Comedian Chris Rock’s documentary “Good Hair,” just out on DVD, begins with stills of his two young daughters. “Those are my daughters, Lola and Zara,” Rock narrates, “The most beautiful girls in the world. And even though I tell them that they’re beautiful every single day, sometimes it’s just not good enough. Just yesterday, Lola came into the house crying and said ‘Daddy, how come I don’t have good hair?’ I wonder how she came with that that idea?”
So begins Rock’s quest to discover why so many black women don’t like their hair and what they go through– money, time, refusing swimming and sex– to ensure that it stays “beautiful.”
mediacommons
Six year old getting relaxer
Actress Nia Long tells Rock: “There’s always a sort of pressure within the black community, like, oh, if you have good hair, you’re prettier or better than the brown skinned girl that wears the afro or the dreads or the natural hair style…The lighter, the brighter, the better.”
Rock travels from Greensboro, North Carolina, the capital of the 100 million dollar hair business (and also, the former capital of the Confederacy) to India where hair is the country’s biggest export, and finally to the pricey salons of LA. He interviews black women, their boyfriends and husbands, and even the well coiffed Al Sharpton trying to figure out the root of the hair obsession.
Comedian Paul Mooney explains it most concisely: “If your hair is relaxed, white people are relaxed. If you hair is nappy, they’re not happy.”
The chemical many African-Americans use on their hair is, in fact, called “relaxer.” The “creamy crack” or “napidote” is the dangerous chemical sodium-hydroxide. “Get some in your eyes, it’ll lead to blindness,” explains a worker at Greensboro’s massive relaxer factory. “If you inhale the chemicals, its will have an adverse affect on your body.” Rock visits a scientist who dips aluminum cans in sodium chloride, showing them in various stages of charred decay.
The movie has sad scenes like when Rock interviews a group of female, African-American college students and young professionals, most who agree they wouldn’t go on a job interview, nor would they even hire someone, who was sporting the kind of hair that looks too natural, even a “cute” short afro that one girl in this group wears.
Also poignant but funny is when both genders adamantly agree on the rules of “weave sex:” never touch a black woman’s hair. Taking a shower together is more intimate than practically any other act; swimming ranks a close second if it involves getting in past the chin.
www.topnews.in
Actress Nia Long
All cultures include people who do crazy stuff to their hair and bodies, and Rock leaves pretty much everyone except for African-Americans out of his film. Reality star Kate Gosselin’s much mocked do and subsequent makeover could be its own documentary. Not only that, poker straight haired white girls have always pined for curls and vice versa. But teen dreamers and reality stars generally don’t experience anything as profound as being black and living in a culture that celebrates and rewards whiteness every day, and that unique experience is exactly what Rock set out to make a movie about.
“Good Hair” ends as it begins, with images of Lola and Zara, now shown at a playground, Rock musing: “So what do I tell my daughters? I tell them that the stuff on top of their heads is nowhere near as important as the stuff inside of their heads.”
Congrats to Chris Rock for listening to his small daughters, taking their words seriously enough to make a film that communicates how tyrannical and insidious our ideals about “beauty” can be. “Good Hair” gets a triple ***GGG*** girlpower rating (though it’s not a movie for kids, too much weave sex.)
As we all know, California is in financial crisis, and California schools from elementary to university level are suffering. Arts and athletics programs are being cut, and women’s teams are especially vulnerable. This is a tragic situation for women, resonating far beyond sports. Being on a team is a crucial part of an education; students learn basic leadership skills, discipline, confidence, ethics, how to work with others– basic life skills that serve them throughout their lives and careers.
Women’s sports are always the first to go, because they generate less revenue then men’s sports do. Obviously, its a viscous circle. Only when more money is invested in training young female players, providing them with the best equipment and practice spaces, launching PR campaigns to inspire players and audiences, will women athletes finally get the kind of coaching, leagues, and PR they deserve. And only then can women’s leagues reach their capabilities and get real opportunities to bring in large revenue streams. We need to stop tossing off a deeply entrenched catch-22 with the line, “No one cares about women’s sports.”
