Gloria Steinem gives thumbs up to Sheryl Sandberg’s ‘Lean In’

Today, in response to the massive criticism from feminists and others that Facebook exec Sheryl Sandberg is too privileged to give career advice to women, Gloria Steinem posts on her Facebook page:

Having read “Lean In” by Sheryl Sandberg, I can testify that it addresses internalized oppression, opposes the external barriers that create it, and urges women to support each other to fight both. It argues not only for women’s equality in the workplace, but men’s equality in home-care and child-rearing. Even its critics are making a deep if inadvertent point: Only in women is success viewed as a barrier to giving advice.

 

 

gs

YAY Gloria. I fucking love Gloria Steinem.

I haven’t read “Lean In” yet, and I don’t know much about Sandberg, but the vitriol directed at her has rubbed me the wrong way. Maybe Sandberg’s advice won’t apply to you, won’t help you, and won’t affect you, but maybe, it will. Here’s a woman who is writing a book telling you how she got to the top, what it looks like up there, and what her advice to you would be. Not many women get that vantage point, not to mention write about it. Maybe the negative reaction to Sandberg’s book is part of the reason why. This book is based on her experience. Maybe she sounds a little controlling in her directions about how you should apply it to your life. But you’re a big girl. Use your discretion.

sandbergl

If your fear is that, as I’ve read, that companies, elected officials, whomever, will quote Sandberg to prove the problem here is all women’s fault, and not institutionalized sexism, they might. People often misuse information and take quotes out of context to further their own purpose. Do you think any writer would be able to write anything if she had to analyze all of the ways that someone might manipulate and misuse her information? If Sheryl Sandberg had to do that, she’d never write a book. No one would.

I will be buying “Lean In” and after I read it, I’ll let you know what I think. I hope you do the same.

Update:

The New York Times and The Washington Post quoted Sheryl Sandberg out of context, making her look like a spoiled brat. The New York Times printed a correction. The Washington Post has not.

The quote, printed in both publications and then all around the web, has Sandberg saying: “I always thought I would run a social movement.”

Obnoxious, right? The woman who has everything now wants a social movement as her new toy. How pretentious and demeaning of the little people can you get? What a bitch.

The Washington Post piece is headlined:

Sheryl Sandberg’s ‘Lean In’ campaign holds little for most women

Here’s the lede:

”She had it all — a husband, children, a beautiful home, a seat on the board of a billion-dollar company, a nine-figure net worth of her own. But there was one thing Sheryl Sandberg didn’t have. “I always thought I would run a social movement,” Sandberg said in the PBS/AOL documentary series “Makers.”

 

While checking the links for the blog above, I noticed a correction had been added to the two (Jodi Kanor’s and Maureen Dowd’s) NYT pieces. Here it is.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: February 26, 2013

An article on Friday about efforts by Sheryl Sandberg, the chief operating officer of Facebook, to start a national discussion and movement to help women excel in the workplace quoted incompletely from an interview she gave for “Makers,” a new documentary on feminist history. In a video excerpt, which accompanied the article online, she said: “I always thought I would run a social movement, which meant basically work at a nonprofit. I never thought I’d work in the corporate sector.” She did not merely say, “I always thought I would run a social movement.” Maureen Dowd’s column on Sunday, about Ms. Sandberg’s plans, repeated the incomplete quotation from the news article. The article also referred imprecisely to the location of a book party planned for Ms. Sandberg. While Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg will host the party, he will do so at the offices of the Bloomberg Foundation, on East 78th Street — not at his private residence a block away.

Ah, Sandberg wasn’t saying she wants a new toy. When she was being interviewed about her career, she explained that she always thought that she would work at a non-profit and not in the private sector.

Still, apparently, the Washington Post feels no need to make a correction to the article.

It’s ironic that feminists and social activists are so concerned that quotes from Sandberg‘s book will be misused and pulled out of context, yet that’s just what they’re doing all over the internet to Sandberg.

