‘Maleficent’ is not ‘a woman scorned’ so stop calling her that

There is so much talk in the feminist internet about ‘Maeficent’ being portrayed as ‘a woman scorned’ that I feel I must right the misconception here. As far as I can tell, the false rumor was fueled by this review in the LA Times:

Alas, though Maleficent’s magical forest is equipped with stomping tree beasts and squat, mud-slinging gnomes, she has no Top 40 station to teach her that her lifelong boyfriend should have put a ring on it. So she does what any wounded woman would do: Curse his baby daughter to an inescapable coma.

 

Like Oz the Great and Powerful, Maleficent considers itself a revisionist fairy tale that spins a demonized witch into a feminist icon. Hardly. Both movies hinge on a man, as though the sheer power of being rejected by one dude is enough to make any girl nuts. Maleficent and the Wicked Witch of the West can terrify armies, but they cede their emotional strength to a mortal twerp.

I really don’t get how the reviewer could twist and reduce this movie to come up with such a simplistic and ridiculous analysis. Maleficent is pissed because her wings were cut off. A perfect metaphor that should be obvious to anyone who watches this movie. If you need more proof, here’s a lovely quote from the writer, Linda Woolverton, about what was going through her head as she re-imagined this fairytale:

“I had to figure out what possibly could have happened to her to make her want to hurt an innocent baby. Something that would equal that act. In the animated movie, she had no wings. She just threw her robes open like wings. I thought, ‘Is that it? Did someone take her wings?’

Maleficent curses the baby because she’s lost her wings, she’s lost her power. Clearly, Maleficent enjoyed those wings. They were taken from her. Wouldn’t that make you angry?

Also, the guy who cut off Maleficent’s wings, she befriended when she was a kid. Stefan was always been greedy and lustful for power. When Maleficent first meets him, he’s just stolen something. One of the first things Stefan tells Maleficent is that he wants to live in the castle. But Stefan is not all bad. He’s charming, the two of them have fun together, he tosses his iron ring when he sees that the metal hurts her. And once again, they are children. Haven’t you stuck around with a friend because you’ve been friends for so long? Stefan’s character is contrasted with Maleificent’s in that her heart grows cold as well, but she changes, she acts while Stefan sits around and mopes.

Jezebel also has complaints about the movie. Regarding Maleficent:

And the whole place is governed by this whimsical child-mayor named Maleficent (seriously, HOW DID YOU GET ELECTED YOU ARE EIGHT)

 

Because she is the most powerful Fairy! That is how she is introduced by the (female) narrator at the beginning of the movie.

Jezebels’ next complaint is obviously kind of tongue in cheek, but again, it implies the interaction between Maleficent and Stefan in anti-feminist:

When she wakes up in the morning, her huge beautiful majestic wings have been sawed off and stolen.

Let me repeat. In Maleficent, a PG-rated Disney movie, a man ROOFIES A FAIRY AND VIOLENTLY TAKES HER “WINGS” WHILE SHE’S UNCONSCIOUS.

Wait, maybe it’s not tongue and cheek:

I was surprised. I think of myself as having a pretty consistently perceptive and sensitive Good Feminist™ barometer, and—the groaningly cheap and clumsy rape allegory aside (as far as you can set such a thing aside)—I’d enjoyed Maleficent mostly without pause.

Seriously? Protagonists have been drugged in narratives from time immemorial. I didn’t get any kind of predatory sex vibe from this scene. Is the reviewer saying females cannot be drugged in a narrative because that must be understood as date rape? That was the last thing from my mind watching this part of the movie, and this is my mind that we’re talking about. Once again, please refer back to the writer’s quote.

Jezebel has more problems with the feminist cred of the movie:

The more my friend and I talked about it, the more problems came to the surface. Did the final battle have to be so brutal and soooooooo long?

Yes, it did. We had to see Maleficent revel in her power. And it wasn’t even that long. Violence is a part of narratives because art is metaphorical and depicts emotional realities. Here’s what Peggy Orenstein wrote about it in Cinderella Ate My Daughter:

“Violent play is not by definition bad or harmful for kids. Any child shrink worth her sand table will tell you it can help them learn about impulse control, work out the difference between fantasy and reality, and cope with fear….Children of both sexes crave larger than life heroes. They need fantasy. They also, it seems, need a certain amount of violent play…something that allows them to triumph in their own way over this thing we call death, to work out their day-to-day frustrations; to feel large, powerful, and safe.”

