Vanity Fair’s sexist Jimmy Fallon profile erases his wife, highlights Victoria Secret models

I’m a huge Jimmy Fallon fan. This is why I bought the new Vanity Fair where he’s on the cover even though it annoyed me that Fallon is shown in a suit while he’s flanked by two nameless women in bathing suits.

rs_634x890-140107101257-634.jimmy-fallon-vanity-fair-cover-010714

There are more pics of Fallon and naked women inside the magazine. Reading the caption, I learned that the women are Victoria Secret models.

There is a third picture of Fallon and the women at what looks like New York’s Natural History museum. Once again, the women are in skimpy bikinis and we get a full view of ass. Fallon is once again pictured in a suit.

Showing important, powerful men fully clothed while women appear as naked accessories underscores the idea that men valued for what they do and think, while women are valued for how they appear. Vanity Fair repetitively resorts to this sexism. There’s a famous photo featuring naked Scarlett Johanssen, Keira Knightly, and Tom Ford. When Rachel McAdams refused to undress, she was asked to leave.

scarlett-johansson

Of course, Vanity Fair is hardly alone in promoting this sexist imagery. Here are five GQ covers that came out simultaneously: four men are shown in suits, one woman is shown naked.

gq

What about Rolling Stone?

Boeh2GICYAE0Ddz.jpg_large

There’s Justin Timberlake’s “Tunnel Vision” video where he is clothed and the women are naked.

Many claimed Timberlake was copying Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines” video where he is clothed and the women are naked, a pairing repeated in the infamous Miley Cyrus performance (where Miley was blamed for being a slut.)

“Alternative” musicians resort to the same cliche. Did you see Nick Cave’s latest album cover?

nickcave-pushtheskyaway

The truth is, we’ve been dealing with the clothed man-naked woman pairing for a long time. Here’s a famous painting by Edouard Manet in the Musee D’Orsay in Paris that would make a perfect Vanity Fair cover.

manet

But here’s what really pissed me off about the Jimmy Fallon article. As I wrote, I’m a fan of the comedian, but part of the reason I bought the magazine is because I wanted to know more about his wife, Nancy Juvonen. She’s a film producer and a business partner of Drew Barrymore. Both Barrymore and Juvonen are interested in making movies where cool women get to have adventures. I wanted to hear the whole story about how Juvonen and Fallon met and fell in love, just the kind of thing you’d expect to find in a Vanity Fair profile right? They recently had a daughter, Winnie, so I assumed Fallon would be asked about being a new father. I’m an avid reader of Us Weekly and People and I often see pictures of their family. Fallon is always cuddling his baby, playing with her, smiling at her, and I was curious about his thoughts on raising a girl in the world. Another thing I wanted to hear about: Fallon is 39 while Juvonen is 46, a rare gap in Hollywood where a woman’s age is measured closer to dog years than man years. Do you see my point here? Fallon married a successful career woman who is 7 years older than him, and this, besides his talent, is part of the reason I admire the guy. But here’s the weird thing: Nancy Juvonen is missing from Fallon’s profile.

Juvonen isn’t mentioned at all until 5 pages into the long piece. After writing that Fallon always watched “SNL” alone, the text reads:

His one concession to adulthood is that he now watches the program with his wife, the film producer Nancy Juvonen, and if she is awake his baby daughter, Winnie, born last July.

Can you imagine Vanity Fair doing a profile on a famous woman and not mentioning her big time producer husband or her new baby until page 5? The piece goes on for two more pages and there are just two more brief references to Juvonen. Here’s all the magazine has to say on how they met and why they married.

Though the Fever Pitch experience had a saving grace–it was through the film that he met Juvonen, one of its producers who he would marry in 2007– he considers his LA years kind of a lost period.

Here’s the final reference to Juvonen, about persuading Fallon to become the “Tonight Show” host.

It was Fallon’s wife who persuaded him to go with Michael’s instinct. “Nancy was like, ‘You’ve got to try it. You’ll be one of three human beings who have done it– Letterman, Conan, and you. You have to do it. If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work,'” Fallon said.