 

Reel Girl Recs: First Chapter Books

First grade is amazing. My six year old daughter, Alice, began this school year slowly sounding out words in picture books. Now, she saves those to read aloud to her enraptured little sister and then reads Harry Potter to herself.

alice

That said, after spending her entire life in picture books, Alice was tentative to make the transition to chapter books. It wasn’t about skill but familiarity. Here’s the good and the bad history in books of how she did it:

Rainbow Magic Series  ***S***

This was the first chapter book my daughter picked up. I thought I purged the house after my older one grew out of this series, but apparently I did not.

diamond

There are so many damn books in this series that I missed about 10. How did my older daughter acquire so many? All I can say is it happened before I knew better. Generally, I don’t forbid books. I may roll my eyes at a selection. I did refuse to let my eight year old read Twilight but mostly, I “highly encourage” books that I think would be great for them, and they would love and try to ignore the rest. So what did my six year old daughter do when I told her for one too many times she was ready to start chapter books? She picked up Lucy, the Diamond Fairy and brought it to be, beaming, knowing I would cringe. I caved. She read.

To learn more about how and why I hate this series and a few things that are OK about it, read here.

Junie B. Jones  ***HH***

I’m not a fan of Junie B. either. She is super annoying and talks baby talk. I hate baby talk.

junieb

But the print is big, the stories are simple, and my daughter felt accomplished finishing the book. Parts of it are funny. Alice liked it okay. And, I’d rather her read about a brat than a navel baring Fairy who goes on about her outfit for pages. My daughter got through three of this series and then she went on to…

Judy Moody ***HH***

Judy Moody has a similar lay out of print size, book length, and illustration as Junie B.

judy

I like Judy more than Junie. Thankfully, so does my daughter. I was kind of bored by these books, I like more drama. Alice also read a couple and then moved on to…

Magic Tree House ***HH***

If your new reader likes Magic Tree House, you’re in luck. There are so many of these books, and the kids always travel to a different place and time.

treehouse

There is a lot of history woven into the stories, and of course, magic. I like these books a lot, though being me, it does bum me out that it is always “Jack and Annie” and never “Annie and Jack.” I mean, we’re talking hundreds of stories, can’t the girl come first at least half the time? When my older daughter got into this series, I was overjoyed and blogged about it here.

Ramona the Pest ***HHH***

I love Ramona.

ramona

The writing is great and the characters are awesome. This series is a jump from the previous 4: smaller print, longer, and more complex, IMO.

I think the only think I don’t like about this series is that Ramona thinks her brown hair and brown eyes are boring. If this was one book of many that had that theme, I wouldn’t have an issue, but dark haired girls don’t fare well in children’s media, from Rapunzel who literally loses her magic and power when her hair turns brown, to Ramona. Alice has two blue-eyed, blonde sisters, so its even more of a bummer to read about how Ramona is obsessed with other peoples hair. And no, it’s not something my daughter relates to, because she’s never felt like there is anything less good about brown hair. So that’s my tirade about hair. Otherwise, great series, read what I wrote about it here.

The Magic Half **HHH***

After Ramona, my daughter made the jump to The Magic Half.

magic-half-annie-barrows

This is a full on next level book and she plowed through it. I did not read it, but here is the synopsis from Amazon:

Miri is the non-twin child in a family with two sets of them–older brothers and younger sisters. The family has just moved to an old farmhouse in a new town, where the only good thing seems to be Miri’s ten-sided attic bedroom. But when Miri gets sent to her room after accidentally bashing her big brother on the head with a shovel, she finds herself in the same room . . . only not quite.
Without meaning to, she has found a way to travel back in time to 1935 where she discovers Molly, a girl her own age very much in need of a loving family. A highly satisfying classic-in-the-making full of spine-tingling moments, this is a delightful time-travel novel for the whole family.
Based on the rec of Alice and Lucy, I rated it 3 Hs
And that brings us to…
Harry Potter, the Sorcerer’s Stone ***H***
YAY. If you want to know how I feel about the series, begin here. My daughter loves the book so far, especially the way Hagrid talks.
harry

 

 