Darcy Ward cares very much. She’s a varsity rower at UC Davis on full athletic scholarship. She’s also a pre-med student. Here’s her team’s story:
To Whom It May Concern,
When our Women’s Varsity Team at UC Davis was told that our program was at stake for being cut from the University, we believed it was our obligation to share our passion for this sport in hopes to salvage it. We contact you out of pure love, and solidarity. We believe our story should be heard as a call-to-action. The decision will be made in early April and we must act now.
Before 1973, the idea of female rowers was unheard of. These stereotypes lead women to work through discrimination to prove that women are allowed to participate in sports. Women’s participation in sports is possible now because of law Title 9 that mandates college athlete must have equal number of females as males which rowing helped create. Since that time, UC Davis has built one of the most competitive female rowing teams on the west coast. The program has been around for thirty-three years and has excelled beyond its expectation by moving into a new level of competition-Division 1. The women’s rowing team competes in the Western Intercollegiate Rowing Association and San Diego Crew Classic, two of the most prestigious races in the country. What makes our team so special?
Rowing News
Women’s crew
Our coach enforces us to believe we are strong and before we take out our boats we say “My name is_________ and I am a strong female rower.” Her name is Carissa Adams and believes women deserve the greatest opportunities in life. Our mission statement says, “Each day we strive to go beyond our expectations. We rise to the challenge with confidence, pride, and positive attitudes. We empower and engage one another through a network of trust, support, improvement, and respect. We work as a team on and off the water.” There are 60 strong women rowers who never stop trying, constantly work together and encouraging one another to just keep striving for more. The sport of rowing teaches women to become strong and smart leaders for the future, by working as a team and conquering unbelievable goals while balancing the rigorous academia of college. We need to keep building strong females in our society.
Here are a few women out of many on our team with unique stories.
Becca loves rowing because it gives her not only a physical outlet, but she loves the way it forces you to connect to the other eight women in the boat. Eight women have to be able to move in synchronies with each other, and the product is so rewarding: a beautifully set boat, the single noise of every single oar feathering at the exact same time, and just the feel and run of the boat. That’s why she loves rowing. She is a strong female rower.
Caleigh is a 4’11” coxswain, the voice and brain of the boat. On a 5’8″ average rowing team, she has learned how to make her small body transform into a strong and confident voice on and off the water. She is a strong female rower.
Brittani started rowing her freshman year as a walk on. Now she is a third year rower, stroke seat of the V8, and captain of this team. Rowing has been the hardest thing that she has ever done, and she can say that she is a better person for it. She has never felt so strong and capable before (physically and mentally). She has also met a group of amazing women that have become trustworthy teammates and life long friends. She is dedicated to this team and proud to be a part of its legacy. She rows for her teammates and herself. She is a strong female rower.
Emily who is 5’3 was discriminated because of her size. Coaches thought she was unable to compete against the “stereotypical” rower. Now she competes in the (V8) varsity eight keeping up with the Big dogs. She is a strong female rower
Brittney and Brooke are twins who dropped out of high school. They were at a disadvantage in society because their parents didn’t have the tools to support them to achieve going to college. They entered a community college with nothing to lose and everything to gain. Now they row here at UC Davis because of the discipline, the opportunity, and the chance to create a new way of life. They are strong female rowers.
Maggie never gives up. In high school she rowed for years and no one believed that she could reach her potential, but she never quit. Finally, during her third year of rowing, she found the power within her and became the varsity stroke. The stroke is the leader of the boat. She sets the pace and stroke for all seven women behind her and each rower trusts and looks up to the stroke. Now when she looks back, she never thought she would be rowing for NCAA division one. She is a strong female rower.
Jessica has become more self-confident, more driven and more focused than she ever was before joining rowing. Upon joining the Women’s Rowing Team at UC Davis, she was greeted with friendly faces and a warm yet, extremely competitive nature. This past year she has made new friends, pushed herself harder both mentally and physically than ever before and; in turn, discovered a new family that she would do anything for. She is a strong female rower.
Robyn is a Pisces who was born to love the water. Her parents sailed the world, fell in love, and upon Robyn’s arrival her parents give up their sea legs for land legs to support their new family. Now, she enjoys rowing more than any other water sport and appreciates its international community of athletes and supporters. She is a strong female rower.
Paige started rowing with her mom for fun and then tried out for the local team. As she continued in the sport, she fell in love and she learned to be more disciplined in every aspect of her life and how to approach a challenge. Rowing is unique because as a team and a boat you must all strive for the same goal. Today, she can’t imagine her life without rowing. Rowing has taken her further in life than she has ever imagined because of the opportunities and experiences it has given her. She is a strong female rower.