That’s it. WTF? All Fallon’s wife gets in a profile is a few sentences in passing coupled with a cover and three photos where he’s shown with naked women? That’s not the Jimmy Fallon I love or wanted to read about.

 

 

Animator protests making female characters slim and sexy

On animator Dave Pressler’s blog, he writes about his biggest pet peeve: being asked by male and female execs to put a bow or long eyelashes on his female characters.

 

Any boy / man character can be a lump, a ball, or a bucket.  The second it’s a girl we must feminize and give sexuality to the character…That’s how we know she’s a female.  Even when we were making Robot and Monster an executive wanted me to make J.D. more slim and “Sexy”.

 

Along with male artists Marc Crilley and David Bolk, I’m thrilled Pressler is writing about this sexism, but here’s my issue with his blog:

 

This is Hank, he is outgoing and a real story teller.  Phil is Hanks other friend.  Phil is a glass half empty kind of guy, but always there when you need him.  Then there’s Julie, the cutest girl in town. She sees the good in everyone.   These would be my initial rough ideas for the characters.

 

While urging artists to “Make Interesting Choices when you are designing, Illustrating etc.   And don’t fall into this unimaginative trap” why is Julie described as the hot girl? And how much hope do we have of not defining her physically as “sexy” when she doesn’t get to be a described as something interesting or funny like a “storyteller” or “a glass half empty gal”?

 

Defending his female monster, Pressler writes. “She already is the sexiest monster in the show, exactly how she is.” While I appreciate this monster is beautiful as she is, without a bow or eyelashes, why must we be concerned with her beauty? Isn’t that the larger issue? I’m not familiar enough with Pressler’s work, but from this blog, it seems as if he is focused on changing the stereotypical look without changing the stereotypical narrative. Altering the look is no small feat, especially for our kids who are subjected to this kind of sexism constantly. In animation, female characters from Anna in Frozen to Kim Possible would be so much cooler if they weren’t shown super skinny  with giant eyes or bare midriffs. But the goal has to be much bigger than changing the character’s appearance. The narrative for a female characters has to involve them being funny or cynical, encompassing a whole range of characteristics not typically understood as feminine, and also playing at least half the characters or getting to exist in the majority as well, or getting to be the protagonist way more often, like half the time.

 

What about making two female best friends, one an “outgoing storyteller,” the other a “glass half empty gal,” and then a male who is the cutest guy in town and always sees the good in everyone? If the narrative changes, it could unlock physical stereotypes as well. Otherwise, kidworld will be stuck with toys and media that look like this.

eyelashbow

 

Animator protests making female characters slim and sexy

On animator Dave Pressler’s blog, he writes about his biggest pet peeve: being asked by male and female execs to put a bow or long eyelashes on his female characters.

Any boy / man character can be a lump, a ball, or a bucket.  The second it’s a girl we must feminize and give sexuality to the character…That’s how we know she’s a female.  Even when we were making Robot and Monster an executive wanted me to make J.D. more slim and “Sexy”.

Along with male artists Marc Crilley and David Bolk, I’m thrilled Pressler is writing about this sexism, but here’s my issue with his blog:

This is Hank, he is outgoing and a real story teller.  Phil is Hanks other friend.  Phil is a glass half empty kind of guy, but always there when you need him.  Then there’s Julie, the cutest girl in town. She sees the good in everyone.   These would be my initial rough ideas for the characters.

While urging artists to “Make Interesting Choices when you are designing, Illustrating etc.   And don’t fall into this unimaginative trap” why is Julie described as the hot girl? And how much hope do we have of not defining her physically as “sexy” when she doesn’t get to be a described as something interesting or funny like a “storyteller” or “a glass half empty gal”?

