Geek Misogyny in the Backlash Against Alyssa Bereznak

Posted on August 31, 2011 by Robin

[Blows off dust, taps mic.  Hello? Is this thing on? I still have this blog!? Phew. Thanks for staying with me despite my neglect, blog.  You never know when the Internet is going to piss you off and you're going to need your soapbox back.]

I’m a geek.  I’ve suffered repetitive stress injuries from video games. I can’t order a cup of earl grey without adding “hot” and giggling to myself. I get almost 10% of XKCD comic strips!

But I sometimes forget I’m a geek, because I’ve always been the least geeky person in my immediate family.  That being said, I have compared my sister’s strategy at playing Settlers of Catan to that of Otto von Bismarck in unifying Germany, so I’m clearly not so much of a black sheep as a dusky gray one.

I assume it is because I never fully embraced my geek identity that I never really had to confront the misogyny among geeks.  I knew it was there, I’d get a whiff of it when I’d delve into a new geeky interest (like comic books) and I’d read the experiences of more strongly geek-identified women. But keeping my geekiness at arm’s length from my central identity has let me become sadly complacent about geek misogyny.

Which is why I was foolishly surprised to see the vitriol unleashed upon Gizmodo’s Alyssa Bereznak’s “hit piece” on her Internet dating experience with Magic the Gathering World Champion Jon Finkel.  If you don’t want to take the link bait, the post can be summarized as such: Alyssa created an OK Cupid profile, went on a date with a cute hedge-fund guy, learned that he plays Magic the Gathering and is in fact the World Champion.  She Googles him and finds out he is Kind of a Big Deal. She goes out on a second date with him, tries to discern how much Magic is a part of his life, discovers the answer is “a lot,” and that is a deal-breaker for her.  She advises people to disclose their heavy involvement with geeky subcultures on their online dating profiles, and to “Google the shit” out of prospective internet dates to weed out anyone falling short of that standard of transparency.

Now, that’s my summary of the piece.  The first summary I read, following a link from Famous Geeky Woman Felicia Day, was written by another (seemingly Internet famous) geeky woman, Nerdpuddle’s Kiala. It plainly casts Alyssa Bereznek as a simpering moron who is so shallow and superficial you have to use both words even though they are basically synonymous. It left a sour taste in my mouth, even though it sidesteps calling her a bitch or a whore (probably because it is from Alyssa’s perspective).

Kiala’s piece was selected by Buzzfeed as one of the 8 Best Reactions of this particular silicon-dust-up, and it’s the LEAST hostile of the bunch. We’ve got Wikipedia being edited to call her a “shallow bitch.” Then there’s Gizmodo Australia arguing that Bereznek “is making us females look bad.” [Use of the word "females" for "women" is like the whistle of a sexism shell as it hurdles through the air, waiting to blow its misogyny all up in your business] Like the Nerdpuddle post, it fixates on her off-hand reference to being drunk when she set up her OK Cupid profile, obnoxiously cautioning “Any guy will tell you that there’s nothing more unattractive than a drunk girl falling all over the place and having no idea how stupid she looks. ” [Because being attractive to guys is clearly what should guide a woman's choices regarding alcohol consumption, right? Ugh.]  It also calls her “shallow” and a “narcissist” and her piece “slanderous.” This woman-written post also avoids calling Bereznek a bitch or a whore, but if you need your fix of that for some reason, please scroll down to the comments. Can’t miss it.

Or you could scroll through this NSFW, NSFHL (that’s Not Safe For Happy Living) meme.

I re-posted the above example because it is offensive but will not drag my blog down to hell with it.  Sadly, it is probably in the 90th percentile for non-offensive iterations of the meme.  It gets much worse [Remember, NSFW, NSFHL].

Don’t get me wrong: trash-talking a date on the Internet is bad form.  Doing this without anonymity is even worse.  Basing your talking-of-trash on what is actually a pretty spectacular accomplishment is foolish.  Doing this because said accomplishment is geeky is misguided.  And doing that to an audience of geeks is absurd.  Alyssa Bereznak’s piece is linkbait trash. [Notice I can say that without calling her a whore for making money off her work.]

But the missing step between “well that was a piece of linkbait trash” to this is misogyny.  What strikes me as particularly tragic about this parade of sexism in the geek backlash against Alyssa Bereznak is that a big part of what makes her original piece so upsetting is that it is “geek-on-geek violence,” as evidenced by the Simpsons’ cartoon used to illustrate the Nerdpuddle piece. Or as my MtG-enthusiast friend Kaitlin put it, “I think waving one’s own proud geek flag and then persecuting another one is weak sauce. It hurts the geek community. It’s a shitty thing to do.”

But the level of vitriol leveled against Bereznak is even more harmful to the geek community.  It justifies the social ostracizing of geeks. A lot of non-geeky women don’t care if you have geeky interests, but do care if you have deep hostility toward their gender.  Geek misogyny also scares off a lot of would-be geek women.  It’s like a sign posted on the gateway to Geekdom reading “Thar Be Sexist Dragons.”

Kaitlin went on to say, “However, I do not think that [Bereznek's] most egregious faults in this incident are born out of failures to comply with geek solidarity. I think they are born out of doing some pretty shitty things unrelated to being a geek.”  I agree.  But unleashing tremendous hostility toward women because one woman did something mean is also a shitty thing to do.  The Internet’s pillorying of Alyssa Bereznak isn’t just bad for geeks, it’s bad for people. misogyny

And it makes me want to revise my assertion of geekiness at the top of this post.  This isn’t a club I want to belong to.

