to whom you gave a permanent imprint? The other wounded flower you restored by offering her a new life? Who apparently found you so unbearable, she had to flee the city. Is it that one?
TOPHER: How can you expect me to do this?
ADELLE: You'll do it because you must. The cold reality is that everyone here was chosen because their morals have been compromised in some way. Everyone... except you. You, Topher, were chosen because you have no morals. You have always thought of people as playthings. This is not a judgement. You always take very good care of your toys. But you're simply going to have to let this one go.

And so he, rustily, having never done it before, starts to develop as the counterweight. And we all know (at least, those of us who watched Epitaph One) exactly how well that works out for him.

After attempting to prod Topher into looking further at Echo's problem-solving, art-interpreting, mother-henning tendencies in this hilarious scene (already discussed from the Topher Angle above):

BOYD: Is that where your hunch came from?
TOPHER: Yeah. It's Sierra's. Echo brought it to me. She was going on about a bad man. He's the blotch here, is what I'm getting.
BOYD: Echo brought it to you.
TOPHER: She's always been Mother Hen about Sierra.
BOYD: Should look into that.
TOPHER: I am! And so far, Echo's given me way more than you have.

Boyd decides to do some investigating himself. What he finds and how he reacts is one of the reasons I like Boyd, and yet don't trust Boyd. Boyd goes the same route of "If I don't do it, I am absolved" in the case of figuring out if the Dolls are beginning to evolve. Sending Topher after the intel wipes Boyd's hands clean if Topher comes back with an evaluation leading to a cleaning of Echo's slate or a more permanent home in the Attic. But if Boyd himself is forced to confront the reality of his former charge becoming more and more nascent, then his moral response shifts. He then responds with something more akin to protectiveness and solidarity, because he is forced to face the Echo he is protective of, the Echo he sees as a person, as extraordinary. Of course, I could be reading Boyd completely wrong and he could be the biggest backstabbing asshole in the world. It's up in the air at this point.

As for Echo, well, her lack of role in this episode made her brief moments kind of enjoyable. She had to do nothing other than be a semi-aware blank slate, so I'm sure that helped. But her evolution and her pushing others to evolve is actually - wait for it! - interesting.

BOYD: Echo, when did you learn how to lie?
ECHO: Am I in trouble?
BOYD: Not from me. But there are people who would be very upset if they knew what you were doing.
ECHO: Reading?
BOYD: You brought the painting to Topher. You're pushing. The Actives, the staff... What you're doing could have consequences you can't predict or control. Some people are not ready to wake up.
ECHO: I don't care. Something bad is coming, like a storm - and I want everyone to survive it. They need to wake up.

Maybe it is because Echo is treading upon familiar territory to Whedonites, the person (woman) pushing the story forward. It isn't exactly new ground, and yet it is familiarly comforting. It is where Whedon and his acolytes tend toward their most righteous, and I tend to agree with them. It is in the idea that we are all existing in Plato's cave, that we have to see the shadows for what they are and deal with the fact that the sun shining in our eyes hurts. Because the opposite is to remain chained to UnReality, and that leads to things like entire planets being decimated in the name of a Greater Good and creating monstrous cannibals or beautiful people being commodified in houses so the rich and powerful can pay to play in their own personal Utopian fantasies. And that? Isn't so great for the poor, unconnected individuals who have to live in that world with those forces.

And now, Sierra. A while ago, Emily at See Emily Blog wrote about George Sondini, and Kate Harding's No More Mr. Nice Guy article. Why am I bringing this up? Because one of the first scenes in Belonging is:

NOLAN: Sneaking out?
PRIYA: I was just looking for you to say goodbye.
NOLAN: Why are you so eager to leave? I mean, everyone is here to adore you.
PRIYA: Enjoy the painting, Nolan.
NOLAN: Come on, come on. Stay a little longer, Priya.
PRIYA: The painting's yours. My job here is done. I'm going now.
NOLAN: Why? So you can give it up to some guy you just met?
...
NOLAN: I've pulled out all the stops. I mean, this is our big night. We've, we've, we've -
PRIYA: No, this isn't our night.
NOLAN: We've planned for this.
PRIYA: There's no we.
NOLAN: No, look, I have - I've offered you everything. What else do you want?
PRIYA: I want to walk out the damn door.
NOLAN (stopping her from walking out the damn door): Hey. What did you expect, huh? Day after day, just dangling it in front of my face, seducing me.
PRIYA: Seducing? You're crazy, Nolan. It's all in your head. Get off me!
NOLAN: I'm sorry. I'm not going to take no for an answer. Alright? I'll do anything.
PRIYA: Stop it! You disgust me. Nothing in this world could ever make me love you.