Defending his female monster, Pressler writes. “She already is the sexiest monster in the show, exactly how she is.” While I appreciate this monster is beautiful as she is, without a bow or eyelashes, why must we be concerned with her beauty? Isn’t that the larger issue? I’m not familiar enough with Pressler’s work, but from this blog, it seems as if he is focused on changing the stereotypical look without changing the stereotypical narrative. Altering the look is no small feat, especially for our kids who are subjected to this kind of sexism constantly. In animation, female characters from Anna in Frozen to Kim Possible would be so much cooler if they weren’t shown super skinny  with giant eyes or bare midriffs. But the goal has to be much bigger than changing the character’s appearance. The narrative for a female characters has to involve them being funny or cynical, encompassing a whole range of characteristics not typically understood as feminine, and also playing at least half the characters or getting to exist in the majority as well, or getting to be the protagonist way more often, like half the time.

What about making two female best friends, one an “outgoing storyteller,” the other a “glass half empty gal,” and then a male who is the cutest guy in town and always sees the good in everyone? If the narrative changes, it could unlock physical stereotypes as well.

 

Can a woman be a ‘good mother’ and a political leader?

In The Atlantic, Nancy Pelosi is quoted on why more women don’t run for office:

“Look, I’ve had $100 million spent mischaracterizing who I am,” she said. “Women see that and they say, ‘I could never take that. I would never subject my family to any mischaracterizations about me.'”

I find that quote so upsetting, not because what Pelosi is saying isn’t true, but the split forced on women in the name of “being a good mother.”

How selfish could a female politician possibly be to subject her family to people saying bad things about her? What a bitch. There we have a reason not only for a mother to refrain from political office, but from writing or speaking or risking doing anything controversial that may affect someone, somewhere negatively and come back to bite her family.

Fuck that. Seriously. Women have had thousands of years of practice supporting men and fathers as they go out into the world and pursue their visions. Women need the same support. Professional women already get shamed publicly for how they look and how they dress. On top of that, we’re going to shame public women for being bad mothers? And not even being bad mothers really, but the risk, that they might be “bad” is supposed to be enough to stop women in their tracks.

Erica Jong wrote a great piece in the Wall Street Journal about attachment parenting:

Our obsession with parenting is an avoidance strategy. It allows us to substitute our own small world for the world as a whole. But the entire planet is a child’s home, and other adults are also mothers and fathers. We cannot separate our children from the ills that affect everyone, however hard we try. Aspiring to be perfect parents seems like a pathetic attempt to control what we can while ignoring problems that seem beyond our reach.

 

Who is going to work to make sure your children get clean water to drink or equal pay or health care? Politicians. Isn’t that what the definition of what a “good mother” is? Unlike Pelosi’s hopes expressed in The Atlantic, politics aren’t getting more civil. My God, we live in the age if the internet, a medium that is proving especially vindictive towards women. I don’t see money taking a backseat in politics anytime soon either. Where I do see change is possible is in families supporting women, just as they would men, when they take the risk to go into public life. Yes, a political leader can be a good mother, and without “getting” that, we’re going to be much slower in making the world a better place for future generations.

In another sexist cover, Time uses porn cliche for Hillary Clinton story

In the new Time, to illustrate the cover article “Can Anyone Stop Hillary?” the magazine uses cliche porn imagery, showing a man trapped beneath a woman’s shoe.

g9510.20_Hillary.Cover.indd

Seriously, Time?

What did you use for inspiration, this YouTube video? (One of thousands just like it.)

Or perhaps, this shot from a porn site? (One of millions just like it)

femdom-erotica-domme-trampling-her-boy-toy-with-high-heels-498x441

With so many options, I picked this image because its caption “Ending the sexual dark age,” listed in the category “dominatrix in heels standing on male slave’s chest” seems to echo the point Time’s cover attempts to make.

The Hillary Clinton cover isn’t the first time a “news weekly” has borrowed from porn. There was this cover of Newsweek. The subject of the story: great food.

newsweekcover

Time also did a story featuring the “best” chefs. No porn, but the magazine opted for this pic. Hmmm…what’s missing here?

godsoffood

That’s right, Time’s “Gods of Food” story featured ZERO women.

Wouldn’t it be nice if “news” magazines weren’t sexist? What would our news look like then? Does anyone even know?