 

Next problem:

Did the meet-cute have to be so shallow?

I don’t know what that means.

Did Maleficent have to be punished so profoundly for succumbing to her completely justified rage?

Huh? She’s triumphant in the end and redeemed. I loved that about the movie.

Did the supporting female characters have to be so useless?

Yes, they were contrasting to Maleficent who protected and watched out for Aurora (and that’s why they were not the “mayors” of the moors even though they were older, Maleficent was always the smartest and most powerful and born to rule.)

Read my review of “Maleficent’ here.

‘An open letter to privileged people who play devil’s advocate’

There is an amazing post on feministing.com titled: An open letter to privileged people who play devil’s advocate. I am so thankful that Juliana Britto wrote these words. I am so fucking sick of people arguing with me just to argue, just because it’s fun for them. It drives me crazy that people act like I haven’t heard all of their arguments “proving” me wrong about one million times before. I mean, seriously, Western civilization is based on your arguments, and you really think I haven’t heard them before???? When people persist with me, frustrated that I’m not “into it” they often claim that I’m the one “censoring” them or “closing my mind.”  Britto writes about this issue much more eloquently than I:

Some might challenge that I am shutting myself off to new ideas and censoring important opportunities for growth.

But these ideas you are forcing me to consider are not new. They stem from centuries of inequality and your desperate desire to keep them relevant is based in the fact that you benefit from their existence. Let it go. You did NOT come up with these racist, misogynistic theories. We’ve heard them before and we are f*cking tired of being asked to consider them, just one. more. time.

 

Got that? Don’t want to hear it. I’ve already heard it, read it, seen it for my entire life. Britto makes another important point people who argue with me for fun don’t seem to get:

It is physically and emotionally draining to be called upon to prove that these systems of power exist.

 

Right on, sister. Please, don’t use me for your fun and entertainment. I’m interested in changing the world, not keeping you from boredom. Again, Britto is more eloquent than me:

 

Imagine having weights tied to your feet and a gag around your mouth, and then being asked to explain why you think you are at an unfair disadvantage. Imagine watching a video where a young man promises to kill women who chose not to sleep with him and then being forced to engage with the idea that maybe you are just a hysterical feminist seeing misogyny where there is none. It is incredibly painful to feel that in order for you to care about my safety, I have to win this verbal contest you have constructed “for fun.”

 

When I was 28 years old, I was a producer for a talk radio show. The host of that show gave me a gift that changed my life. He consistently– even if he disagreed with me– helped me figure out my thought process. When I was at Point A and I wanted to get to Point Z, he helped me get there. I would make a point and he would say, “Yeah, I get it,” and then give several reasons why what I said made sense or was true. It was a remarkable skill that helped me to develop and grow as a thinker and as a person. Most people, when you say something new, will argue with you at Point A, tell you all the reasons why what you’re saying doesn’t make sense or can’t be true, so you never, ever get to Point Z. That, or silence. Those responses can be soul killing, especially if you are young, a young woman not used to being listened to or taken seriously, with baby ideas that you’re trying to develop.

Read the whole Britto’s whole post here.

Magnificent ‘Maleficent’ is for all the girls who always wanted to fly

WOW I loved loved LOVED Maleficent. From the opening to the ending, I was mesmerized and so was my husband (“she kicked ass!”) as well as my three daughters. I cannot recommend this movie more to you and your entire family.

The movie begins with the young Maleficent.

MALEFICENT_PRODUCTION_NOTES_Hi-Res_4-30-14_Page_05_Image_0001

My kids always love seeing the part of the movie that features a younger version of the female protagonist, the one who is closer their age. I remember that being one of my favorite things to watch when I was a kid too. The movie starts with the young Maleficent soaring across the screen, and it is so magical to see her fly and fly and fly. These scenes are especially wonderful because we’ve all been subjected to movies from “ET” to “How to Train Your Dragon” where its the males who fly, while the girls, if they’re lucky, get to cling on to some dude’s back while stuck in the passenger seats.