Danielle joined college homesick and overwhelmed, even contemplating dropping out. However, one day she was approached by rowers who asked her to Row! Her confidence to pursue sports in college was challenged. Beyond what she expected, joining the women’s rowing team allowed her to truly reach potential. The team became her family and she gained a sense of confidence she has never had before. Each day she is finding new ways to push herself to bigger and better things, learning not to settle for mediocre. Thanks to this team, this sport, she has learned to be dedicated to things bigger than just herself. She is a strong female rower.
The UC system is in a huge financial crisis. The UC Davis chancellor has just mandated the athletic department cut up to 12 sports. This means the UC Davis women’s rowing team is at stake for being cut. We have potential to save our team, keeping the opportunities alive for people that come after us.
Now the crisis begins.
The women’s rowing program at UC Davis has a long-standing 30-year plus track record of athletic excellence and a strong tradition of producing accomplished women who have become valuable assets to their communities throughout the U.S. and the world. The women’s rowing program also reflects well on the university putting it in a class that is equally attractive to prospective students and parents as many of the Ivy League colleges and Universities who offer strong programs in women’s rowing, and it will continue to help attract many talented young women long into the future.
There is no obligation to this letter, but I feel that you support the core of what women’s rowing at Davis strives for everyday. If we raise enough money our team can be saved and the potential for future women to develop into powerful and passionate people through rowing at UC Davis. Please donate to save UC Davis women’s rowing so that our future generations have the opportunity to achieve great things. Here is a video on Youtube that will give you a sense of the passion we have for rowing at UC Davis:
Here is the website where you can donate risk free and all the donations go to the UC Davis Rowing Fund must be used for rowing. If the program is cut, the University will return your donations.
The New York Timesis reporting that Caesarian births, the most common operations in American hospitals, have reached an all time high in this country. A major reason for the increase is that many doctors and hospitals are now discouraging or even refusing to perform VBACs (vaginal births after c-section.)
About 1.4 million Caesareans were performed in 2007, the latest year for which figures are available. The increases- documented in a report published Tuesday- have caused debate and concern for years. When needed, a Caesarean can save the mother and her child from injury or death, but most experts doubt that one in three women need surgery to give birth. Critics say the operation is being performed too often, needlessly exposing women and babies to the risks of major surgery. The ideal rate is not known, but the World Health Organization and health agencies in the United States have suggested 15 percent…
Repeat Caesareans are another part of the problem. They account for about 40 percent of the total and have become increasingly common in the past 15 years as more and more hospitals have refused to allow women who have had a Caesarean to try to give birth normally. Fewer than 10 percent of women who had Caesareans now have vaginal births, compared with 28.3 percent in 1996. Many hospitals banned vaginal birth after Caesarean because of stringent guidelines set by the obstetricians’ college, which said surgery and anesthesia teams should be “immediately available” whenever a woman with a prior Caesarean was in labor.
The disappearing VBAC is a disturbing trend. I had two of them. When I tell people this, they’re surprised. More and more, I fall into an ever-shrinking minority.
I was not a typical VBAC candidate. I usually follow doctors’ recommendations. I’m not a risk taker with my health or my kids health. I’m not a natural birth advocate either; I love my epidural. I opted for VBACs only because having a c-section was so awful.
Before I had my first baby, I didn’t even understand why having a vaginal birth was preferable to a c-section. Frankly, both exits sounded bad.
At my birthing class, there was a lot of talk from the teacher about how to avoid a c-section, but not to be disappointed or feel like failure of it didn’t happen. I didn’t get what the fuss was about. Why would I feel like a failure? I thought the empathic concern was a San Francisco hippie thing. I felt like– who cares how she’s born, as long as she is OK?
So my big mistake with my first baby was that when my water broke, I didn’t know it. Apparently, water breaking is not usually a sudden dramatic splash like it is in the movies (in fact, nothing about giving birth for me was fast or dramatic like in the movies.) Generally, the doctor breaks the bag of waters when you’re in the hospital, after you’ve been in labor for a while. But if your water does break, you need to go to the hospital immediately because your baby loses that boundary of protection against infection.