Seth MacFarlane on a better day? Watch this hilarious “Family Guy” clip

After I posted about Seth MacFarlane’s offensive, misogynistic, and not funny hosting of the Oscars, some people asked me if I’d always hated him. The answer is no. His name was familiar, but I didn’t know who he was before the Oscars. Though a while ago  a commenter posted a clip on Reel Girl from what I now know to be MacFarlane’s “Family Guy.” The clip totally cracked me up. I don’t know if MacFarlane wrote it, but I love it, and totally relate to it as a writer. Clearly, the clip’s creator has subjects besides demeaning women in a series of cliches. I’m reposting it here. Writers, this is for you:

#SarahSilvermanHostOscars

I’m HUGE fan of Silverman. Not only is she a great performer, she’s a fantastic writer.

sarah_silverman-wreck_it_ralph-1

Here’s what I blogged about her memoir, Bedwetter, a couple summers ago:

Bedwetter by Sarah Silverman. Silverman, you probaly know, is a comedian; this book is hilarious but also poignant. She wet her bed until she was sixteen years old. One passage totally sticks in my head: Silverman is just back from sleepaway camp, a traumatizing experience for a bedwetter; she secretly wore diapers at night. When she gets off the camp bus, full of shame, her mom is frenetically taking pictures of her. Silverman has a strange feeling of getting attention yet being completely ignored. When I read this, I thought it was a great way to describe the experience many women have of being looked at but not being seen. I blogged about the book here.

 

I’ve been reading some great posts from around the web about how horrible Seth MacFarlane was last night. From the New Yorker:

Watching the Oscars last night meant sitting through a series of crudely sexist antics led by a scrubby, self-satisfied Seth MacFarlane. That would be tedious enough. But the evening’s misogyny involved a specific hostility to women in the workplace, which raises broader questions than whether the Academy can possibly get Tina Fey and Amy Poehler to host next year. It was unattractive and sour, and started with a number called “We Saw Your Boobs.”

“We Saw Your Boobs” was as a song-and-dance routine in which MacFarlane and some grinning guys named actresses in the audience and the movies in which their breasts were visible. That’s about it. What made it worse was that most of the movies mentioned, if not all (“Gia”), were pretty great—“Silkwood,” “Brokeback Mountain,” “Monster’s Ball,” “Monster,” “The Accused,” “Iris”—and not exactly teen-exploitation pictures. The women were not showing their bodies to amuse Seth MacFarlane but, rather, to do their job. Or did they just think they were doing serious work? You girls think you’re making art, the Academy, through MacFarlane, seemed to say, but all we—and the “we” was resolutely male—really see is that we got you to undress. The joke’s on you.

 

Vulture.com posts:

the relentless commentary about how women look reinforced, over and over, that women somehow don’t belong. They matter only insofar as they are beautiful or naked, or preferably both.

Please Tweet #SarahSilvermanHostOscars

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seth MacFarlane, you’re a loser

After Tina Fey and Amy Poehler rocked the Golden Globes last month, I hoped Hollywood producers would catch on: putting women in power positions means a high quality show with good ratings. But then, Seth MacFarlane. Last night’s Academy Awards featured the the most sexist, worst Oscars hosting I’ve ever seen.

GG

I get that MacFarlane tried to pre-empt this blog, and many like it, with his boring, stupid, Captain Kirk snore-fest-skit. But, Seth, your fake headlines last night don’t get close to describing what a pig you are. Best Actress nominee Quevenzhane Wallis is nine years old. She was so proud. That was the biggest moment of her life, and you called her George Clooney’s girlfriend? Why would you do that to a kid? How is she supposed to feel when you say that? Are you that insecure that you want to cut down a little girl?

quevenzhane-oscars11

Jessica Chastain had the rare opportunity to play a heroic, female protagonist and you trivialized her character, transforming her lifetime accomplishment into nagging, saying she possessed the innate female ability to never let anything go.

You sang a “boob song” that was more repetitive than my three year old, and you made jokes about domestic violence. That’s all I saw, but apparently, I missed some sexism.

Where were your jokes about men? Part of the reason your jokes were not funny is because women get demeaned and trivialized every day in this country, especially in Hollywood. All you did was jump on the bandwagon and push things a little further in the same, old, tired direction. Watching you tell your sexist jokes at a venue where in 85 years, only 4 women have been nominated for Best Director, was like watching someone point up and say, “The sky is blue,” for three and a half hours. Seth MacFarlane, you are such a bore.