Maleficent is so powerful and magical. She is not a Minority Feisty. Not only is Aurora AKA Sleeping Beauty also a starring part, and wonderfully played by Elle Fanning, but there are the three Fairies (formerly known as Flora, Fauna, they have different names in this movie) with big supporting roles

When Maleficent is stripped of her power, her wings are clipped. Can you imagine a more perfect metaphor for women and cinema? Her wings are incredibly done too, huge and magnificent and beautiful. She relishes flying and she relishes her power. You see that in Angelina Jolie’s face throughout the film. I was worried that Jolie would be too made up, the way Johnny Depp sometimes is, so that you couldn’t experience her great acting. But that was not the case.She doesn’t get lost in the special effects. They are done perfectly to enhance her character.

20140317_maleficent_onlinespotwingreveal

Maleficent and Aurora have a complicated, evolving relationship like nothing I’ve ever seen before in a Disney movie where, so often, women are pitted against each other, especially older and younger ones. Not only is that not the case here, but the whole dichotomy of hero/ villain is also turned on its head. One of my favorite parts of the movie is when Aurora is crowned a queen, not a princess.

I’ve always been more interested in Disney’s female villains than its one dimensional princess/ heroines. And of these villains, Maleficent was always my favorite. You can’t beat that horned, caped silouette. (Here’s a picture of my 10 year old daughter in my Disney female villain nightshirt, which is several years older than she is.)

Bo6Y5btIIAAEv1Z

Thank you to Angelina Jolie for getting this movie made so my children– and all children– can witness a powerful, magical female in all of her spectacular glory.

Reel Girl rates ‘Maleficent’ ***HHH***

Read more Reel Girl posts on this movie:

 

‘Maleficent’ is not ‘a woman scorned’ so stop calling her that

‘Maleficent’ beats MacFarlane at the box office (and she didn’t even show her boobs)

What if ‘Maleficent’s’ Stefan had been Stefanie?

 

Facebook, why so slow to call ‘we hate against the subhuman species called women’ hate speech?

All day Reel Girl Fans contacted Facebook to ask them to remove hate speech from a page memorializing killer Elliot Rodger.

Here is what the page posted:

Shoutout to my boy elliot rodger. He did the best thing us men could do. And paid the ultimate price. Let his death be a memorial day in which we hate against the subhuman species called women.

 

Facebook replied to me and others:

10385172_10152404313759350_619502023_n

Reel Girl fans then contacted Facebook about the specific post, not reporting the whole page. They received the same message, that the post did not qualify as hate speech. Then, one hour ago, people who reported that specific post got a response from Facebook saying they revised their decision and removed the post.

We reviewed the photo you reported for containing hate speech or symbols. Since it violated our Community Standards, we removed it. Thanks for your report. We let Powerlifters Against Feminism know that their photo has been removed, but not who reported it. Facebook never discloses who submits a report.

So, I’ve got to ask:

#1 Why did Facebook only respond that they revised their decision to people who reported the specific post and not the page? There was just a mass murder by a misogynistic killer who was overlooked by police because misogyny was not a big deal to him? What if he’d been ranting about hating Jews or Muslims or blacks, would police have taken him seriously? Would the public? You’d think we would learn something but the day after, Facebook drags its feet, refusing to respond to people reporting hate speech, and then finally only responding when the report was done in a very specific way.

#2 Why did Facebook need to revise its decision? What is confusing, obtuse, ambiguous about “we hate against the subhuman species called women”?

If the first message, that the page and the post do not qualify as hate speech is computer generated, as some claim, a Reel Girl fan rightly points out:

If that is just an automated message that goes out, it should read, “Thank you for reporting this post. We will review it before a decision is made.”

Precisely. But that is not what Facebook replied. Facebook wrote:

We reviewed the page you reported and found that it didn’t violate community standards.

I can only conclude that in the USA it’s far too clear that we don’t take violence against women seriously. It’s just normal here. When will this cultural belief shift? What will it take?

From Half the Sky by Nicolas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn:

More girls were killed in the last 50 years, precisely because they were girls, than men killed in all the wars in the 20th century. More girls are killed in this routine gendercide in any one decade than people were slaughtered in all the genocides of the 20th century.

