Thanksgiving movies a feast for boys, girls go hungry

Let’s see, no school today and my daughters want to see a movie.

Is it too much to ask for one holiday movie to put a female character front and center as it does for male characters in all 5 holiday movies?

What about a mother-daughter saga instead of father-son one as in “Arthur” (Santa’s incompetent son) and “Happy Feet” (Mumble’s son can’t dance like he can)?

Or a girl buddy movie as in “Puss In Boots” (Puss and Humpty dream, go on adventures, and finally, transition)?

I don’t know what “Hugo” is about but something tells me not a girl.

Puss In Boots:

Hugo:

Happy Feet 2:

Arthur Christmas:

Is the media being unfair to Sandusky?

I got this comment in response to my last post:

Although I believe Sandusky probably did everything of which he’s been accused and more, I still wish the public would wait until he’s convicted to pass judgment on him. Furthermore, I wish they would take fuller account of the fact that pedophilia is a sickness and that their extreme vilification of people who act out this sickness and their hysterical reactions to this acting out are neither fair to the perpetrator nor helpful to their victims.

For it is no fairer to hate and condemn people for manifesting the symptoms of mental illness such as pedophilia than it is to hate and condemn people for manifesting the symptoms of a physical illness such as smallpox. Quarantine them to protect the public, but don’t hate them and take vengeful action against them the way the public clamors to do in cases such as Sandusky’s.

And when the public overreacts to molestations by calling them “filthy,” “monstrous,” and “ruinous” to their victims, not only are the victims more likely to feel more victimized than they would otherwise but also more injured by their abuse than if the public’s responses to it were more moderated. Moreover, it seems likely adults with pedophilic proclivities would be more inclined to seek help that prevents them from acting out if they knew they would receive a more compassionate response from society than the extreme demonization they actually incur.

Adults who molest children and children who are molested are both victims of mental sickness, and until we as a society understand this and act accordingly, not only will child sexual abuse likely remain pandemic, but both abusers and abused will continue to suffer more than is just or necessary.

I agree that molesting kids is a sickness and won’t even begin to go away until we recognize and treat it that way, just like cancer. This is why when I’ve written about this story, I’ve tried hard to come down on those who facilitated the cover up– and not just the people but the institutions we create. Again, the molester will not stop on his own; we all need to do much more as a culture to prevent child abuse. I wrote: “Until more adults stand up and protect these kids, take the risk– sadly and remarkably it is a risk– to say that sex abuse is happening and is wrong, we give it permission to go on.”

I also agree that when people call molesters “filthy,” “revolting” etcetera it creates an “us and them” mentality that isn’t useful and helps others to shirk any responsibility. There is a whole culture that reinforces sexualizing kids. It’s like when people vilify parents of child beauty pageant contestants but then totally buy into the princess culture. Where is the line? What part does everyone play? Though we may not know exactly where the line begins or ends, we want to distance ourselves from the molester who has clearly crossed it; calling him “revolting” accomplishes that.

Though in some cases, I do feel like strong words need to be used because people don’t get it. For example, Paterno had no clue how arrogant and offensive his retirement statement was.

As far as waiting to pass judgement until Sandusky is proven guilty or innocent, it’s hard to differenciate between judging the guy and finally listening to these kids who have been ignored by too many for too long. I, personally, am in a place where my priority is to help to give these kids a voice for the horrors they say happened to them. I believe these kids. If that makes me a judger of Sandusky, so be it.

My husband killed a mouse and that’s why I love him

It happened last night. The battle was long and fierce, and I feel sorry for the mouse. But mostly, I’m glad it’s dead.

I blogged a couple weeks ago about how this mouse ran past me early morning while I was trying to meditate. I just saw a dark blur, but I was completely freaked out. Of course, as I wrote, if I were a good Buddhist, not only would the mouse not disrupt my meditation, but I’d never wish it dead. Buddhists don’t even kill mosquitoes. But instead I screamed for my husband. So then there’s also the issue that I’m a feminist. If anyone is going to kill the mouse, it should be me, right?

But the great thing about my husband is that while I sit there intellectualizing in angsty moral dilemmas, he does things. He goes out and buys traps and sets them. For days the traps went off, the bait eaten, but no mouse was caught. Then last night my husband leaped out of bed and I heard SMACK SMACK SMACK. Silence and then several more smacks. A few minutes later, my husband came back upstairs, and got back in bed. “Who won?” I asked.