And the tension I felt, sitting on my couch, just praying (figuratively, of course) Priya wouldn't be quite so wonderfully assertive, wouldn't be quite so open and honest with her very own Nice Guy®, stems from what Emily writes, namely

In the times I’ve been alone, I definitely don’t want to risk making the man angry, or having him come after me in any way. I’m sure few, if any, of these men were capable of violence, but it wasn’t a risk I was willing to take, even if some of them deserved a firm “leave me alone right now.”

Being assertive, being unwilling to smile demurely and go along with the uncomfortable levels of attention and uncalled for expectations of ownership, sometimes takes a horrific turn. Not that every girl ends up pumped full of anti-psychotics and then mind-wiped and brain-washed, but the threat of violence, of retaliation and retribution for something you haven't done is very real. And it is there. And every time a guy goes to the equivalent of, "But I did X,Y, & Z, so why didn't she fall into my bed?" it demonstrates the idea that women can be bought, can be controlled, and can be persuaded to stay, to love, and to give a lot of sex to people they Just. Aren't. Attracted. To.

But what I like about this is, well, how clearly it lays out the whole Nice Guy® thing. Becoming makes it absolutely clear Nolan is someone who, actually, doesn't like women very much. And that's highlighted by the Confrontation Scene:

PRIYA: I'm not your lab rat any more, Nolan. I'm free, clear-headed. It feels good.
NOLAN: What, and you uh, came here to get revenge for a year of loving every minute of it?
PRIYA: Did I love it? Must not have been very memorable. I remember you poisoning me, locking me up, but I have not a single memory of the year where I apparently liked you.
NOLAN: Oh, we-we had some good times.
PRIYA: Mmm, I got filled in on all the details. Brainwashing. Talk about desperate. You know, they even programmed me to think it was endearing how quick you were.
NOLAN: You were mine.
PRIYA: I'm sorry. I don't think I was faithful to you.
NOLAN: Yeah, I let them whore you out to anyone.
PRIYA: No, it's something else. It's someone uh, someone I trust. He helps me. He thrills me
NOLAN: Yeah, I know, see, it worked. You told me that you love me a hundred times. I changed you.
PRIYA: No, it's not you. I managed to fall for someone else.
NOLAN: You think this is cute?
PRIYA: It's absurd. I don't remember meeting him or even spending a moment with him. But I can feel it stronger than anything. I'm crazy about him! I love him so much more than I hate you.

The vitriol Nolan spews at Priya when he says, "Yeah, I let them whore you out to anyone" is not the typical statement of someone who loves women, or even a specific woman. It is someone who thinks you can dirty a woman by making her have a lot of sex. It is someone who thinks that victimizing a woman somehow demeans and delegitimatizes her. It is someone who is very clearly not a nice guy; instead, he's just a guy who is willing to spend a lot of money on objects for someone he considers his own object. Kind of like buying outfits and accessories for your Build-A-Bear. He - and those Nice Guys® like him - fancy that they are bringing some pleasure to this person they want, that the pleasure they supply somehow gives them power and control over that person, and that if the person rejects the gifts or rejects the man after accepting the gifts, she has not followed protocol and deserves to be punished. Because, obviously, the very act of lusting after a woman means that she (a) intended you to, and (b) you have an implicit right to her - her attention and her body. That person? Is the epitome of not a nice guy. And watching Priya, being made to see the world and story through Priya, makes it clear exactly how not nice a guy, how creepy, that guy really is.

Things of Note:

• Dichen Lachman is incredible. Going from Priya to Wiped Sierra, there was palpable change on screen. I'm still on the "Yay Ra-Ra Enver Gjokaj" team, but Dichen is quickly creeping up on the Whoa Factor.
• What in the hell was Priya thinking, in the whole not tying Nolan up first before confronting him?
• "We gotta run. We gotta run. We've gotta get out of here." Was Topher preparing to run completely away with Priya? If Boyd hadn't shown up, would there be three members of the Dollhouse "going rogue" (sorry, I couldn't help myself) this season?
• Topher on telling Adelle about Priya: "We gotta tell her. She's gonna flip her biscuits. Unless she already knows..." In the beginning, Topher declared you couldn't have a conspiracy theory while in the employe of the conspiracy (per the unaired episode). I guess those days are gone.
• So many backward references! Awesome!
• Sierra and Victor's love! Aw!
• I'm impressed if anyone made it this far into the post.