Your performance did help me to explain the meaning of the term “bully pulpit” to some children. So, thanks for that, I guess.

Here’s to hoping Sarah Silverman hosts the Oscars in 2014.

sarah_silverman-wreck_it_ralph-1

Please Tweet #SarahSilvermanHostOscars

 

 

 

Star Wars, where are the women?

Love this post from Laura Hudson on Wired.

females

 

If you’ve never really noticed the absence of women in Star Wars (or movies at large), consider yourself living proof of how the limiting narratives of culture and media can warp our expectations, to the point where the presence of one woman in a cast of dozens of memorable male characters can seem like perfect equality.

Women accounted for a mere 33 percent of the roles in the top 100 Hollywood films in 2011, according to a study commissioned by the Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film. When it came to the leading characters, women were even more dramatically under-represented, comprising only 11 percent of identifiable protagonists.

It gets even worse when you look at all-ages entertainment. Women — who, by the way, make up half the human population — comprised only 28 percent of speaking roles in top-grossing family films last year. And when women did appear, they were far less likely to hold roles of power or influence: making up only 3 percent of executive portrayals, for example, compared to 25 percent in real life….

Criticisms about representations of gender (or race and other diversity) are often countered in fandom by sociological or scientific analyses attempting to explain why the inequality happens according to the internal logic of the fictional world. As though there is any real reason that anything happens in a story except that someone chose to write it that way.

What are kids learning about gender when they watch “Star Wars” again and again and again? All those fantastic creatures the creators of “Star Wars” came up with, but their creativity screeched to a stop when it came to imagining females.

Please read the whole, great post here:

In 85 yrs, 4 women nominated for Best Director

It’s Academy Awards week and the ballots are closed.  While we don’t know the winners yet, one thing we know for sure is that no women have again been nominated for best director.This is one of the only times of the year when the world is paying attention to the film business, not just movies.  The entire industry is on display this weekend and it is still extremely imbalanced.

This is the second year we have created a video to help make people think about the gender imbalance in Hollywood, especially in the area of directing.

Please share this far and wide.

 

When girls go missing in children’s media, a new generation learns to accept sexism

I posted a comment on Reel Girl from 14 yr old Jessica who wrote about how when she calls out sexism, people say she’s bonkers. A 13 yr old replied to her:

You are definitely not alone or bonkers! In fact, you are intelligent enough to know that sexism is still present in our society. I am 13 and I share the same experiences with you! I never tried to advocate feminism openly in public because I know how ignorant, oblivious , and stubborn people are that they would not accept the truth, or flatly deny the existence of sexism. I would have had the courage if there was such a thing such as a feminist campaign club in my country. At least my sister and all of you here understand sexism!

 

It makes me so mad and frustrated that neither of these girls, 30 years younger than me, feels like she has a public voice to tell her story. I am happy that they wrote on this blog, and I hope that they will continue to write and refuse to believe that the sexism they experience in their world is trivial and doesn’t matter.

If this isn’t sexist:

M&M_spokescandies

And this isn’t sexist:

Rice-Krispies-Box-Small

And this isn’t sexist:

arthur1

Is this sexist?

obama2

This photo of Obama’s inner circle is from the March issue of Vogue magazine.

When girls go missing in children media, it acclimates a whole new generation to expect and accept sexism. It’s an annihilation of half of the population. So why do parents accept sexism in a fantasy world created for children? When did it become normal to us? And why are teenage girls afraid to talk about what they see?

 

 

Innocent man exonerated from Oakland shooting

From SFGate:

A man who has spent nearly seven years in prison for a shooting in West Oakland is on the brink of being released after his attorneys argued he was the innocent victim of shoddy police work and lying witnesses who have since recanted.

Alameda County prosecutors, who put 51-year-old Ronald Ross in state prison for attempted murder and assault with a firearm, conceded Friday that his conviction should not stand and said they would ask a Superior Court judge to free him.

“The district attorney doesn’t have confidence the verdict was fully supported given all of the circumstances,” said Assistant District Attorney Micheal O’Connor.