“I did,” he said.

He told me it was the biggest mouse he’d ever seen, so big he thought it was a rat. That was why it didn’t get stuck in the trap. “Mysteries were explained,” he said, “once I saw its size. It all makes sense now.”

He told me the mouse was flapping around with the trap stuck to its tail so he swatted it with the broom. But when he got the broom out of the closet, the mouse flapped into the closet. When he smacked at it, the mouse ran past him and down the stairs. Those were the mouse’s last steps.

This morning, while I was meditating, I felt so calm, not freaked out about the mouse coming. I felt so grateful to my husband for getting rid of it. I felt happy to be married and to have a husband who would get up in the middle of the night to go after a mouse.

Several years ago, I read an anthology that I loved called The Bitch in the House. The editor, Cathi Hanauer, wrote about her husband, then boyfriend, who refused to come over to her house when she wanted him to come kill a mouse. (I think it was a mouse, it may have been some other scary invader like an enormous spider.) Basically her future husband, who I believe is Daniel Jones, the editor if the New York Times “Modern Love” column, told her that he respected her enough to know she could take care of herself.

I completely understand that way of thinking. I do. But I am so happy my husband doesn’t practice it. My husband is never going to get in a discussion with me, if he can help it, about gender roles and mouse killing. My husband doesn’t use words like “heteronormative” or “ocularcentric.” He didn’t study feminist theory in school. He just gets it.

On our first official date, we went to a cafe with a huge magazine rack. I showed him a piece in Bust Magazine about a movement I’d started to make the word “pussy” a compliment instead of an insult. He was one of the first people who just understood what I was saying without me explaining it to him. He didn’t even think it was weird.

This from a guy who in so many ways is such a boy. He won’t walk by a dog on the street without talking to it. He can’t let a ball go by him without sticking out his arm and catching it. He’s a jock. He played sports at college level. He plays drums. He works outside. He builds stuff, paints our house, fixes things, and drives a truck. But still, he gets it. How did he get to be that way?

I think it’s his mom. She’s incredibly smart– she was a double math/ English major at UC Berkeley. When my husband’s father died, she raised seven kids on her own. She became a successful businesswoman and supported her family. Not only that, she’s an amazing cook. She bakes the best chocolate cake I’ve ever tasted. She also taught her son to open doors for the ladies. He always calls me Beautiful like it’s my name. Thank you mother-in-law.

No Comment! A Commentary on the ChapStick Story, guest post by Melissa Spiers

I have news for anyone with his or her cursor poised over the “Comment” button right now: I will not read whatever it is you are about to say.  Nor will pretty much anyone else, except for those who want to argue over your personal qualities, mental deficiencies, and general unfitness to inhabit the world.

Recently I wrote a guest post for Reel Girl regarding an ad for ChapStick.  To my great surprise the post spawned a petition and a Facebook page, getting nearly 15,000 hits and coverage by Forbes, AdWeek, BusinessInsider, Jezebel, the Wall Street Journal and a lot of other media outlets.

That was all very unexpected and delightful.  On the predictable side, however, were the comments that followed each piece of media coverage.  It actually didn’t even occur to me to read the comments, since I’ve never seen any that were particularly thoughtful.  But a wildly successful blogger friend was horrified to learn I had not scrutinized them.

“What for?”  I muttered.

“To make sure none of the threats are real!”

“What?”

“The threats!  You have to check – always! – for stalkers and serious threats among all the garden-variety haters.” Wow.  OK.

I checked the comments for “real” haters but only found the usual: an inordinate amount of time wasted telling me I had wasted my time. And of course the typical snipes leveled at any woman writer:  you are an ugly, jealous, whining lesbian-troll-feminist, with no sense of humor, who hates men and sex.  (Oh, dahlings, how we sit around in our super-sized G-7XL Summit of Sexism Whining and laugh at these comments – mirthlessly – as we secretly run the world while scarfing bonbons and torching effigies of skinny, beautiful women that consume us with jealousy and/or lust!)