And, done.

Grade: A+

Quote(s) of the Episode:

PRIYA: Am I allowed to have beer in here? Or is this my last one?
TOPHER: No, you're allowed. On special occasions.

Saturday Sesame Street

Live from the Nestropolitan Opera:

Happy Birthday to Me!

And I want this cake:



Because part of my junior year in college was spent on the couch, rewatching the Fraggle Rock from my childhood on DVD with my best friend instead of studying for exams. And because I love it so.

(Ganked from Cakewrecks a million years ago in preparation for this moment).

Happiness and Women

From Judith Warner, When We're Equal, We'll Be Happy, about the (un)happiness studies done lately finding that women are less happy today than they have been in the past:

The wage gap persists, particularly for mothers, who now earn 73 cents for every
man’s dollar. Our workforce and education system is still sex-segregated,
operating along generations-old stereotypes that steer most women into low-paid,
low-status, low-security professions. Women pay more for health insurance than
men, have more extensive health needs than men, and suffer unique forms of
discrimination in their coverage. (Women may be denied coverage because they had
a Caesarean delivery or were victims of domestic violence — both “preexisting
conditions.”) Regardless of the number of hours they work, they continue to do
far more caretaking and housekeeping work at home than do their husbands. And
discrimination against mothers (but not fathers) in the workplace is all but
ubiquitous.

These are not happy-making developments. And they’re not
failures of feminism. They are instead indicators of all the ways in which
society has failed women, most importantly — and this comes up time and time
again, in every section of the report — by failing to address the needs of
working families.

I haven't been interested in writing about the happiness gap simply because the response to it was so mind-numbingly expected ("feminism makes women unhappy!") that it was just an eye-rolling subject that other bloggers more than deftly handled. But Warner's contribution is the non-snarky antidote to the misplaced concern these types of surveys brought to the surface. I highly recommend reading the whole thing.

What I Want For My Birthday

A whole lot of Whedonesque bumper stickers. Namely, this one:

I would want this one:

except I want at the very least the "Buffy" part to be in the Buffy font. Like, this:

I also really want this one:

I think, with all of those, I'd have the coolest CRV ever.

Dear Conservatives,

I was going to start this off with "in all likelihood", but no. A stronger statement is needed.

Thomas Paine would not be your ally. Not now, and very probably not ever.

Paine was a radical liberal. Paine was a fan of the progressive tax. Paine was a (strong) critic of religion, and especially of Christianity. Paine was a Deist, just like George Washington. Paine was a proponent of a guaranteed minimum wage. Paine was a believer in the redistribution of wealth - as well as an old age pension.

And, he was a fan of the French.

Please, for the love of my sanity, find another Founding Father. One who wasn't quite so prolific in publishing oppositional writing to your views.

Whip It Reviewed

I went to a roller derby game once. I'd heard a podcast from Stuff Mom Never Told You about the sport, one of my favorite bloggers/TWOP reviewers began playing the game, and in a fortuitous twist, my best friend discovered that Connecticut had a roller derby team (who seem to be quite good, if the game I saw was any indication) and wanted to go. So, I went on YouTube and found a video (this one, actually) to visually illustrate what in the hell would be going on, to go with the audio explanation offered by Molly and Cristen. Because as much as I love Molly and Cristen and the Mom podcast in general, roller derby didn't seem like the kind of thing I'd get just by hearing it. And you know what? Not a bit of that did any good! I was so confused, and after the first 15 or so minutes of general excitement, the fact that I was sitting uncomfortably close to the person next to me began to sink in. It was a fun time, but probably more fun if you can hear the announcer/have any idea how the scoring is happening.

With that being the background of my derby knowledge, I desperately wanted to see Whip It. And I finally did, last night.

It was so much fun, and I think I have a better grasp of derby rules now. I may want to go back, if my friend ever gets a break from grad school homework.