Spokane Publishing
Pregnant woman
About 30 hours into labor, my baby was stuck. My temperature was rising which indicated the baby or I might have an infection. When my doctor recommended the c-section, I took her advice– lying there, exhausted and drugged, I wasn’t in the mood to argue, and like I said, I don’t tend to argue with doctors anyway. When my doctor sat down on my bed and told me very seriously that she thought I needed the operation and I felt like– fine, whatever, just get this baby out!
The problem was the recovery. It was horrible. I was in intense pain for weeks and slight pain where the scar was for months afterward. Somehow, I didn’t fully understand that recovering from major abdominal surgery would be really slow and painful. I couldn’t be there for my baby at the level I wanted to be. She was colicky, and the only way to calm her in those early weeks was to bounce her for hours in your lap while sitting on one of those of giant exercise balls, but because of the incision, I couldn’t bounce. There was a lot I couldn’t do, or couldn’t do easily, and that lasted a long time.
Tests of the placenta came back weeks later to show neither my baby or I had had an infection. Obviously, no one knew we were OK at the time. I probably would have done the same exact thing, except hopefully, been more aware of water breaking and also delaying my epidural because the anesthesia supposedly slows down labor, though no doctor would confirm that for me. The cost of the c-section and 4 day hospital stay it requires, covered by my insurance, was $50,000. The point being hospitals make more money and avoid more lawsuits when they preform c-sections.
After one c-section, at my practice/ hospital, you’re allowed to schedule another for the second pregnancy, but I chose to try a VBAC because the recovery from the operation had been so hard. I waited much longer for the epidural. It was a long labor, but an easy birth. I pushed for just twenty minutes. Within hours, I was sitting “criss cross applesauce” as my daughter would say now. I felt happy and energized. The next day while my baby was having some standard tests, my husband and I walked a couple blocks to get a Jamba Juice. My nurse was pissed when we returned; I wasn’t allowed to leave the hospital, but it didn’t occur to me to ask permission because I felt so good.
The early infanthood with my second baby was a completely different experience than with my first. Right away, I was taking her out on walks. I felt calmer, happier. Part of that may just have been the second baby is less of a shock, you’ve been through it. But also, of course, I just felt so much better. I understood in a way I hadn’t before something basic: women’s bodies are designed to expand and contract with the pregnancy and birth. Even if the whole process seems alarming to someone who’s never had a baby, as it certainly did to me, we heal pretty easily and quickly. On the other hand, getting your abdomen cut open and stitched back up, is a serious physical invasion and feels just like that.
The cost of the VBAC was about $15,000, covered by my insurance.
My third baby, because she was the third, was supposed to “pop out.” She also got stuck. After about fifteen hours of labor, my doctor was ready to do another c-section. Even though I had delayed the epidural again, part of the reason my labor had slowed was that the hospital was no longer allowed to give me the level of Petocin, a drug that speeds up contractions, that I had with my second baby. As the New York Times reports, many hospital policies have changed for VBACs, now only allowing the lowest levels of Petocin. My doctor wanted to give me more, believing it was safe, but the nurse refused, saying it was against hospital policy. Having my doctor and nurse argue while I was in labor made me anxious, as if I weren’t anxious enough already. So I was headed for surgery when my doctor’s shift was up. The new doctor came into the room, examined me, and said, “I think we’re ready to push this baby out. What do you think?”
I told her I thought I was going to have a c-section unless they could up my Petocin.
She said: “No, we’re going to push!”
We are going to push– ha! But like I said, I follow doctors orders so I said OK. I was thinking: this doctor is clearly insane. As she, my husband, and the nurse were all leaning over me, telling me to push I was thinking– where did all these crazy, bossy people come from? But an hour later, I had my 10 lb baby. Yes, surprise! No one had any idea I was going to have a giant baby, but there she was. Recovery was more painful than baby #2 but again, my body felt normal pretty quickly, nothing like the c-section experience.
It’s pretty amazing that how I gave birth was so dependent on the particular doctor whose shift I was on, the nurse, and the hospital policy. I think this happens to a lot of women; how they give birth is influenced by what state or country they live in or random timing like a doctor’s schedule. I’m surprised and disheartened by the massive movement of hospitals away from VBACs. More women, not less, should be attempting them; doctors should stop forcing women into something “safer.”