But I digress.  Back in the age of print periodicals, people turned eagerly to the “letters to the editor” or the Op-Ed page for concise, thoughtful (and sometimes scathing) commentary on the previous day’s articles. The writer’s comments were always associated with their name, and usually their town, and were chosen carefully by the paper’s editorial team.  This system served two purposes: first, if you said something incredibly stupid or nasty your grandmother (and others) would smack you upside the head in church the next week.  Second, and more important for the community (as important as a communal head-whacking for stupidity might be), it also guaranteed some level of reflection and editorial thought.  In the old system at least someone along the way had thought through a particular comment before it was available to others.

Online, anyone with the intellectual wherewithal to choose a pithy, identity-concealing handle like “ShutUpDumbDyke” can let fly with the first thought that scampers onto their cerebral center stage.  Unless they are engaged in a tough round of Pictionary or Charades, however, this is generally not a wise intellectual move.  It just leads to an emotional one-upmanship game of Typing Tourette’s.

There is of course no editorial staff censoring bloggers, either, as an astute commenter is bound to point out here.  But most often bloggers are putting themselves out there – not hiding behind anonymous monikers – and they are (mostly) aiming to say something.  Perhaps there is a blog somewhere consisting endlessly of “Don’t you have a life? You have no clue.  Find something that matters, you lazy sack of babble.”  But where would its readership be?  To be worth reading- to be worth wasting time writing – a thought needs to have a point.

It’s obvious that grandma’s sage advice “if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all” has had its day: we, as a society, will never pass that way again. Even Wikipedia’s definition of critical thinking seems hopelessly highbrow and out-of-date when contemplating today’s graceless online commentary smackdowns.  Alas, today’s forums – for better or worse – allow for all critical, no thinking.  But perhaps it’s not too late for another simple, old adage: think before you speak.

So go forth and comment passionately, wildly, sarcastically, amusingly – whatever moves your meter – but please have something to say that advances the dialogue.  And by all means refrain from getting into a fight with the next commenter, because his reply will always be that you’re a pigeon-toed idiot with bad breath and no education.

Does new ad show model ‘wearing nothing but her ChapStick’?

Did the marketing team at Pfizer come up with this one too?

After ChapStick took down its ass ad, the company’s FB page read: “We’ve removed the image and will share a newer ad with our fans soon!”

Nine to Five from Australia reports:

ChapStick Australia has announced reigning Australia’s Next Top Model winner Amanda Ware as the new face of its 2011 campaign.

Amanda will feature in a series of cheeky adverts, wearing nothing but her ChapStick – inspired by the brand’s new tag line Never let your lips go naked.

Cheeky adverts? Really?

Maybe ChapStick is trying to change its image, no longer highlighting athletes like Picabo Street, Dorothy Hamill, and Suzy Chaffee, opting instead to showcase female body parts. That would be a weird tactic, because I thought the ass ad was supposed to have nothing to do with sexualizing women, it’s just a girl who’s lost her ChapStick, after all.

I have no idea if naked women ads are really in the works (the link is dated June 3, 2011) but I’d be bummed to see them.

Here’s another link that sounds like a Playboy press release: Amanda Ware to bare it all for ChapStick  at www.sassybella.com. The post reads:

Not known for their celebrity endorsements, Chapstick experienced a bit of a revival when Katy Perry sung about a “cherry Chapstick” in her debut hit ‘I Kissed A Girl’. The first ChapStick was invented in the early 1880s, making it one of the oldest beauty brands still around today with a comprehensive range of lip balms and glosses that covers the classics, shimmers and flavoured options.

So maybe the new campaign strategies represent Pfizer’s desire to reach a new generation of consumers, capitalizing on Katy Perry fans who don’t know ChapStick is known for previous celebrity endorsements? It would be so much cooler to just show the woman lifting the couch and finding the tube there.

Feedback on ChapStick’s apology

Here’s a comment I like on Reel Girl:

Reading the comments to the “apology” is interesting. What I came away with is the conclusion that by calling the removed comments “foul, repetitive, and spam-like,” ChapStick reinforced the notion the people concerned about sexism are foul-mouthed, strident (shrill?), unreasonable, and unprincipled in pursuit of their goals. I don’t know if that was their intention, but if so… brilliantly played, ChapStick.

ChapStick writes: “We apologize that fans have felt like their posts are being deleted…” Huh? If you feel like your post is being deleted, is it actually being deleted?