Whip It is, as I said, fun. It isn't the most innovative film ever, but I say that with the caveat that it kind of is, what with its focus on an almost all female cast and a passion that isn't boys (which, sorry Michael Phillips, isn't enough to give the film a "crypto-Sapphic vibe"). Not that boys aren't in it, but getting the boy/keeping the boy isn't what the film's about. The film is about precisely what the poster says: being your own hero. It is about finding your own place, your comfort zone, your tribe. It is about growing up, and having some fun along the way.

Watching Bliss go from the timid, soft-spoken girl we meet at the film's beginning to the more confident and raucous Babe Ruthless, watching her becoming comfortable in her own skin and as a person separate from her best friend, was gratifying. Seeing the mistakes she made and the selfish actions she sometimes took as a 17 year old moving from who she was pre-derby to who she was becoming through roller derby was also pretty cool, helped along by her mentorship with Kristin Wiig's Maggie Mayhem.

And as interesting as I find Bliss and her evolution, the thing that makes the film is how there are no straight up villains. Bliss' mother Brooke, set up as an overbearing pageant-obsessed woman with a psychotic obsession with 1950s womanhood and could have been easily left as such, becomes more understandable through the eyes of Maggie Mayhem, a single mom who lays out the parental element for Bliss. She also comes through with an only semi-awkward sex talk, which just further highlights the complexity of mother-daughter relationships. After Bliss leaves home, it is still her mother she goes to when her life crumbles. Even Juliette Lewis' Iron Maven, the main source of conflict in the World of Derby, isn't left as a cartoonish blight on Bliss' derby happiness. She becomes, though late in the game, a fully three-dimensional character. When she reveals to Bliss that the first time she found anything she was good at was when she discovered derby at 31, a different Iron Maven is revealed - one who is jealously guarding her place as Derby Girl Extraordinaire and who doesn't want to be usurped by a 17 year old who discovered her place a good decade and a half earlier. Iron Maven is just someone late to finding her tribe, who doesn't want to lose it or the feeling of accomplishment it gives her.

Perhaps my favorite part, though, is Bliss' reaction to her boyfriend's potentially cheating ways during his 34 days on tour with his brother's band. Hearing her come back to his, "I didn't even cheat" with "But you didn't call; I would have called", and making that the justification for the break up was all sorts of awesome. It was a confident, strong, willing-to-take-no-bullshit position, one I didn't have at 17 and that I wish I did.

I haven't said anything yet about Pash, Bliss' best friend, and I really should because she is one of the reasons the film works as well. She isn't simply a cheerleader for Bliss' ambition. She is a girl with goals that include getting out of the small Texas town she and Bliss live in. She is protective of Bliss, and somewhat dependent on Bliss. And her angst over feeling like she is losing Bliss to Roller Derby and a rocker boyfriend is allowed and legitimate. It is the depiction of female friendships as complex and deep that also make Whip It a film I loved.

Whip It was, at points, sappy. But that willingness to be sappy, to be silly, to revel in the fun and wonder of a cool life filled with good-hearted and wild people, is partly why the film works. Whip It isn't trying to be too cool for school. And it is all the better for it.

My Favorite Exchange:

BLISS: Oliver is such a great name.

PASH: Yeah, if you like wayward Dickensian orphans.

Grade: A-

Monday Reading List

From coffeeyogurt, health reform from a provider's perspective.

Emily's doing a series about domestic violence, stemming from her volunteering at a DV shelter and because it's Domestic Violence Awareness month. So, Domestic Violence Awareness Month: Overview & "Why Do They Stay?" and Domestic Violence Awareness Month: Children's Issues.

At Unapologetically Mundane, there is a hilarious post about Terror on the Elevator. The elevator is one of my weird, slightly-more-rational-fears (the irrational ones being about mummies and mannequins), not because of the small space but because it is a small space other people get into and a small space from which you can't get out until it gets to your (or, more precisely, a) designated floor.

From Feministe: Jon Stewart takes on GOP opposition to the Franken anti-rape legislation. Because Jon Stewart rocks. Like, a lot.

And from What Tami Said, there is this: Dispatches from Nappyville: What Is "Good Hair", Anyway? Plus, a continuation of the theme with Newsweek Attacks Black Toddler , Calls Her Hair a Hot Mess - Leave Zaraha ALONE from What About Our Daughters?