Entertainment Weekly - source of compelling gender critique?

Recently, my subscriptions to Entertainment Weekly and Adbusters arrived on the very same day. Seeing them next to one another, I had a momentary pang at my apparent wild contradictions. How could I subscribe to both? Luckily, my rationalization kicked in right away: I need to know what mainstream culture is doing in order to critique it.

Sometimes, if you're lucky, mainstream culture critiques itself.

I just sent the following in to EW's letters to the editor in support of a recent commentary in their "News and Notes" section. Unfortunately, I can't find the article online to link to here; it's worth looking up if you can get your hands on the Holiday Movie Preview issue. We'll see if my letter gets published.

Thank you for your article, "Worst Wives Club" (November 9/16, 2012) about the disproportional derision directed at the wives of TV's antiheroes on shows such as The Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, etc. Though author Keith Staskiewicz doesn’t quite come out and identify the fans’ hatred for characters like Lori, Skyler, and Betty as misogyny, his description makes clear that the viewers’ vitriol is not gender-neutral. I do wish Staskiewicz had taken his excellent critique one step further to the writers, show runners, and producers who create these women as “everything from narrative distractions to nagging shrews.” We do know from examples like Friday Night Lights that it is possible to create and sustain critically-acclaimed portraits of loving, equal marriages in which both husband and wife have strengths and flaws. In the midst of a second Golden Age of Television, Hollywood needs to be held to higher standards. Staskiewicz’s article is a good start.

This issue calls to mind the exchange I had with (swoon) Jane Espenson about women writers and female characters, as well as Greg Rucka's excellent article, "Why I Write 'Strong Female Characters'." It's an important discussion, and I, for one, am glad that EW is participating.

After the first season or so, the Mad Men writers
stopped showing us WHY Betty was so unhappy and
 were content to present her as nothing more than a bitch.

Tami Taylor remained complex throughout
the whole run of Friday Night Lights.

Defending Academic Freedom

Below is a letter, to which I am a signatory, defending Professor David Shorter at UCLA against recent attacks. The details are contained in the letter and in the embedded links, but in short, he was reprimanded for including a link to an organization critical of Israel on his course website, and asked to promise not to post the link again. After the text of our letter, I am including links to background information and other letters of support, for your information. This is an insidious attack, one which we must broadly expose and defend against, because it attempts to prevent access to information about divergent viewpoints at a public university.

***

TO:

Mark Yudof, President, University of California

Dr. Andrew Leuchter, Chair, UCLA Academic Senate

Dear President Yudof and Dr. Leuchter,

We, the Graduate Student Organization of the UCLA Department of World Arts and Cultures/Dance (WAC/D GSO), would like to express our concern for and solidarity with our faculty colleague, Associate Professor David Delgado Shorter. In our view, the recent questioning of Dr. Shorter’s teaching methods has raised serious concerns about academic policies and pedagogical freedom at the University of California. The class in question is “Tribal Worldviews”, which Professor Shorter taught in the Winter Quarter of 2012. This course explored indigenous worldviews in relation to colonialism, globalization, and media from a variety of interdisciplinary approaches and cross-cultural analysis. The course has been offered for three years and this last quarter happened to include a website critical of Israel within a long list of optional research materials for several other topics in the seminar. 

The AMCHA Initiative, a group that "endeavors to inform the California Jewish community about manifestations of harassment and intimidation of Jewish students on colleges and university campuses" lodged a complaint to the University of California administrators and faculty. AMCHA contended that Dr. Shorter’s actions amounted to the promotion and advocacy of a boycott of Israel. On April 20th the organization stated on its website that they had “achieved an important victory” based on the response from UC administrators regarding their complaint which implied that Dr Shorter had in fact committed an error in judgment and would not repeat the mistake. The AMCHA article spoke of Dr. Shorter as being among UC faculty “who use their classroom and university resources for anti-Israel proselytizing.” We find such a statement to be patently misleading and the actions of the UC administration in this matter a betrayal of the principles of academic freedom within the University of California system.

The inappropriate and short-sighted reaction to this incident by UC Administrators, whose job it is to protect and encourage pedagogical innovation is alarming. Dr. Shorter's insightful and provocative approach to learning gives primacy to the development of students' ability to engage in rigorous critical analysis and intellectual self-reflection important for creating substantive solutions to seemingly intractable, real-world issues, such as the rights of indigenous cultures. 