This is a great comment from Adweek reader Elizabeth Kraus:

I’ve used chapstick for years; I’m dependent.  I didn’t think the ad was offensive, but I do think that the ‘apology’ is. Telling people that you’re sorry for how THEY feel is equivalent to saying that it’s their fault for how they think and feel about what you did.  If the company was silencing critics, own it, fix it and move on. Telling people that they don’t have the proper emotional response, and that you’re sorry about that?  Makes me want Blistex.

Here is Ray Kerins (Of ChapStick I believe) comment back to her:

Elizabeth Kraus – For
us this was about listening, analyzing the feedback and taking action.  So even while social media is so new to so
many of us, we are committed to the dialogue.

As I wrote, I think it’s great ChapStick removed the ad, apologized, and is creating a new ad. But also, as I wrote, the deleted comments that I saw are clearly not foul mouthed, threatening, or spammed as the screen shots show.

Melissa Wardy of Pigtail Pals got this response:

“Thank you for your email. Our new Chaptsick ad was not intended to offend anyone. We are dedicated to listening to the views of our customers. To that end, we are removing the image from all of our properties.
Thank you again for your feedback.
Sincerely,
Raymond Kerins

Melissa Spiers who wrote the original post comments:

All of the media coverage on this is great but this was not just a photo posted on the internet. When I wrote the original article (with the original photo used here and in Adweek, Business Insider, etc) it was because I saw it as a full page ad in a magazine. It was also apparently a television commercial, featuring a woman’s ass jiggling around on the screen. It wasn’t JUST a picture on ChapStick’s site.

We don’t know if there is a TV commercial. We haven’t seen one, have you? The photo, I believe Melissa photographed from a magazine; it’s certainly running in print. But the point was that ChapStick wasn’t listening to their customers and now they seem to be, so that’s good. There’s still an ad out there that many people find offensive and the company is now saying they hear that and that they are no longer actively circulating it. That is what they’re saying, right?

Read ChapStick’s full apology here.

ChapStick removes ad and apologizes

We see that not everyone likes our new ad, and please know that we certainly didn’t mean to offend anyone! Our fans and their voices are at the heart of our new advertising campaign, but we know we don’t always get it right. We’ve removed the image and will share a newer ad with our fans soon!
We apologize that fans have felt like their posts are being deleted and while we never intend to pull anyone’s comments off our wall, we do comply with Facebook guidelines and remove posts that use foul language, have repetitive messaging, those that are considered spam-like (multiple posts from a person within a short period of time) and are menacing to fans and employees.
As I commented on their page, as far as I know, comments made from Butt, seriously did not use foul language, spammed messages or threats (there are screen shots of some deleted comments on the Butt, seriously page.) I am not sure what they mean they never intend to pull anyone’s comments off. But I am happy they listened. Thank you ChapStick.
Read feedback on ChapStick’s apology here.

Why ChapStick’s bad PR policy matters

Yesterday,  Jezebel and Business Insider posted about ChapStick’s bad PR policy to delete negative feedback about its ad from its Facebook page– an especially questionable practice by ChapStick when its ad copy reads: “Be Heard” and follows with a Facebook page address.

As Jezebel wrote, ChapStick’s practice of deleting negative feedback is not officially censorship:

“Chapstick has no obligation to provide a public forum, and users are free to take their complaints elsewhere, as they have done.”

Last I looked, it appears ChapStick is now deleting the blatantly sexist comments as well, which I guess could be considered progress. But again, the ad implies a public forum. Furthermore, ironically, leaving up the sexist comments about the woman’s ass show that the picture is not just an innocent snapshot of a woman looking for ChapStick, that others besides crazy feminists bloggers find the ad objectifying, though obviously they’re into the objectification.

Jezebel writes:

What Chapstick is guilty of is really bad PR. When Dr. Pepper issued a much more objectionable ad, at least they allowed customers to sound off about it on their Facebook page. By deleting negative comments, Chapstick is sending the message that they can’t handle criticism. And especially if you’re encouraging people to use social media to talk about your brand, that’s a stupid message to send.

Business Insider agrees:

Social media is supposed to be a way to communicate with your customers — when you shut that channel down simply because they disagree with you, you totally negate the point of having it in the first place.

Deleting those comments served no purpose for Chapstick but to cause itself PR problems. It’s the Internet — even if you delete something, it’ll appear somewhere, somehow. True to form, many of the comments that Chapstick deleted were compiled by protesters on a new Facebook page (the screenshots show that most were void of profanity and civil).