I know Obama couldn’t please everyone. I realize he had to make concessions to get his floundering health care bill passed. I, like many Americans, wanted it passed. But yesterday, when the pro-choice president announced his executive order, ensuring his bill would win crucial votes by promising there would be no changes to the restrictions on federal money used for abortions, my heart sank.
For women, access to choice is access to health care. Obama’s decision leaves poor women out of a new law that was supposed to protect them.
The AP reported:
White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said the order provides safeguards to ensure that the status quo is “upheld and enforced.” Long-standing federal policy bars U.S. aid for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is in danger. The order is designed to help assure the passage of Obama’s massive health care bill by winning support from a bloc of anti-abortion lawmakers.
www.siliconindia.com
President Obama
First of all, the faulty logic of the anti-abortion position alarms me as usual. The rape/ incest qualification makes no sense. If abortion is murder, why is it OK to murder the innocent fetus if the mother was raped or an incest survivor? Clearly, that’s not the fetus’ fault.
I guess this bad thinking implies that any other time besides rape or incest when a woman gets pregnant, it is her fault; therefore, it’s OK to legislate that the guilty woman carry the baby and give birth. But it remains contradictory for the government to put itself in the position of determining that sometimes it’s OK to murder a blameless fetus.
Whenever the reproductive rights debate strays into territory of how or why the woman became pregnant, or whether or not life begins at conception, it always becomes infinite and nonsensical. Instead, the reproductive rights debate should come down to this: the rights of the mother versus the rights of the fetus. The mother’s rights, the citizen’s, must supersede the rights of the fetus, as long as it’s dependent on her body for survival.
It’s not ethical rocket science. As a philosophy major in college, we were presented with a basic ethical dilemma (not unlike the latest Jodi Picoult movie): a child has a mysterious disease; the only way this child can recover is if the mother attaches herself to the child’s body for ten months. Can the government legislate the mother perform this procedure? Or father? Perhaps the cousin? Or second cousin? Maybe the best friend? Can the government legislate that one human give her spare kidney away to a human whose life depends on it? Obviously, it isn’t ethical for the government to intrude on these personal choices.
www.cnn.com
Anti-abortion Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan
No one wants abortions. There is a clear way to reducing them: empowering women. But Obama’s concession disempowers women far beyond even basic health care. It’s a tragic concession, because until all women have full reproductive rights, America remains far from becoming a strong and healthy country.
Here’s a piece I wrote for the Chronicle when Nader was running against Bush, about how people still don’t get that choice affects everything. Sadly, that cluelessness holds true today, just add “pro-life democrat” every time I write “republican.”
Ask a pro-choice person to explain casting a vote for a pro-life candidate, and the proud response is likely to be: “I don’t support candidates based on just one issue. I care about education, health care, and the economy too.”
Even political savvy supporters of Green Party candidate Ralph Nader aren’t that concerned with the threat to a woman’s right to choose, claiming its one issue among many.
But choice has never been a single issue. Reproductive rights don’t exist in isolation They have everything to do with women’s economic and political power, women’s access to education and health care, women’s status in society and women’s abilities to take care of themselves and their children.
www.nndb.com
Margaret Sanger
Birth control pioneer Margaret Sanger once said, “If a woman doesn’t have the right to control her own body, she has no rights.” Choice is a political barometer, indicative of how politicians feel not only about the basic rights of women, but about the role of women in society, abut sex education, health care, welfare, poverty, the economy and the role the government should play in an individual’s life.
A position on choice indicates whether your representative will fight to get your kids vaccinated and to make contraception affordable.
Years ago, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass, said that pro-lifers believe “life begins at conception and ends at birth,” meaning pro-life politicians are adamant about protecting the fetus but don’t care much about protecting the child once its born
His notion was rekindled recently when Prof Jean Schroedel of Claremont College came out with a survey examining the relationship between state abortion laws and spending on children. Her research revealed that the states that most severely limit abortion are the same ones that spend the least on foster care, parents who adopt special needs children, and poor women with dependent children. States with strict abortion laws consistently accorded lower political, economic and social status to women. For example, Louisianna had some of the tougest abortion laws and spent $602 per child. Hawaii had some of the most liberal laws and spent $4,648 per child.