The key rationale for the University's criticism is the fact that Dr. Shorter is a signatory to the advocacy group whose website he listed. This site, however, was an optional resource for an optional assignment, and at no time did Dr. Shorter advocate for support of the website’s political group. More importantly, this logic entirely evades the fundamental issue of whether or not study of divergent or even controversial political views positively cultivates intelligent and rational consideration of the relevant issues of the course, which Dr. Shorter has kept open for debate over the three years in which he has taught the class.

As you know, the press has now taken this story national, primarily because of how this case reflects on the very function of our institution. In reaction to the controversy, Salon.com columnist Glenn Greenwald plainly and insightfully pointed to the case’s central issue as it relates to the broader populace:

“My real question is this: what kind of person goes to an academic institution and then demands to be shielded from political ideas that they find objectionable? Of all places, academia is supposed to permit and encourage the challenging of one’s assumptions and beliefs. At least in theory, that’s the prime value of studying at a university: learning how to think critically, which requires subjecting one’s views to rigorous dispute. The petulant entitlement needed to demand that nobody in that setting ever cite or mention objectionable political views is just staggering; it also reveals a severe lack of confidence in the validity of one’s own views.”

As emerging scholars we are particularly alarmed by the inappropriate handling of the matter as the difficult economic climate in the State of California has challenged the core principals of higher learning, knowledge production, and civic engagement. We are witnessing these values, the very principles upon which the University of California was founded, being relentlessly eviscerated by the rapid corporatization and authoritarian paradigm being foisted upon the UC system and the hundreds of thousands of students and employees who give the system its true social value and are the very raison d’etre of the system itself.

As graduate students deeply committed to academic freedom and these core principles, we steadfastly support Dr. Shorter in his stand against any and all efforts to censor his coursework or denigrate his tireless efforts to improve the quality of learning at UCLA and beyond and we join the California Scholars for Academic Freedom in insisting upon an official review of the inappropriate way in which UCLA’s academic leaders handled this matter.

Sincerely,

Members and alumni of the Graduate Student Organization of the UCLA Department of World Arts and Cultures/Dance

Lorena Alvarado 

Samuel M. Anderson                       

Jacinta Arthur de la Maza           

Feriyal Aslam                                   

Emily Beattie 

Harmony Bench (alumna) 

April Rose Burnam 

Rosemary Candelario (alumna)

Alissa Cardone (alumna)

I-Wen Chan

Chey Chankethya

Deborah Cohen                       

Anna Creagh          

Alison D’Amato                       

Jennifer Monique Delgado

Sharna Fabiano

Cesar Garcia

Doran George                     

Maria Gillespie (alumna)         

Peter Haffner

William Michael Jelani Hamm

Mana Hayakawa

Claudia Hernandez
Elyan Hill

Ana Paula Hofling

Sarah Jacobs

Neelima Jeychandran

Sarah Leddy

Cynthia Ling Lee (alumna)

Dana Lea Marterella

Andy Martinez

Leonard Melchor

Carol McDowell

Olive Mckeon

Meena Murugesan                  

Nguyen Nguyen                                               

Lorenzo Perillo                                          

Jose Reynoso

Cristina Rosa (alumna)

Cedar Bough Saeji

Michael Sakamoto

Mathew Sandoval

Carolina San Juan (alumna)

Carl Schottmiller

Angeline Shaka (alumna)

Yehuda Sharim

Joseph Small

Alexandra Shilling

Pallavi Sriram

Šara Stranovsky

Elaine Sullivan

Rita Valente                                                  

Andrea Wang

Sarah Wilbur           

Alessandra Williams

Kat Williams

Sara Wolf                                             

Allison Wyper (alumna)

***

Daily Bruin article about the controversy

‘California Scholars for Academic Freedom’ challenges UCLA on censure of prof who linked to BDS website
Native American and Indigenous Studies Scholars defend UCLA Professor David Shorter and supporters of BDS
Open Letter from the U.S. Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel

A Response to Jane Espenson’s “On Sex and Writing (Not That Kind of Sex)”

Jane, I respect the frak outta you. Your Buffy episodes were some of my favorites, and actually might be what made me start paying attention to television writers in the first place. I then thrilled to see your name pop up on others of my beloved shows (Battlestar Galactica, Caprica, Game of Thrones), and I even added Once Upon a Time to my viewing solely because of your involvement.

I hear what you're saying in your Huffington Post essay, that women shouldn't be hired just to write female characters. That such a practice limits women’s opportunities and potential. That women (and men) are talented enough to write across the gender divide, and in fact that good writers can write anything. Ok, sure. And a big thumbs up to your encouragement to women and girls to write, write, write. (I'm an academic, and love your Twitter writing sprints!)