Globe for Woody Allen confirms women’s experiences don’t matter in Hollywood

After Woody Allen received the Cecil B. DeMille award, the debate in mainstream media went like this: Can you honor a man’s art when you don’t like the man?

What the fuck? Giving Woody Allen a lifetime achievement award, having Diane Keaton accept it for him in a speech where she talks about how great he’s been for women is like being in an insane hall of mirrors. Her inane song. “Make new friends but keep the old,” implying we should be loyal to Allen literally makes me sick. This is exactly what abuse survivors go though. Kids (and this includes adult survivors) are told: Your experience isn’t real, never happened, and doesn’t matter. The award/ ceremony goes way beyond the man vs his art, confirming that in Hollywood, women’s experiences just don’t matter. Women’s stories are not worth telling. In fact, they didn’t happen. Women’s lives are invisible.

How does Hollywood promote that lie, make it seem real, confirm that women’s narratives don’t exist? Women, who are half of the population, except for a rare exception, get to be on the sidelines in the film industry, shoved to the margins, in sexualized and supporting roles, if they get to exist at all.

The Celluloid report just released these stats (from Women and Hollywood)

  • Women accounted for 16% of all directors, executive producers, producers, writers, cinematographers, and editors. This represents a decrease of two percentage points since 2012 and a decrease of one percentage point from 1998.
  • Women comprised 6% of all directors working on the top 250 films of 2013. This represents a decrease of 3 percentage points from 2012 and 1998.
  • Women accounted for 10% of writers working on the top 250 films of 2013. This represents a decrease of 5 percentage points from 2012 and a decrease of 3 percentage points from 1998.
  • Women comprised 15% of all executive producers working on the top 250 films of 2013. This represents a decrease of 2 percentage points from 2012 and three percentage points from 1998.
  • Women accounted for 25% of all producers working on the top 250 films of 2013. This figure is even with 2012 and represents an increase of 1 percentage point from 1998.
  • Women comprised 17% of all editors working on the top 250 films of 2013. This represents a decrease of 3 percentage points from 2012 and 1998.
  • Women accounted for 3% of all cinematographers working on the top 250 films of 2013. This represents an increase of one percentage point from 2012 and a decrease of one percentage point from 1998.
  • Women comprised 2% of all composers working on the top 250 films of 2013.
  • Women accounted for 23% of all production designers working on the top 250 films of 2013. This represents an increase of 3 percentage points from 2008.
  • Women comprised 4% of all sound designers working on the top 250 films of 2013. This represents a decrease of 1 percentage point from 2008.
  • Women accounted for 9% of all supervising sound editors working on the top 250 films of 2013. This represents an increase of 4 percentage points from 2008.
  • Women comprised 2% of all special effects supervisors working on the top 250 films of 2013.
  • Women accounted for 5% of all visual effects supervisors working on the top 250 films of 2013.

Director Lexi Alexander writes about sexism in the film industry. Before her post, Women and Hollywood founder Melissa Silverstein writes:

Editor’s Note: The post below is very important. This is a woman director standing up for herself and other women directors. She does this at great peril, but it is so important that women directors stand up and share their experiences because the more women that stand up the less chance there is for one women to be held responsible for speaking truth to power.

 

Alexander writes:

There is no lack of female directors. Repeat after me: THERE IS NO LACK OF FEMALE DIRECTORS. But there is a huge lack of people willing to give female directors opportunities. I swear, if anyone near me even so much as whispers the sentence “Women probably don’t want to direct,” my fist will fly as a reflex action…Women in Hollywood have no male allies. There are some who pretend to be on our side, but yeah, not really. They may say the right thing because, after all, they’re liberals and that’s a public image they’d like to keep up. Others may actually believe in gender equality, but are not willing to put up a fight for it that could sacrifice their own status or relationships.

 

Whether you are a female director who has experienced sexism or a survivor of abuse, a woman writer or artist or filmmaker, in spite of what the world tells you, your experiences matter. Keep telling your story. Tell it publicly. The world needs to hear women’s voices.