Schroedel also discovered that states with restricted abortion laws consistently accorded lower political, economic and social status to women.
www.iisd.ca/images/wsphoto.htm
Naifs Sadik
Her findings support the work of Nafis Sadik, executive director of the United Nations World Population Fund. Sadik has been instrumental in turning the debate over how to limit population growth into a campaign for women’s rights.
She is widely credited with bringing attention to the correlation between over population and the status of women. When women are educated, when they achieve economic independence, when they have access to good health care, when they are valued in society for their intellect and their accomplishments, they have fewer babies.
Unfortunately, pro-life politicians still don’t seem concerned with improving the status of women. One classic example is presidential candidate George W. Bush. Look at his record as governor of Texas.
Texas women had a higher than average chance of living in poverty. The state minimum wage, earned by those in the female-dominated service and domestic workers industries was $3.35 per hour, totaling $6,700 annually for full time employment.
The percentage of women and children without health insurance is the second highest in the country.
Texas ranks 42nd in per capita welfare spending.
Bush made it more difficult for women to obtain abortions in times of crisis, but offered no preventative policy initiatives to reduce unintended pregnancy, no expansion of family planning or funding services, no comprehensive sexuality education program and no insurance coverage for contraceptives.
Texas had the second highest rate of teen pregnancy in the nation.
And the Texas system doesn’t promote sexual health. Texas law requires that sex education courses teach abstinence, but it does not require teaching contraception or HIV/ STD prevention.
Compare that to France where mandatory sexuality education begins when students are 13. Parents are prohibited from withdrawing their teenagers from this program. France’s teenage birthrate is approximately 6 times lower than the rate in the US; its teen abortion rate more than 2x lower, and overall AIDS rate, more than 3x lower.
www.sfgate.com
Governor Bush
Conservatives like to say, “The government that governs best, governs least.” What happened to this party? Now, they sound so much more like big government believers.
Many Americans wonder how they came to intrude so much into our private lives, legislating personal choices like whom we should sleep with or pray to.
The reason is because if politicians aren’t going to help to provide access to health care, contraception, STD prevention, access to child care and sex education, and economic autonomy there is nowhere to go but blame pregnancies on loose morals and loose women.
If Republicans acknowledge that women have reproductive rights, they’ll have to acknowledge that women have other rights as well. For Texas, that would mean reasonable funding for family planning and welfare, a higher minimum wage, insurance to cover contraceptives, real sex education and access to heath care.
Pro choice isn’t one issue and it isn’t one choice. Pro-choice means women have the choice to graduate from college, the choice to borrow money to start a business, the choice to get a good job with a fair wage, the choice not live in poverty and keep their kids out of poverty. Choice means that women get to be autonomous citizens, just like men do- with the power to determine their own destinies.
Pro-life candidate George Bush understands better than anyone that choice isn’t just one issue Before heading to the ballot box in November, Americans need to realize pro-life is really only pro-birth.
The Republicans’ concern for mother and child is severed with the cutting of the umbilical cord.
After watching Joy Behar’s show on the Oscar curse, and hearing a male guest suggest that when actresses are “given this giant gold ballast, men get insecure.” Also, feeling that the curse is another way of letting women know they can’t have it all, I decided to start a movement.
“Alice in Wonderland” is one of the best children’s movies I’ve ever seen. I loved it, as did my kids and their cousins, ages seven to three.
Disney
Alice
Full disclosure: I’ve always been partial to Alice. I named my second daughter after the heroine (and also after my smart and brave mother-in law.)
There are a few things straight up that are rare and remarkable about Tim Burton’s movie.
1) There is a girl in the title that is not a princess
2) There are 4 major female roles: Alice, the Red Queen, the White Queen, and the Doormouse
3) Spoiler alert: the movie doesn’t end in a happy romance. Even though it begins with an engagement party, it finishes with Alice off on her own, pursuing her brilliant idea to improve her late father’s business.
Disney
White Queen
The movie is beautiful and exciting to watch. I especially loved Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee. Unlike “Coraline,” which I also loved, “Alice” has scary parts, but was not too scary for my kids. (Ok, one cousin fled briefly, but she came right back in.) All the children were mesmerized by one of the last scenes, another spoiler alert coming, when Alice slays the Jabberwocky, the dragon like creature/pet of the evil Red Queen.