But I think that your piece ignores the systemic piece of the puzzle. Or rather, you do acknowledge it near the end of the article, saying that the problem remains “HOW to get people to take gender off their list of reasons someone isn't getting the job.”

Exactly.

That Hollywood is still a (old, white) boys club was made all the more stark with the recent revelation in the Los Angeles Times of the make up of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences: 94% white, 77% male, 2% African American, less than 2% Latino, only 14% under 50. Granted, this is movies, not television, but it still reveals where the power lies in Hollywood, and it's not with women, nor with people of color.

Feminist Frequency’s recent vlog post on the 2012 Oscars and the Bechdel test offers another measure of the appalling lack of representation of women as full (named! speaking about things other than men!) subjects in Hollywood.

Facts (women writers are just as talented as men) and figures (women are 50.8% of the American population) clearly haven’t been enough to cause a radical shift in who writes, directs, produces, and greenlights projects in Hollywood. That shift is not going to happen without a hell of a lot of concerted pressure from outside and from within.

If the powers that be, in their limited wisdom, think that they might need to diversify their staff so that their female and people of color characters are better written, at least they’re acknowledging that they need to make some room at the table, even if for specious reasons. Did the addition of 6 new writers to the third season Glee writing staff, including two women (yay Marti Noxon!) and a Latino man give me hope that the female and people of color characters on the show might receive the same rich development that the male—and especially white, gay, male—characters previously did? You bet. Is it possible that an all male writing staff could have done a good job with all those characters? Sure. But the fact is that they weren’t, and they somehow recognized that, and made a decision to expand the roster of who was in the writer’s room. (I’m not saying women and Latino writers automatically = a better Glee; the jury’s still out on that one.)

All this to say: Jane, I love you but I think your argument is too utopian. Changes are not going to happen just because more women write well. Change will happen because the powers that be see a financial and critical incentive (thank you, Kristen Wiig and Bridesmaids) to greenlighting women writers’ projects. Change will happen through concerted pressure that demands shifts in hiring policies. And change will happen through transformations in societal expectations and opinions. Of course, kick-ass women writers are integral to each of these steps, and to keeping the pressure up, and to raising the issues in the first place.

While I disagree with some of your points, Jane, I think that you raising the issue is part of the pressure I’m talking about here. So thanks for your writing. This piece, and all of it.

p.s. I promise I will watch Husbands. Soon.

12 Days of Christmas Giving: Days 11 and 12: CivLAvia and Partners in Sex Education

A 2-in-1 recommendation special today!

Belated Day 11: CicLAvia
Remember when everyone in LA gave up their cars for bikes, and the LA freeways became the largest bike path system in the world?

No?

Well, ok, maybe we're not there quite yet (although Carmageddon was a good start), but the good folks at CicLAvia are doing their best to get us there. Three times already they've shut down 10 miles of streets in downtown LA to cars, and opened them to bikes and other human powered modes of transportation. There's nothing quite like it - Angelenos from all over the city, out of their cars, enjoying the beautiful weather and our interesting city together!


Mark your calendars now for the next two CicLAvias: Sunday April 15th 2012 and Sunday October 14th 2012. And be sure and donate before January 1 - they've got some cool swag (it's LA, after all) if you give at least $25.

Day 12: Partners in Sex Education


Remember when you/your kids/your partner(s)/your parents got comprehensive sex education in school that provided age-appropriate, non-judgemental information?


No?*


Well Partners in Sex Education is working to change that, at least in Boston.


Led by the indomitable Megara Bell, Partners in Sex Education offers classes for middle school, high school, and at-risk populations in Greater Boston.


Donate to help raise the next generation of young people making healthy decisions for themselves and their partners!


*If you answered yes to this question, you are so lucky! Take a minute to write a thank you letter to your school, your principal, your sex ed teacher. This is a rare and wonderful thing!

12 Days of Christmas Giving: Day 10 Aliza's Brain Trust

Back in July I blogged about my friend Aliza's stroke and need for funds to support her recovery. The good news is that she's on a slow and steady mend, though challenges remain like, oh, missing a third of her skull and needing to wear a helmet to protect her head.

It was really inspiring to see her extended community and beyond rally to raise funds for an artist/activist - almost $43,000 raised so far! Even more is needed for rehab and day-to-day expenses, so donate today. It's a no brainer!