Here are some of the best posts on Woody Allen:

Why We Shouldn’t Stop Talking About the Fact That Woody Allen is Probably a Child Molester

Mia and Ronan Farrow say what we were all thinking about Woody Allen

What You Should Know About the Abuse Allegations Against Woody Allen

Was the Golden Globes Wrong to Give a Lifetime Achievement Award to Woody Allen?

Diane Keaton’s Golden Globes speech spotlights Allen’s complicated history with women

Best Tweet of the night from Ronan Farrow

48m

Missed the Woody Allen tribute – did they put the part where a woman publicly confirmed he molested her at age 7 before or after Annie Hall?

I’m disgusted Woody Allen was honored at the Golden Globes tonight. I’m happy that Mia Farrow’s son/ Dylan’s brother spoke out in protest.

I wish the world cared more about the sexual abuse of children.

If you haven’t seen the recent Vanity Fair piece where the grown up Dylan Farrow speaks about Allen’s abuse, you can read it here and more about it here.

After that article came out, all most people talked about was the great revelation that Ronan might actually be Frank Sinatra’s son.

Here are my Tweets and ReTweets tonight about Woody Allen:

1h

Sickened by Woody Allen tribute. Wish Dylan Farrow got to speak about how he molested her in the attic.

Cate Blanchett wins best actres for a Woody Allen movie. Love her, not him.

1h

Like the industries of music & sports Hollywood has amnesia when it comes to crimes against women & children.

Alameda County DA reports child sex trade epidemic in Oakland

I live in San Francisco and right across the bay, Oakland is the epicenter of human trafficking in the Bay Area. At this moment, 13 year old girls are being sold as sex slaves and practically everyone chooses to look the other way.

That’s right, in 2014 slavery exists in America and the victims are young girls. Of course, this slavery isn’t legal, but when no one does much to stop it, it may as well be.

Starting today,  Nancy O’Malley, the DA of Alameda county is putting up 27 billboards to educate the public about human trafficking, because for some reason, a lot of people seem to know nothing about it.

In an op-ed for the Contra Costa Times explaining her PR move, O’Malley writes:

The FBI has identified Oakland as an epicenter of trafficking in the Bay Area counties. The majority of exploited children are 13 to 16 years old, some as young as 11…Even more shocking, the number of commercially sexually exploited children is increasing, while the average age of those exploited is decreasing…There are two sides — supply and demand — that make sex trafficking of our children possible. Human trafficking exists because there is an endless and disgraceful demand for children for sex and traffickers fill that demand daily.

 

What can you do? O’Malley is clear on steps she’d like you to take. Below are quotes from her op-ed:

(1) If you see something, say something. Keep the human trafficking hotline in your cellphone, 888-373-7888 or text Be Free (233733), and report anything suspicious. Through this hotline, more than 75,000 calls have come in to identify nearly 9,000 survivors.

(2) You can also sign up for the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office Human Exploitation and Trafficking Watch mailing list at HEAT-Watch.org to learn more about human trafficking and what you can do to join the fight. Download a free toolkit so you can build your capacity to hold traffickers accountable and keep victims safe.

(3) Donate your time and money to organizations that are making a difference, such as Misssey, Bay Area Women Against Rape, West Coast Children’s Clinic and HEAT Watch.

(4) Speak out: Let policymakers know we need the toughest penalties for traffickers and the predators who buy children for sex and resources for victims of human trafficking. Together, we will we put an end to modern-day slavery.

I have another suggestion for you. Please, do what you can to stop contributing to the sexualizing of young girls. Read my post here and don’t help to spread propaganda, in the form of media and toys, that sexualizes young girls. These products are not innocuous but dangerous. Sexualizing girls happens everywhere, so ubiquitous it’s paradoxically invisible.

Here are just a few examples of how we sexualize kids. Take a look at the popular Polly Pocket toy. This toy is marketed to girls ages 4 – 7 and the toy is all about dressing the doll in “sexy” outfits. Why would a parent buy her little daughter a toy like this?