Posted in The Internet | Tagged , , | 23 Comments

Guest Post: Gender and German Theatre

Posted on May 25, 2011 by Ramona

My friend Cory Tamler, who is one smart cookie and then some, wrote a great piece looking at some aspects of gender and representation in German theatre. I recommend checking it out because she is slick – Staging the Gender Imbalance: Women in Theatre

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The New Room of One’s Own

Posted on May 16, 2011 by Robin

If I remember my Cliff’s Notes and reviews of the film The Hours correctly, Virginia Woolf said a woman needs “money and a room of her own” to be a writer.

My fiancé probably doesn’t know Virginia Woolf from Virginia Slims, but for my birthday he gave me a room of my own.  We’d been calling our spare bedroom “the office” but using it as a boxroom.  So we cleared out the junk and unused furniture to make room for the presents Collin had given me: a big desk that is nicer than any piece of furniture I’ve actually owned (it’s not even made of particle board!), a new bookcase for all the books that I have had in storage since we moved in together, and a hobby table for me to craft on (which I have taken to menally referring to as my §280A(c)(1) Violation Table, because I am technically a lawyer but also, more relevantly, a huge dork).

So now that I have a room of my own (and some money, if the furniture made of actual wood did not tip you off), is it enough? I should probably read Woolf’s actual essay and sample the 80-odd years of scholarship on it before embarking upon this line of discussion, but this is Just A Blog so I’m going to throw caution to the wind and just go out and say: no.

Of course, it helps. I am able to will myself into “writing mode” much more easily when I have a designated place to do it, especially one where I have more control over the basics of the environment like the light and noise levels, the temperature, the presence or absence of cats.  And of course there is the tremendous emotional gift that my fiancé gave me along with this set of furniture: saying, “I support you, I believe in you, I want you to chase your dream.”

What else do I need, other than this room, other than money, and the freedom those two privileges give?  Health insurance. I can’t get affordable single-payer insurance because I have a pre-existing condition (depression, which is cheap to treat, but that’s no matter).  I’m straight, so I have the privilege of being able to marry my partner and be added to his health insurance plan without our taxable income skyrocketing.  And I have money saved, so I have the privilege to wait to do this until our wedding this July and meanwhile bleed money to secure mediocre health benefits.

I’m grateful for these privileges, but still frustrated by this situation. I do not like having to depend on my dude for access to medical care.  He has dreams too, and I don’t want his life choices to come down to whether I can get my prescriptions filled.  So I need to get myself a proper full-time job with benefits.  I am well-educated (see above, re: J.D.) so I should be able to do this, eventually (although last time I was really trying to get a job, it didn’t feel that way).

Before you tell me, “Shove it, rich girl!”, and/or “you’ve used the word ‘privilege’ too many times in this post”, let explain I’m emphasizing my advantages to highlight the severity of the problem here. I am so tremendously privileged I have multiple avenues to health insurance in the United States’ difficult system, and my pursuit of happiness is still frustrated by the basic human need for access to medical care.

To be able to affordably see doctors in this country you must be able to hit some magical privilege combo of already healthy, straight, cis, rich, employable, able to work full-time, and lucky.  Why is that an acceptable scenario to anyone?

My quest for health insurance is frustrating my desire to write. Big freakin’ deal. As that last sentence should convince you, this is no huge loss to the world.  I’m not Judith Shakespeare over here. But with millions of people choosing a job or career path or expressed gender identity or spouse or what diagnoses to seek/avoid because of the health insurance system in the United States, some of those people must be making the wrong choice, not only for their individual happiness but for the good of all of us.  And millions more who effectively have no choice at all that will give them access to acceptable medical treatment.

So, again, I never actually read Woolf’s text, but the trickle-down gist I got was that the explanation of what makes it so difficult for a woman to be able to write reveals the general injustices of the system which all people should be motivated to dismantle?  Right? So, yeah, let’s just say that to write a woman needs money, a room of her own, and health insurance, and I’ll let you draw whatever other conclusions you would like.

Posted in Health | 2 Comments

SEXIST

Posted on May 9, 2011 by Robin

Posted in Lazy post | 2 Comments

People of Color, Still on the Fringe in “Fringe”

Posted on May 3, 2011 by Ramona

The only thing that originally got me hooked on Fringe was a terrible cold over Christmas when all my flatmates were out of town. Unable to do very much, I managed to stick the show out long enough that now I honestly delight in it. I’m a sucker for absurd tv science, what can I say? What I’m going to talk about involves the third season, so if you feel like you’re coming down with something and want to watch the show unspoiled you should stop reading here. [Although I should note I'm a few weeks behind on episodes so maybe they've fixed all the things I'm going to point out, but I sort of doubt it].

As I’ve said, I really do enjoy Fringe. This doesn’t mean there aren’t things about it I find really disappointing, and I’m not talking about the usual JJ Abrams trademark mystery-plot holes that exist never to be filled. This show essentially focuses on straight white people, as they imperil the world (Past Walter, Walternate) and save the world (Present Everybody). At the show’s start, the only actors of color were Phillip Broyles [Lance Reddick], Astrid Farnsworth [Jasika Nicole], and Charlie Francis [Kirk Acevedo]. Charlie gets shot in the head, dumped in a furnace, and replaced with a shape-shifting jerk. Later, said jerk is also shot in the head.