Which brings me to angry criticism I’ve read of “Alice” all over the internet: the movie is unfaithful to the original books. Some react to Burton’s interpretation as if it’s a personal betrayal, unable to see anything positive in this rebellious movie. For example, in the original Through the Looking Glass, there is a poem where a brave boy kills the Jabberwocky. Now it’s Alice. Horrors!
Disney
Red Queen
Re-interpretation is what keeps stories alive across generations. They’re basically just a few myths out there (haven’t these guys read their Joseph Campbell?) that keep getting recycled. Mostly, these days, people don’t believe in privileging the author’s interpretation anyway; it’s a limited idea. Why get so pissed off that Tim Burton has his way with a story, transforming “Alice” into an exciting tale about girl empowerment, instead of staying loyal to the writer, Lewis Carroll, who was a well know as a pedophile or at least a passionate collector of erotic images of little girls?
Disney
Doormouse
When I saw the commercials I was worried Tim Burton wasn’t going to make this kind of brave film. As I wrote about in other posts on my blog, most of the advertisements around San Francisco didn’t show Alice, but Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter. I worried he would be the star. A couple ads showed Helena Boham Carter as the Red Queen. Her make up is fabulous, but where was Alice?
Also, the commercials on TV showed Alice being proposed to at an engagement party, so I thought it might somehow be another girls’ movie about a wedding. I was wrong on both counts, and now I feel like if that kind of advertising gets people to see this great movie– who cares? “Alice” does feature a stellar ensemble cast, but everyone, even Johnny Depp, is clearly in a supporting role to Alice. And watching the shy Alice transform into an entrepreneur at the end of the move is pretty cool.
We didn’t watch it in 3D; we’re all kind of sick of 3D, the gimmickiness of it and wearing the annoying glasses. Those special effects are not needed to make this movie visually fabulous.
I am really impressed Tim Burton pulled this off. “Alice in Wonderland” gets a ***GGG*** rating.
I was watching Joy Behar’ show on the “Oscar curse,” and the male guest said that when actresses are “given this giant gold ballast, men get insecure.” Maybe they could change the shape?
The latest reports of Sandra Bullock’s husband cheating on her may not be true, but remain depressing nevertheless. Stories of Sandra’s husband’s affair burning up the internet as she simultaneously celebrates worldwide public recognition for becoming one of the most powerful women in Hollywood sends an ominous warning to women: don’t rise too high, because if you do, you’ll probably be alone.
Just a couple weeks ago, Sandra seemed to have it all: critical acclaim with her best actress Academy Award win and financial success, her films were also top grossing movies. Many were calling this Hollywood’s “year of the woman.” When Bullock gave her acceptance speech, she thanked her husband, Jesse James, whose love, she has said, made her a better actress, giving her the courage to try new kinds of parts because she had him to come home too. James watched Bullock claim the Oscar with tears in his eyes. Viewing the show I was thinking: it’s so great and so rare to see a man publicly love and admire his woman, sit in the audience and watch her while she shines, so different than the scenario we’re used too of the wife being the cheerleader for her guy, the wives of female politicians always clapping and grinning by their husbands’ sides.
Sandra Bullock
Bullock isn’t the only actress to have her marriage break up after reaching new heights of success.
Reese Witherspoon’s family famously fell apart after her Oscar win for her incredible performance as June Cash in “Walk the Line”. Supposedly her husband, Ryan Phillipe was jealous. The same thing happened after Julia Roberts’ won for “Erin Brokovich.” She was with Benjamin Bratt. Kate Winslet and Sam Mendes also ended their marriage after her win. Other successful actresses whose marriages supposedly broke up because they surpassed their husbands include Hilary Swank and Jenifer Garner, who didn’t win an Oscar but also eclipsed her husband’s TV fame.
Of course, we don’t know why these couples really broke up, but the rumors themselves perpetuate a dangerous myth that becomes real female fear: if a woman reaches too high, she will become unattractive to her partner. Women as a group are permitted one kind of power in our culture: sexual power. But in order to really win at that, they mustn’t get too much of other kinds including money, intelligence, acclaim etc. This is the same philosophy behind the idea that still persists: women can be pretty or smart, the stupid barbie or ugly feminist dichotomy, breast size has an inverted ratio to brain size.