Polly-Pocket1

Here are the Bratz dolls.

bratzwallpaper-source_4cj

Melissa Wardy of Pigtails Pals recently wrote:

Try this test: If the image can be lifted from the child’s toy/backpack/t-shirt and placed on the billboard for a strip club and not look out of place, then things are seriously fucked.

Wardy blogged that after she and her young daughter walked to school behind a first grade girl wearing this backpack.

Winx-backpack

Wardy writes:

Given what we know about how early sexualization harms young girls,  I cannot understand how parents allow this kind of imagery and media in their homes.

This year, France outlawed child beauty pageants because they are so dangerous for children. The New York Times reports:

Ms. Jouanno, a former junior minister for environment and a senator representing Paris from the center-right party U.D.I., wrote a report on the “hypersexualization” of children in 2011. The report was commissioned by the health minister in response to public outrage over a photo display in Paris Vogue that featured under-age girls in sexy clothes and postures, with high heels, makeup and painted fingernails.

But in the USA, we have hit TV shows like “Honey Boo Boo” and “Toddlers and Tiaras” that glorify the exploitation of girls. Here, in the home of the free and the brave, sexualizing kids is accepted and normal. We allow it and condone it.

If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. That is my interpretation of O’Malley’s billboards. I am so grateful she is taking a leadership position to end child trafficking. Please follow her example and act to end the sexual abuse of children.

 

 

Reel Girl’s Movie Picks: ‘The Last Mimzy’

You all recommended ‘The Last Mimzy’ to me, and I admit, as I started to watch it, I was nervous.

tumblr_m43h6lNy2O1rvwyneo1_1280

Though the movie opens with a female teacher narrator, it shifts right away to a young boy. For the first 20 minutes of the movie, or so, I was worried he would be the protagonist. He has a younger sister, and I did notice right away something truly rare: he treated his sister respectfully. You almost never see siblings get along and work together in a film. This is wonderful watch.

The sister, Emma, discovers a strange object in the water off of Whidbey, one of the San Juan Islands. It turns out the find is a message from the future. It’s up to Emma to decode the message and save the world. She does all this, though its not clear until about halfway through the movie that Emma is the “chosen one.” When a costar reads her brother’s palm, to see if he is the special child, my seven year old daughter rolled her eyes and said, “I knew it.” But our worries were unwarranted. Turns out, Emma is the gifted one, and it is up to her to save the world. An extra plus: the movie title comes from a poem from Alice in Wonderland, a story that is referenced throughout the movie. I’m adding “Last Mimzy” to my recommendations for younger kids, but everyone will love this movie.

Reel Girl rates “The Last Mimzy” ***HHH***

Reel Girl’s Movie Picks: ‘Fly Away Home’

Finally, my kids got to see a movie with a girl pilot. “Fly Away Home” is not a new movie, it’s just the first one they’ve ever seen with a girl pilot on her own flying machine.

Fly_away_home_poster

I grew up with this famous image of “E.T” imprinted in my brain.

ET_Moon

“E.T.” is great movie, but once again, no flying girls. I am thrilled, at the age of 45, to have finally found an alternative for my daughters. Of course, I wish it was more obvious from the poster that a 13 year old girl is the pilot, but at least, my kids and I know the story behind the image on the movie poster.

Amy, played by Anna Paquin, is 13 yr old whose mother was killed in a car accident (while talking on her cell phone!) Amy goes to live with her artist/ inventor father and his girlfriend. Alienated and alone, while wandering the grounds, Amy discovers wild geese eggs. The goose mother was killed by developers who are bulldozing the land. Amy makes the eggs a nest in a drawer, the eggs hatch, and the chicks, thinking Amy is their mother and follow her everywhere. In order teach the geese how to migrate, Amy pilots her father’s flying machine, and leads them south. She ends up not only saving the geese but the wilderness as well. “Fly Away Home” is an excellent film, and I am adding it to my list for young kids, though kids of all ages will love it.

Reel Girl rates ‘Fly Away Home’ ***HHH***