As for Broyles, initially Broyles is super antagonistic to Dunham because she put a friend of his behind bars on sexual assault charges, and is generally a dick. Good gravy I’m glad they left that thread dangling and moved on to their current relationship. I love seeing how much Broyles’ cares about Olivia now, particularly a scene when he and Peter [Joshua Jackson] go get their drink on because they think Olivia is going to die at the start of season two.

Astrid’s presence as part of the team is never really explained very well. She stays in the lab looking after Walter [John Noble] but her main function in the show is to provide weirdly specific knowledge when the plot demands it. Is there a difficult code? Phew, Astrid is great at codes. Are the bad guys saying something no one understands? Phew, Astrid speaks Latin. She pops up when needed and fades out other than that. We know nothing about any relationships she might have or any real back-story at all. If Fringe has time to create a wacky film noire episode for shits and giggles, it can dedicate a little time and attention to Astrid. Walter isn’t the only one taking her for granted.

That is how the show starts. By the current season, they have created an entire alternate universe with whole episodes dedicated to this other world of characters. Each character there is similar in many ways to the original universe but has definite differences. Here is an amazing opportunity for Fringe to improve their casting diversity and character development. So how do they do? POORLY.

Astrid has lost any minimal scraps of personality and humanity she had. Now she appears only in military garb at headquarters and is exclusively focused on robot-like recitations of numbers and statistics. Maybe I would be interested if the show seemed invested in portraying a character that was autistic or differently-abled, but they’re not doing that. They’re frankly being lazy and I guess more honest about the fact that Astrid just functions to forward the plot with facts and isn’t really valued as a character.

Holy nuggets, what happens to Broyles is even worse. Firstly we learn that his son has been abducted and abused. And Broyles’ own story ends with him being murdered, mutilated, and having his corpse shipped out of his universe. Yikes, Fringe. Yikes.

We do get one more actor of color on the show. The taxi driver Henry [Andre Royo] is there for a few episodes to be threatened by Dunham and ultimately help her escape. Much as I think Lincoln is a charming new character and I can’t begin to express my joy that gravel-voiced Charlie is back, why couldn’t there be a better role for Royo?

C'mon writers, I'm awesome.

In a universe where even the Statue of Liberty can be a new color, why can’t we get any more diversity in main characters? It’s a whole new world out there but it looks like a lot of the problems are pretty much the same.

[EDIT: Bowling alley guy is played by Sam Weiss, who is also an actor of color. Sorry, that plot thread completely slipped my mind. Nothing terrible has happened to him yet, so I guess points for that.]

Posted in Television | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Take Back Take Our Daughters to Work Day

Posted on April 28, 2011 by Robin

Take Our Children to Work Day (or Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day, as it is officially known) is being celebrated today in the United States. And as nice as that might sound, it makes my heart sink. Because it’s a would-be post-feminist charade that’s butted out what I believe was an amazing program for American girls. Take Our Daughters to Work Day is one of the reasons I am a feminist. It kills me that it lasted barely a decade in its true form.

Take Our Daughters to Work Day was introduced in 1993 by Gloria Steinem and the Ms. Foundation for Women. It was to promote the idea that girls can be and do whatever they want. They were explicitly welcomed into the workplace and told that when they grow up, they can do this too. They can have this job, earn this money, enjoy this success.

Boys already know that. From their baby clothes on, they’re told they are on the path to being a baseball player or an astronaut or whatever the hell they want. They’re boys. No little brat on the playground is ever going to tell them they can’t be a doctor or a fire fighter or a soldier because of their sex. Especially if
they’re white and middle class and American-born.

When only daughters are taken to to work, the message that they are explicitly valued and welcome in the workplace is clear. When children are taken to work, that message is lost to just another generic “Reach for the stars, kids!” message that clearly does young girls no favors, and reinforces the entitlement of young boys.

I do see the value in taking all children to work. And I think one change that should be made is de-emphasizing children following their parents to work, because some parents don’t work or have jobs that can’t accomodate the program. My mother was out of work in 1993, but she was awesome so she arranged for me to spend the day with a reporter from the Philadelphia Inquirer. At the time, all I wanted to be when I grew up was a fast-talking nosy reporter along the lines of Hildy from His Girl Friday. Seeing the inside of a news room was a magical experience for me. I think giving that to all children to reinforce their ambitions and dreams is a lovely goal.

But: not at the expense of Take Our Daughters to Work Day. Because in other years, when I followed my mom to work at her job that was not even remotely in my dreams, I still got something out of the program that just doesn’t happen when the boys come too. I got to see other young girls on the train with their parents, excited for a special day in the big city. I got to hear adults take the time to tell girls what they can do with their lives, praise them for their talents and interests instead of how pretty they look that day.

My wish is to see Take Our Daughters to Work Day brought back in its true form. But as an adjunct, to share the joy and to shut up the “Won’t somebody think of the BOYS!” critics, let’s have When I Grow Up Day. Where we take all children (not just the daughters and sons of workers) to a job they’re interested in.

Because yes, all kids deserve to be shown the working world. But Take Our Daughters to Work Day is about more than that. It tells girls “we value you, we welcome you, we’re waiting for you.” When it’s just a day for all kids, the day becomes just another message of, “You can come too, even though you are a girl.”

So let’s take our children to work. But on the fourth Thursday of April, let’s take our daughters to work.