While for a man, just the opposite is true. His intelligence makes him appealing. And the higher he climbs– in sports, in business, in the arts– the more women want him. Sexual desirability is a highly motivating factor to achieve, but too often, it works in reverse for women.
Reese Witherspoon and Ryan Phillipe
Before all the social Darwinists claim females seeking out powerful males to protect them is in our DNA, that’s just a convenient way to justify the current power structure. If a woman appears weak, it’s easy for a guy to appear strong. When women are told their main power is sexual, and if they try for anything else, that will take away from their attractiveness, it’s an effective tool to keep women in their in place. Allowing women to be smart, rich, and pretty is too threatening– what else might those women do?
Julia Roberts and Benjamin Bratt
I’m not attacking men here, by the way, but the power structure. The gender power gap in our society, or taken to its extreme as in the gender apartheid of the Taliban, doesn’t make any one happy. Men are imprisoned by these roles too because pigeonholing is limiting for everyone. Duh. Being competent, doing something well, is super-attractive in everyone. The world will be so better off when the other half is allowed to shine.
(photos not working right now so please use your imagination picturing Rielle, Jessica, and Miley)
Does Rielle Hunter have a mom? Or dad?
Didn’t anyone ever tell her that if you’re with another person, and you take off your pants, and get on a bed, nothing “appropriate” is likely happen?
She “trusted” the photographer?
She is “repulsed” by the photos?
Hunter’s reaction to the sexy photographs of her in GQ is so nonsensical, she desperately needs “Rielle-ity check” –a term that should apply to any celebrity, or wannabe pseudo-celebrity, who sets out to get media attention, but when the public has a bad reaction to said attention, she falsely accuses the media of exploiting her.
Rielle Hunter knew exactly what she was doing when she put on a string of pearls, took off her clothing, and hopped on a bed to pose for a GQ photographer. Her problem now is that the public doesn’t like the pictures, or the interview, so Rielle is trying to shake the responsibility for the whole skanky event.
Maybe Rielle Hunter’s latest lies are getting to me because the Edwards-Hunter story has been so gross and duplicitous all along. I keep thinking, along with a lot of people: what if Edwards had been elected VP and then his affair and “love child” were revealed? The scandal would’ve destabilized the country.
Another Rielle-ity check is needed for the whole Jessica Simpson/ John Mayer fiasco around Mayer’s infamous Playboy interview where he called Jessica “sexual napalm.”
Mayer has acted like jerk in so many interviews, like the one when he worked so hard to make clear he dumped Jennifer Aniston, not the other way around. Or when he was trying to be funny, I guess, and said of reality star Kristen Cavallari, “I have never high-fived Kristin Cavallari with my penis…My Milli has never slam danced with her Vanilli.” The guy makes me cringe.
But referring to Jessica as “sexual napalm” is not derogatory. Supposedly, Jessica was flattered when she first heard it, and why wouldn’t she be? She’s worked very hard to convince America sexual napalm is exactly what she is.
It’s very different than what Mayer said in the same interview about Jennifer Aniston, cattily implying that Jennifer would be jealous he was talking about Jessica, and also making Jennifer seem about 1000 years old, saying she was stuck in 1998, back when she was “successful” and that now she can’t even Twitter.
Still, the tabloids and talk shows were up in arms about Mayer’s statements about Jessica, reporting those were the offensive ones. Then Jessica, and her dad of course, came out to give interviews about how hurt she was. Oprah invited Jessica on her show to complain about the interview that “almost destroyed her.”
Billy Ray and Miley Cyrus needed a Rielle-ity check after the public had a bad reaction to teenage Miley’s disturbingly erotic poses in Vanty Fair. Miley was a kid; it wasn’t her fault. But Billy Ray, after being with Miley for most of the shoot (and posing in a weirdly intimate way with her) decided to leave her alone with the photographer, and blamed Annie Leibovitz for everything. Note to dads: if your underage daughter poses for Vanity Fair, stick around until the shoot is over.
mediacommons
www.topnews.in
Rowing News
Spokane Publishing
www.siliconindia.com
www.cnn.com
www.nndb.com
www.iisd.ca/images/wsphoto.htm
www.sfgate.com
Disney
Disney
Disney
Disney
Sandra Bullock
Reese Witherspoon and Ryan Phillipe
Julia Roberts and Benjamin Bratt