The equivalent of 5 jumbo jets worth of women die in labor each day… life time risk of maternal death is 1,000x higher in a poor country than in the west. That should be an international scandal.

Why isn’t the violence against women and girls an international scandal? And why doesn’t America care about protecting the human rights of half of its citizens?

This Tweet from Charles Clymer put it succinctly:

Black guy shoot folks = thug. Brown guy shoots folks = terrorist. White guy guns down women = “nice guy who’s mentally ill”.

The Daily Beast reports:

If the Santa Barbara shooter had been Muslim, and left the same sorts of video screeds and more, our government and media would undoubtedly be labeling this incident as terrorism. Just as an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist sets out to kill American infidels simply because they are “American infidels,” the Santa Barbara shooter set out to kill women simply because they were women. You tell me the difference. To fail to label the latter terrorism suggests a politicized use of the term, one interested in defending Judeo-Christian Americans and values, but not women.

The fact of misogyny America is not an accident. It is as deliberate as the shooting in Santa Barbara Friday night.  Those who seek to perpetuate misogyny, to actively further the subjugation and suffering of women, are not just nut-balls but adherents of a very specific and very ugly social and political ideology.  And those who take up weapons and kill large numbers of people in furtherance of that ideology? They’re terrorists.

Read the first part of this story of my attempts to contact Facebook to take down hate speech here: Facebook refuses to take down hate speech page memorializing killer Elliot Rodger

Facebook refuses to take down hate speech page memorializing killer Elliot Rodger

Powerlifters Against Feminism has a Facebook page up right now with hate speech on it that promotes and glorifes violence against women, yet Facebook refuses to take down the page, claiming there is no hate speech.

Here’s a post from the page’s host:

 

Shoutout to my boy elliot rodger. He did the best thing us men could do. And paid the ultimate price. Let his death be a memorial day in which we hate against the subhuman species called women.

 

10369607_787271157958355_5245835881030747272_n

RIP in piece brother

 

Yet, after a fan of Reel Girl alerted me to the page and complained to Facebook about it, she messaged me:

By the way, they refused to remove it stating there is no hate speech. I just got a notification.

10385172_10152404313759350_619502023_n

Let me ask you this, Facebook: How is there no hate speech in the line “Let his death be a memorial day in which we hate against the subhuman species called women.” (Italics mine)

It is the acceptance of misogynistic communities like this one that helps to create and foster mass murderers like Rodger and violence against women in general. Just like the police who investigated Elliot, Facebook has a history of not taking hate speech against women seriously. We all contribute to it this culture of violence if we take no action stop the hate.  I just reported this page to Facebook. Please do so as well. Do not accept that this page does not promote hate speech. You can go to this link to report it. Here’s the form I got. Check “hate speech or personal attack.”

All reports are strictly confidential. What best describes this?

Update: I received this message from facebook:

Support Dashboard

Here’s the latest status of your reports and inquiries. If we need more information, we’ll let you know here.
History
  • You reported Powerlifters Against Feminism for containing hate speech or symbols.

    Close

    Status This page wasn’t removed
    Details
    • Thank you for taking the time to report something that you feel may violate our Community Standards. Reports like yours are an important part of making Facebook a safe and welcoming environment. We reviewed the page you reported for containing hate speech or symbols and found it doesn’t violate our Community Standards.
      Note: If you have an issue with something on the page, be sure to report the content (ex: a photo), not the entire page. That way, your report will be more accurately reviewed.
    Report Date Today
    Owner
    Reason Hate Speech or Symbol

Update:  Many Reel Girl fans reported this hate speech to Facebook and received the same message:

We reviewed the page you reported for containing hate speech or symbols and found it doesn’t violate our Community Standards.

Some people started reporting the specific speech/ post, not the page. The first responses from Facebook were reported as follows:

I reported both the horrible hateful page and the (criminal) violence promoting post. Got two answers from fb, telling “the page does not violate our community standards”…

 

Another Reel Girl fan writes:

I reported the page and the individual post and got the same reply. Ridiculous.

 

And then, finally, one hour ago, a fan writes:

Just got notification that they revised their decision on the post I reported and removed it!