Posted in Family, Feminism | Tagged , , | 6 Comments

Rhubarb Crumble as Blogging Metaphor

Posted on April 26, 2011 by Ramona

In the words of Drunk Ted Mosby – I’m back babydoll! My unplanned hiatus began with anxiety about the need or right to continue blogging (that Robin talked about too) but admittedly my break stretched on until it was more a stance of convenience. It was easier to be torn and silent than conflicted and still yammering. For now I’m back on the side of getting my internet yap on while also trying to continue growing up from a baby blog to something more.

Here’s where the pie comes in. Rhubarb pie is my favorite pie of all time. I’m not sure I’ve sufficiently expressed that. For serious. My favorite. Pie. Of. All. Time. OK, much better. I feel like we’re all on the same page. That being said, I have never made a rhubarb pie in my life. Whenever it is within a 5 mile radius of me, I’ve sought it out and bought it and delighted in it. I’ve always shied away from making it myself because I didn’t know what rhubarb season was, what it looked like when ripe, whether it should be green or red, what parts of it were poisonous (answer: the leaves), and so on. See, I didn’t want to attempt to make a rhubarb pie unless I could be absolutely certain that it would be The Best Rhubarb Pie.

That attitude is nuts.

Granted, part of it comes from my general need to follow rules. (Rules are so great!) Baking was the first type of cooking I really got into because of all the rules, leveling flour to make sure you use exactly one cup is soothing to my inner control freak. Anyway, I decided I needed to ditch my delaying tactics in the search for perfection and just throw some rhubarb in the oven.

To begin with, I did some rhubarb research and found out it is season is now1. How delightfully convenient. The intertubes also got me this recipe

Freaky celery stalks of sour bliss.

To make the crumble topping, I got to break in my matryoshka measuring cups. They are both incredibly useful AND charming, which more things in this world should be.

I wish I were this well designed.

An hour later, I had made this guy.

There she be.

There is way too much crumble to fruit ratio for my taste. I’m pretty sure I didn’t use enough sugar, since my face has yet to unscrunch from an attack of the sours. There is burnt goo leaking out of the side. Still, I’ve got a pie of sorts cooling on my windowsill and here’s hoping the next pie will be better. Working on things you love, be they pie or feminism, is better than waiting for divine skill to appear out of nowhere.

1 Other fun facts include that the first harvest here in the UK is done by candlelight. Also, there was a court case in the US to decide if it was a fruit or vegetable. Thanks, wikipedia.

Posted in Feminism, pictures of pie | 4 Comments

Guns Aren’t Sexist; People Are Sexist.

Posted on April 22, 2011 by Robin

One awfsome (that’s awful/awesome) thing about having an ostensibly feminist blog is that people regularly email you sexist things hoping they’ll make good blog fodder. It’s awesome because it does some of your work for you. It’s awful because it’s a regular reminder that the world is broken.

Friend of the blog Sean sent me this Pittsburgh Tribune-Review column by Eric Heyl: NRA Effort to Attract Women Off Target. [Sic? I would have put a hyphen in "off-target." Grammar issues are the least of the problems with the piece, though.] Ironically, it made me feel like going to the shooting range to blow off some steam.

Not really. Full disclosure: I’ve never held or shot any type of firearm. The only kinds of guns I’ve ever used shoot water and hot glue. I would have attributed this to growing up in the suburbs of New Jersey, where deer are considered a nuisance, not a target, and the most popular approach to personal safety is an elaborate home security system, not a handgun. When I moved to Pittsburgh, I learned the first day of deer season is a holiday for public school children, ate venison stew for the first time, and got very red in the face the one time I mistook a carcass hauler for a camping chair when at a friend’s family cabin. And sure enough, when I saw a billboard advertising the coming NRA convention and its “acres of guns and gear,” I kind of rolled my eyes and sarcastically promised to clear my calendar.

I really thought my ignorance and disinterest in guns was attributable to the local culture of my upbringing, but apparently it is because I am a woman. Heyl’s piece clears this up by noting the futility of gun peddlers courting the female market:

The industry is unlikely to successfully tap that market until it conquers the pesky preconceived notions that likely turn off many females to the idea of gun ownership. Women likely won’t consider packing pistols if they are concerned that:

– Spending several hundred dollars on a serviceable handgun might leave them without enough money to get the full treatment at that next visit to the day spa.

– Carrying a gun in a small purse would leave less room for more important items, such as lipstick or compact.

– The baggy clothing required to successfully conceal most holsters would make them appear frumpy.

– Gunpowder residue might stain the new Karen Scott blouse they just bought at Macy’s.

– The gunpowder smell when the weapon is fired could totally overwhelm the Chanel they’re wearing.

– Most firearm accessories come only in one boring color: black.

– Target practice earplugs simply aren’t sexy.

So glad he reminded me how shallow and frivolous I am (it does take a man to get my head on straight, my wandering uterus is so prone to knocking it off my dainty shoulders). Yes, it would be nice if the gun industry could take advantage of how bitches be shopping, because after sex and baby-incubation our wild spending habits are our most important contributions to society.

The quotation above is the very end of the piece. I’m surprised Heyl didn’t mine this comedy gold further by explaining wacky ways to make gun culture more female-friendly. Like, you know, a curve-hugging bandolier that holds tampons in addition to ammo! Designer-branded semiautomatics (“this is my ‘status weapon’”)! Waist slimming camo patterns!

I’m not even breaking a sweat here. And I’m guessing this guy gets paid to write columns that don’t even present novel approaches to sexism? Sigh.