Friday’s developments mean that Ross, who has been serving a sentence of 25 years to life at San Quentin State Prison, is probably days away from the end of an unusual and lengthy legal saga.

Ross, who had no record of violence, was arrested by Oakland police after the shooting victim, Renardo Williams, picked him out of a lineup of six photos, Ross’ attorneys said.

Here is Thelma Ross, mother of Ronald, waiting for the hearing:

thelmaross

Thelma2

Here is Ross’s attorney, my cousin, Jo Golub (named for Jo March of Little Women.)

jo

Jo has been working on this case since 2008. 

Here is to hoping our justice system stops putting innocent people behind bars.

FREEDOM FOR RONALD!!!!

Toy companies start marketing sexism as progressive

I’ve blogged about the Nerf’s new, idiotic toy line “for girls,” Rebelle, which includes a pink bow and arrow called the Heartbreaker. What’s remarkable is that the toy makers are marketing this line as progressive.

Hasbro-bow

First, the headline on CNN: “Barbie, Nerf, redefine ‘girl’ toys.”

Isn’t that great? Leaders in breaking gender stereotypes! Read on.

Parents have gotten more open minded when it comes to how children play and what kind of toys are appropriate for their kids, according to Maureen O’Brien, a developmental psychologist who consulted with Mattel (MAT, Fortune 500) on its Mega Bloks set.

More open minded? I guess open-minded means going to a mega store chain like Target and shopping in a “girl” aisle full of pink. Gender segregated toys have never been so homogenized and mass-marketed and cross-marketed through movies, clothing, videos, apps and diaper icons as they are today. Here’s an ad for  LEGO ‘for girls’ from 1981, when I was a kid.

lego_ad_1981

Here’s an ad for LEGO for girls, literally, today:

legos-friends1

The CNN post rewrites history and misleads further here:

“There has always been this artificial gender distinction when it comes to play, but now it’s falling away as we learn more about the advantages of different toys,” said O’Brien.

 

It’s not falling away. It’s getting so defined, kids can hardly cross it.

Here is the “to be sure” paragraph. When I teach Op-Ed writing, I always talk about the “to be sure” graph writers must include to anticipate counter-arguments. You’re not supposed to actually use the cliche phrase as this writer does here:

To be sure, the new toys continue to play into some stereotypes. A Barbie construction set lets children build a fashion boutique, Lego Friends sells a pet salon, and the Nerf Rebelle comes in shades of hot pink and purple.

 

Except for that little, tiny issue, everything is cool, right?

Here’s the hilarious thing about the post. Toy companies actually admit that gender segregation is about making money.

 For toy makers, it is a relatively inexpensive move because they don’t need to develop an entire new line of toys from scratch. In fact, most of them use the same tools and models they use for the traditional toys, says Johnson.

And then again, at the end of the post:

“It’s driven by a simple fact,” said Sean McGowan, a toy analyst with Needham Co. “If you can get a product targeted to one gender to be appealing to the other, you can significantly increase sales.”

The reason these “experts” have the guts to confess the drive isn’t “nature” but capitalism is because the post frames the choice under the umbrella of a bold and non-traditional move.

In her book, Cinderella Ate My Daughter, Peggy Orenstein is more clear:

Splitting kids and adults, or for that matter, penguins, into ever tinier categories has proved a surefire way to boost profits. So where there was once a big group called kids we now have toddlers, pre-schoolers, tweens, young-adolescents and older adolescents, each with their own developmental and marketing profile…One of the easiest ways to segment the market is to magnify gender differences or invent them where they did not previously exist.

Get it? Instead of buying one, you buy 2. Or you’re supposed to pick this one, instead of some other brand, because it’s made especially for YOU.

Screen-Shot-2013-02-16-at-7.26.35-AM-500x389

This image, via The Society Pages, is so stupid its almost funny. If this product looks ridiculous to you, so should Nerf’s Heartbreaker bow. Not only that, you should help your kid see how stupid gender segregation is. We now understand that kids learn gender the same way they learn language, meaning they are born full of potential for a wide range of behavior, and based on learning, specific wiring is developed. Do you want multi-national companies whose main goal is to make money to have this level of influence in shaping your child’s brain?