What should Chapstick have done?

Brands like Chapstick have to learn to accept the negative with the positive, especially in a world with social media. By simply opening a dialogue with those angered and listening to their complaint, this could’ve been avoided. And the folks at Chapstick would’ve generated some goodwill, showing that they actually give a crap about what people think.

But no. They did the exact opposite, giving the perception that the brand doesn’t care.

One follower of the Butt Seriously, Chapstick FB page (created by Reel Girl for those deleted from ChapStick’s page) had a great suggestion that ChapStick show women in its ads being powerful and resourceful, for example lifting up the couch and finding the ChapStick there.

Obviously, this isn’t an earthshaking issue, but it is a striking glimpse into how corporations work behind the scenes to control their public message. And it’s disturbing to see that kind of manipulation operate under the guise of a public forum. The tactic is relevant to girls and women because so often with sexist products– movies that star only boys, the ubiquity of pink and Barbie dolls– the justification for the limited options out there is “we’re just giving the people what they want.” Clearly, there’s more going on in the background involving complex and elaborate marketing strategies. If you’re claiming to give us what we want, you ought to at least listen to what we have to say first.

Through this whole experience, I have learned how to spell ChapStick correctly.

Butt seriously, Chapstick

After Melissa Spiers posted on Chapstick’s offensive ad, she and many other readers tried to comment on Chapstick’s FB page as invited to in the ad. “BE HEARD,” Chapstick’s ad copy reads, yet all the comments readers made were mysteriously deleted within minutes.

So we’ve created “Butt seriously, Chapstick,” exclusively for those not allowed on Chapstick’s page. Please click like and be heard.

Hopefully, they’ll get it in the end.

SF architects’ advice to girls: Blocks, not Barbie

After I posted about Mattel’s new Architect Barbie supposedly designed to inspire girls to become architects, AIA SF invited me to hear a panel discussion: “Ladies (and Gents) Who Lunch with Architect Barbie.” The topic was women and architecture, and it quickly became apparent how the highly successful female architects felt about the infamous doll.

“Maybe if there were an Interior Design Ken,” said Ila Berman, director of Architecture at California College of the Arts and principal of Studio Matrixx. “Or if she were Contractor Barbie and wore a hard hat and held a computer. If she were more subversive, maybe I could go there.Berman nodded at the doll placed in front of the panelists.  “She makes me nervous.”

Cathy Simon, best known locally for transforming San Francisco’s decrepit Ferry Building into a thriving, open marketplace, was more direct: “Barbie is an embarrassment for women. I’m embarrassed for her. I hate Barbie.”

Anne Tourney, an award winning architect and principal at Daniel Solomon Design Partners, was practical about Barbie’s potential: “Mattel can’t represent us. It’s a toy company.”

EB Min who has her own firm and also a three year old daughter defended the doll slightly, conceding that perhaps she “normalizes the career.”

All of the architects wanted to shift the discussion away from Barbie and to real life women and architecture. As in most professions, women have made huge gains at the bottom. In the 1970s, just 5% of architecture students were women. Today, the number has climbed to 40 – 45%. Of those women, only  17% get licensed and join the AIA. Few make it to principal in their firm or tenured faculty at prestigious universities.

The panel agreed the challenge for women in architecture is retention. Sticking with it in a tough economy, somehow navigating the Catch 22 when top jobs and top salaries go to men.

Berman, who, as she said, “wasn’t that old,”  was the first female tenured in architecture at Tulane.  Today, just 20% of the tenure track positions in architecture go to women. Who gets tenure? “It’s a cloning activity,” she said. “A peer review process.”

How do you succeed and keep the faith with those odds? Simon encouraged the young female architects in the crowd (only three men showed up to the talk) to believe in themselves. “You can do anything,” she said. Better than words, she inspired the women by her own example, as did the whole panel. Clearly, the speakers were passionate about their work and fulfilled financially and creatively. Two spoke of fathers who strongly encouraged them to go into architecture.

Because I write about girls and toys, I brought up Architecture Barbie one more time. “Could she possibly be a gateway to get girls to imagine? You could ask your daughter: what’s she going to build today?”

“I played with blocks,” said Berman. “I loved puzzles. Get your daughters some puzzles.”