“It’s so bad I had to check twice to make sure it wasn’t an Onion article.” Sean said.

“Well, the Trib is also a fake newspaper, just not the good kind.”

Posted in Pittsburgh, Print media | Tagged , , , , | 9 Comments

Virtually Everything a Woman Does is Empowering

Posted on April 15, 2011 by Robin

A couple weeks ago, someone found our blog by searching for “virtually everything a woman does is empowering,” which is a quotation from an episode of the Simpsons I wrote about.  I joked with Ramona that we should make that the new sub-title of The Double R Diner. I was kidding on the square.

Because I feel like at least half the reason I started this blog was to give me a space to write myself into an intellectual or feminist justification for fluffy bits of pop culture that I just… like.

Like Keri Hilson’s “Pretty Girl Rock.” I want to write a lengthy piece about how the lyrics are empowering because they do not define the parameters of her prettiness and can thus be embraced by every woman. And how the video reinforces this by showing changing standards of beauty, and by acknowledging the transformative nature of beauty performance by putting Keri into all of those roles, with the added bonus of simultaneously celebrating famous women of color from Josephine Baker to Diana Ross to T-Boz (which, I know “Waterfalls” and “Creep” were great songs and everything, but isn’t her inclusion either hugely complimentary to T-Boz or hugely dismissive of the 1990s?)

But I can’t ignore the sexist crap in there, like the heteronormative and patriarchal notion that Keri MUST be pretty because dudes think she is. Or how the song paints women as in endless bitter competition to be fairest of them all. And are those the Andrews Sisters? Is it a better racial message that Keri emulates white beauty role models from history as well, or should she have gone with Lena Horne for the 1940s?

I don’t know! I’m on cold medicine! The bottom line is I really like this song, and I think the video is super cool, and it would be great if it were feminist, but I like it even if it isn’t.

Posted in Pop Music | 4 Comments

American Idol: How to Fix What’s Broken

Posted on April 8, 2011 by Robin

Every finalist eliminated thus far in American Idol‘s tenth season has been a woman.

The first four contestants eliminated were the women of color.

This show is broken.

I’m guessing the producers would throw up their hands and say, “What are we gonna do? America voted.” And yes: I do think part of the reason that American Idol is such a hard competition for women and people of color is because the viewership is skewed to straight white women who take the most interest in the white dudes they’re attracted to (I’m guilty of this myself: my favorite contestant this season is Paul McDonald, who is kind of terrible at both singing and interpreting music, but has a blindingly white smile and a sexy rasp to his voice. And he dances like he has Go-Go-Gadget spring feet. Swoon.).

But it’s not JUST our fault, and that means this is a problem that can be fixed without waiting for the Revolution to happen first. The first six seasons had four women winners, two of those women of color. Of those two male winners, one was white and one was black. America is capable of voting for Idol contestants who are not attractive white dudes.

How can the show get back to that track record?

Chicks with guitars
The last three winners of American Idol have been white dudes. I do not think it is a coincidence that the last three seasons are the only ones where the contestants were allowed to play instruments on stage. With season 7, the show shifted its focus from a singing competition to a musicianship competition. Again, it’s partly our fault: subconcious sexism and racism probably makes the Idol electorate more inclined to see white dudes as innovative musicians (women and people of color can be entertainers, but it is harder for us to accept them as creative forces).

But last year’s runner up, Crystal Bowersox, shows that a woman on American Idol who shows real musical chops can advance far on the show. Bowersox played guitar, piano, and harmonica on stage. She sang on a rug from her own home with her own mic stand made out of an old lamp. Her talent and her personality were undeniable, and she stuck around till the finale (The previous two seasons had male runners-up as well).

Source

I had hoped the producers would catch on to this and find more female contestants in the style of Crystal Bowersox. Instead, we got a lot of pretty chicks with big voices to function as cannon fodder while America decides which white guy with a guitar it likes best. Maybe the producers thought that Naima Adedapo was close enough to Bowersox because she also had dreadlocks. Hair similarities aside, Naima was a little closer to what we need to see more of in female contestants: she at least tried to give innovative performances, but in my opinion she didn’t have the chops to back it up. But there were 12 semi-finalist slots for women, and pretty much all of them presented as singers, not musicians. The female contestants seem to be at a pageant, the male contestants at a concert.

Find the chicks with guitars (or upright basses or whatever makes Randy Jackson squee), and put them on the finalists’ stage.

Bring back the semis
It seems American Idol does something a little different with its semifinals every year, like the round is a consistent thorn in the producers’ sides. This year they all but eliminated it, with one week of performances for the semifinalists which ended with a bloodbath elimination of eleven contestants. The problem with this is that the semifinals, which are divided by sex, seem to be the only place where men can be voted off. And having a few weeks to get to know the female contestants better gives them more chance to establish a fan base to vote them through week to week in the non-segregated finals. A lot of viewers don’t watch the auditions and Hollywood weeks; and getting to know a contestant from their first 90-second song can be tough (especially when she’s just another pretty belter).

Two judges saves
There was one dude America voted off: Casey Abrams. Casey fits the model of the contestants who have won the last few seasons: he’s a white guy, he plays a lot of instruments, he seems like a nice person you could trust to dogsit for you. And the judges used their one “save” to stop him from going home. Yes, Casey is too talented and interesting for the judges to have not used their save. But the next week’s double elimination meant two women of color went home, one of them the at-least-interesting Naima. I think the judges need two saves: one for a female contestant, and one for a dude. (The save was introduced in Season 8 and has only been used to save male contestants thus far).  Sex-specific saves are maybe too much for our pretend meritocracy to handle, in which case, I urge the judges to be mindful of how the save has only gone to men so far, and maybe try to avoid that next season if at all possible.

Those last two ideas do not offer any hope for American Idol‘s race problem, sadly, but I think race-segregated semifinals are out of the question. But I think the key here is finding the contestants that America wants to vote for—interesting, innovative, individualistic musicians—but outside the demographic of “cute white dude.” Give us what we want, in more shapes and colors, and then see if we’re still so shamefully racist and sexist.

See also:
Ms. Magazine: Enough with the White Guys with Guitars!
Shakesville: Ugh, American Idol. Ugh.

Posted in Pop Music, Racist!, Television | Tagged | 7 Comments

Dancing Like They’re Dumb: Britney Spears, Ke$ha, and Pop Stars’ Struggle for Agency

Posted on April 6, 2011 by Robin

When I first heard that Ke$ha had a writing credit on Britney Spears’ latest single “Till the World Ends”, I thought, “And the student becomes the teacher.” What a coup for Ke$ha to be listed in the same liner notes as “It’s Britney, Bitch” herself. I was reminded of when Madonna and Britney kissed at the 2003 VMAs, which if you can get past the Muffin Bluffin’ exploitation, I’m pretty sure was meant to symbolize some kind of torch-passing. Only that analogy would make more sense if Britney were writing or producing a Ke$ha song, not the other way around.

I think this collaboration is really more of a victory for Britney than for Ke$ha. It might seem like Ke$ha wants to be the new Britney Spears, but I’d argue it’s the other way around. You might think Ke$ha wants to be a pop princess like Britney. But I think Britney wants to be a member of the Parliament of Uzbekistan like Ke$ha.

Britney’s entire career has been about the struggle for control of one’s own life. First, this message was (ironically) a calculated attempt to tap into teen angst to secure the attention of that lucrative demo.

Then, life imitated art. Britney undeniably went her own way, and her star fell a bit because of it. And while we weren’t listening to Britney anymore, we were still watching her: watching her marrying randoms, eating Cheetos, driving with her baby in her lap, shaving her head. For us at home it was a grand spectacle, for Britney Spears it was a real struggle to keep her life under control. She lost custody of her kids. She lost control of her finances; legally relegated to the status of a minor child. Even her private life had to conform to the narrow confines with which the public felt comfortable to engage with Britney Spears.

“Piece of Me” didn’t chart all that well (peaking at #18 on the Hot 100), probably because we didn’t want to be reminded of how gross we were all being with our perverse fascination with Britney’s downfall. Britney’s second go at a comeback, the Circus album and tour, switched up the message to recast Britney’s attention-demanding train wreck qualities as one of her assets as an entertainer. And once again, Britney Spears had value as a pop artist and not just as a fountain of Schadenfreude.

Since “Circus,” Britney’s approach to reclaiming her identity post-breakdown returns to the same tactic she used to shrug her virginal image with “I’m a Slave 4 U”: sex appeal to the power of 100, stripped of all coyness. “If U Seek Amy”, “3″, and “Hold it Against Me” brought us dirty beats and single entendres and sweaty, writhing bodies in the music videos. Which we consumers of pop can never get enough of.

Now, tour revenues and album sales aren’t really a way to rebound from personal rock bottom. They brought Britney Spears the icon that lucrative comeback, but they can’t bring Britney Spears the woman peace in her life. Particularly not when she’s more of a product than an artist.

Which brings us to Ke$ha, and why Britney should want to be more like her. Post-Breakdown Britney primed the stage for Ke$ha’s in-your-face dirtiness. But, at least from my admittedly generous perspective, there’s a lot more going on with Ke$ha than her drunk & dirty persona. Where Britney sometimes looks so hallowed-out you swear you can see the puppeteer’s hand insider her body, Ke$ha has the same confident weirdness that has recently helped make stars of Lady Gaga and Nicki Minaj.

Legend has it that Ke$ha became “Ke-Dollar Sign-Ha” in response to being shut out from the profits generated by Flo Rida’s “Right Round,” on which she sang (I would like to note the restraint I am exercising here in not putting that word in obnoxious quotation marks) the hook.1 Her very name is an expression of self-possession in the face of an industry that likes to chew up and spit out young women as disposable product.

I don’t see Ke$ha’s writing credits, on her own tracks and now on Britney’s, as some attempt to counteract her drunk mess persona by making her look like a serious professional or artist. Even a tween knows that “I can’t take it take it anymore/never felt like felt like this before” isn’t exactly poetry.

I think Ke$ha’s writing credits are genuine. As in, she’s actually part of the creative process. I know that sounds dubious. Aren’t co-writing credits for pop stars like “executive producer” credits for sitcom stars? Well I guess what I’m saying here is that Ke$ha is the Alan Alda of pop. I mean, listening to “Till the World Ends” makes me feel like I’m four shots deep, and I’m writing this at 8:00AM. Doesn’t it stand to reason that our Perma-Drunk Gutter Prince$$ is legitimately responsible for that?

That being said, I do think that Ke$ha is probably enjoying the legitimacy that comes with a co-writing credit on a Britney Spears song that doesn’t seem to be trading in on Ke$ha’s fame (she’s not on the track or in the video and I haven’t even heard mention of her involvement on the radio). But the real winner here is Britney. By collaborating with Ke$ha, Britney Spears can flirt with the self-driven model for pop stardom that the new wave (Ke$ha, Gaga, Minaj, and as much as I hate to admit it, Katy Perry) has enjoyed. The model that she came to prominence too early (both with respect to time and her own age) to benefit from. The model that maybe wouldn’t exist but for the art-imitates-life-imitates-art cycle of Britney Spears’ own struggles for agency.

It’s a good thing when the student becomes the teacher. Maybe someday soon we’ll get a taste of ฿ritne¥.

Posted in Pop Music | 5 Comments

Where We’ve Been

Posted on April 4, 2011 by Robin

Double R Diner was on an unannounced and unplanned hiatus last week. If you missed us, I apologize.

We’re still a baby blog. We’re still trying to figure out what we’re doing. And if we should even be doing it.

Social justice bloggers often talk about the over-representation of privileged voices.  The proffered solution to this problem is for privileged women to shut up and listen.  [I realize I should be attributing this idea with some well-researched linkage, but I don't really know where to point, partly because so much of what I've been reading is on tumblr, and knowing exactly who said what within the tumblr format requires a decoder ring out of a box of Hipster O's and I don't eat sugar cereal.  But looking back through my chat logs with Ramona, I think this Racialicious post by Latoya Peterson and the many links within (especially this) would be a good starting place if you need to educate yourself more about this problem.]

Ramona and I are both privileged in a lot of ways. We’re white. We’re straight. We’re middle class. We’re cisgendered. We don’t have visible disabilities. We’re highly-educated. We’ve got money in the bank. We were born in the United States. We live in the US and the UK. We’re oh so very privileged.

We have exactly the voices that are over-represented; the voices that by merely speaking hurt marginalized women. No matter what our voices say, just the sound of them is hurtful. And we know we’re not going to speak perfectly. We’re going to fail. Sometimes we’ll be privilege-blind or short-sighted or narrow-minded or ignorant or selfish or flat-out wrong, no matter how hard we try to never be any of those things.

And we mostly blog about culture. Popular culture. The Great Distraction from what really matters. The “Poem for Feministe Commenters“, which highlights many ways privileged women undermine feminist conversations, laments “There are one hundred new comments on the post about popular culture/and none at all on the post about women of colour being shot.“  And here I am writing posts about pop culture, which while they are lucky if they get commented on at all, are still distracting our readers from the real problems of real people.  I don’t have nearly as much to say about news and politics and I do about music and movies. I don’t know if that is just a product of my privilege or a whole new dimension of why I am a bad feminist.

So I should shut up, right? It seems kind of obvious that is the solution. The time I spend writing posts about the gender politics of the en dash in Diddy–Dirty Money could be spent reading the marginalized voices of women of color or trans women or disabled women or working class women writing about issues that actually matter. Or the time I spend on the Internet could be spent in the Real World helping to solve Real Problems. Right? Right? Shouldn’t I just shut up?

But… I’m not. I don’t want to hurt or oppress anyone. I don’t want to weaken feminism. And I don’t want to be a bad person. But I still want to write long blog posts about things like en dashes in the names of pop groups.  If I don’t write them here, it’s not at the expense of time I could spend on better things, it’s at the expense of me only writing them in my head.  That’s why I started this blog. Because I love to write, because I love to blog, because I have things to say.  I didn’t do it to fix the world, which I guess makes me a bad social justice blogger even more than my privilege or my frivolous focus.

But fixing the world, even in tiny little ways, still matters to me.  So I’m leaving “feminism” in our blog heading because identifying as feminist matters. And because we’re still going to examine and criticize the patriarchy, and because despite our privilege we’re going to do our damnedest to give the same treatment to all the other dimensions of the kyriarchy.  When we screw up, tell us, and we’ll try to be better. We’re still listening, even if we’re not shutting up anymore.

Posted in Feminism, Guilt, The Internet | 5 Comments

Because a Window Can’t Ask For It

Posted on March 22, 2011 by Robin

Two years ago, Chris Brown beat up his girlfriend. His famous and well-liked girlfriend. This should really be a career death sentence for a guy who sings lyrics like “I need you boo/I gotta see you boo.” Given that we can’t really rely on the criminal justice system to take care of these problems (Brown pleaded guilty to his felony charge and got community service and probation, so it’s better than it could be but not great), shouldn’t we AT LEAST get the satisfaction of his career going down the toilet, such that even “celebrity” reality shows won’t touch him with a thirty-nine-and-a-half foot pole?

But no. One viral wedding video, one “emotional” performance of “Man in the Mirror” at the BET awards, a few marginally catchy singles, two years of forgetting, and Chris Brown appeared on the verge of a comeback. His new album F.A.M.E dropped today.

And so did Chris Brown’s chance of a career resuscitation. Appearing on Good Morning America to promote his album, Chris Brown was asked some “tough questions” by Robin Roberts. “Tough questions” just means failure to ignore that Chris Brown beat up his famous girlfriend. Because, you know, Robin Roberts is a journalist and she would not really be doing her job if she pretended that never happened and made the whole segment all about the redeeming power of a catchy hook. Chris Brown evaded the questions on air: “it’s not really a big deal to me now, as far as that situation, I think I’m past that in my life.” He redirected attention to the album, offering a second translation for the title of his album (“Fans are my everything,” slightly less provocative than “Forgiving all my enemies.”). Full video here, I haven’t found a transcript yet (please link me if you do!)

This obnoxious dodge and inexplicable martyrdom (Brown mentions “being able to go through everything I went through”) would be enough to re-up my hate of Chris Brown, but his fans already bought this line, so it wasn’t going to change his trajectory.

But then, allegedly (do I really have to type “allegedly?” ugh. Fine. Yes.), Chris Brown had a violent outburst backstage, yelling loudly enough to prompt GMA staffers to call security, and breaking a window in his dressing room with a chair.

And THIS is what will be the undoing of Chris Brown. You’re not going to see t-shirts that say, “The window deserved it.” Beat your girlfriend, and fans will find some way to sympathize. Break a window, and you just look unhinged. And that position has been filled in the universe of celebrity gossip, but thank you for submitting an application. [Brown is aware of this conundrum, tweeting, "I'm so over people bringing this past shit up!!! Yet we praise Charlie sheen and other celebs for there bullshit." [sic] although promptly deleting the message. Dude, the problem with the media coverage of Charlie Sheen is not that you haven’t been given the same allowances for beating women. Yes, there is hypocrisy here, and it is safe to say its because of racism, but let’s not try to fix it by making the world any more broken.]

So bittersweet celebrity news today: on the upside, ding dong, Chris Brown’s career is dead (at least I hope, but I never expected this much of a comeback). On the negative, that’s because a window is a more compelling victim than a human woman. And on the double negative, even that might not be enough if Chris Brown starts offering potent quoteables about tiger blood. Deep. Heavy. Sigh.

Posted in Celebrity, Pop Music, Violence | Tagged , | 7 Comments

Just to Be Clear: Total Film is Sexist

Posted on March 18, 2011 by Robin

I concluded my analysis of Total Film’s list of the 100 Greatest Female Characters by laying blame on moviemakers for churning out the same limited roles for women over and over.  I stand by that. If the movies were less sexist, this list would be too.  But Total Film doesn’t get a pass. Making it through this list is hard enough on a feminist movie-lover.1 Making it through the accompanying text is a mighty challenge to the endurance of the soul. These words leave no doubt that sexism is at the heart of the shortcomings of Total Film’s list.

Here are some gems:

On #99, Cherry Darling from Planet Terror:”Rich in knowing humour and fucked-up sexiness, Rose’s Cherry is exactly the kind of girl you need in the post-apocalypse.”
Ok. I haven’t seen the film, and I haven’t had to deal with a zombie apocalypse yet, but I’m not really understanding how “fucked-up sexiness” is a survival asset.

On #86, Audrey 2 from Little Shop of Horrors: “to distinguish her oddness, male actors have voiced Audrey 2.”
To distinguish its transphobia and sexism, Total Film used the above text.

On #63, Annie Wilkes in Misery: “Folksly in manner and frightening in effect, Bates redefined the ‘hagsploitation’ model to show that women would wield as much hobbling power as the fellas.”
I have never heard the term “hagsploitation” before. Wikipedia redirects to “Psycho-biddy“, a “a dangerous, insane or mentally unstable woman of advanced years.” Kathy Bates was 42 in 1990, when Misery was released.

On #46, Blanche DuBois from A Streetcar Named Desire: “Faced both with the prospect of a cast parted from its star, and the radical Method acting of Marlon Brando, it’s no wonder Leigh’s Blanche looks genuinely unsettled.”
In other words, the actress was lucky her male director and co-star shook up so she was accidentally in character.

On #34, Ann Darrow from King Kong: “Inevitably upstaged by her stop-motion star, but it’s Wray beauty that sells Kong’s love—and her scream who sells his scariness.”
Here’s how to be one of the 100 greatest female film characters: look pretty, sound terrified, and don’t distract from the special effects.

On #15, Selina Kyle (identified as “Catwoman”) from Batman Returns: “But, for the sake of this article, it’s all about the catsuit.”
No kidding.  This is one of 37 character write-ups that make note of the character or actor’s looks or sex appeal. Because that’s how you get Total Film to remember a woman.

1Or on a user of the Internet. 100 click-through slides? BOO! HISS! I feel you on the need for pageviews, Total Film, but that’s taking things too far. I hate the feeling that I encouraged such tricky web design with all my clicks made in the name of research.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Total Film’s 100 Greatest Female Characters: Statistical Breakdown

Posted on March 16, 2011 by Robin

The stats:

Out of Total Film’s list of the 100 Greatest Female Characters in movies…

Only 79 have full names, and only 73 are listed by their full name.

6 are not human women, and 3 are not humanoid.

38 are a character in someone else’s story. 25 of those are primarily a love interest.

Approximately 1/5 do not survive their film.

Almost 1/2 are victimized or imperiled in their films, and 1/3 are victims of rape, sexual assault, family or intimate partner violence.

There are four women of color. Two of these women (the only adult women of color and the only black characters) are portrayed by the same actor, Pam Grier.

There are three four [correction based on help from commenters. Thanks, commenters!] characters identifiable as bisexual and one character identifiable as a lesbian.

More than half the characters are approximately 20–35 years of age.

22 appear in films at least co-written by women. Only 5* appear in films directed by women.

[*Correction: this statistic originally read as 4, because I relied on Wikipedia which still lists the directors of The Matrix as Andy and Larry Wachowski instead of Andy and Lana Wachowski. I regret the error and thank Bitch Flicks for alerting me to my mistake.]

Discussion (some film spoilers ahead) Continue reading →

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , | 30 Comments