 

And another one received the same revised response:

Me too! I’m glad they wised up and reconsidered.

 

And a third did as well:

Yep! Just got notification it was removed. Woohoo! No luck on taking down the whole page, though

 

I posted all of those because I never got the revised Facebook response, but maybe that’s because I reported the page, not that one post? Still, what is Facebook’s excuse for telling people that first reported the exact post that it did not contain hate speech and then needing to “revise” their decision? It’s insanity. I suppose I’m grateful that Facebook took a tiny step towards coming to its senses and realize “hate against the subhuman species called women” qualifies as hate speech.

Why do men in America feel entitled to women? A gallery of reasons

On the Santa Barbara massacre, the Atlantic reports:

Suffice it to say that the killer was a misogynist, and that lots of women have reacted to his rampage by reflecting on how women are denied full personhood.

 

PolyMic reports:

Rather than seeing Elliot Rodger as a product of society, the media has depicted him as a bloodthirsty madman, a mere glitch in the system.

 

New Statesman reports:

The ideology behind these attacks – and there is ideology – is simple. Women owe men. Women, as a class, as a sex, owe men sex, love, attention, “adoration”

I’m reposting a blog I wrote after seeing Jimmy Fallon’s Vanity Fair cover. Look at these images. When will women in America be recognized as human beings equal to men?

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’s 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

Boeh1hACAAArdKp.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 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.

‘Those videos were a huge red flag. UNREAL how they just chalked it up to nothing.’

“Those videos were a huge red flag. UNREAL how they just chalked it up to nothing.”

That’s a comment by Lori Day on Reel Girl’s Facebook page.

Why do you think that police thought so little of the killer’s videos ranting misogyny? In 2014 in America the hatred of women is accepted as a normal part of our culture. What if, instead, misogyny were considered a sign of something sick in a person and in a society? How would our world be radically different?

As the Atlantic reports:

Suffice it to say that the killer was a misogynist, and that lots of women have reacted to his rampage by reflecting on how women are denied full personhood.

If you haven’t yet, please read these posts about the Santa Barbara massacre:

Will Santa Barbara massacre finally teach us to prosecute ‘gender crimes’ in the USA?

On the Santa Barbara massacre, PolyMic reports:

Rather than seeing Elliot Rodger as a product of society, the media has depicted him as a bloodthirsty madman, a mere glitch in the system.

 

The post goes on to point out that Rodger is not a “glitch” of the system, but a product of it.

Could the Santa Barbara massacre finally teach us to prosecute ‘gender crimes’ in the USA? Violence against women in this country is epidemic. What are we doing to stop it? What are we doing to educate the public about it? When the Santa Barbara massacre is discussed on all the news shows, do you think CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News will have on experts who will speak about violence against women?

If we called ‘gender crimes’ what they are, they would receive the elevated level of attention and punishment that hate crimes do. By identifying ‘gender crimes,’ we could also better address how to stop them, allocating more funding towards education and prevention. Right now, there is far too little public awareness of the ubiquity of violence against women, and insufficient funding for education, prevention, prosecution, or protection for women. “Glitches” happen every single day.

I’m reposting a blog I wrote about prosecuting gender crimes a few years ago in reference to Joran Van Der Sloot who killed Natalie Holloway and then went on to kill Stephany Flores.

Prosecute ‘gender crimes,’ Van der Sloot first up

Joran Van der Sloot, the alleged killer of Natalee Holloway, the co-ed who disappeared in Aruba in 2005, was captured tonight in Chile. He’s under suspicion for the stabbing death of 21 year old Peruvian Stephany Flores. On June 2, Flores’s body was found in Lima, Peru in a hotel room registered to Van Der Sloot.

van-der-sloot-holloway300x225

Van der Sloot was arrested twice for Holloway’s killing. He was released twice due to lack of evidence. Part of the “lack of evidence” included Van der Sloot talking on video about Holloway’s death and how her body was taken out to sea. This video “did not incriminate” Van der Sloot because he claimed he was just trying to “impress a drug dealer.”

Violence against women is epidemic, but perpetrators like Van der Sloot, too often don’t get punished and become repeat offenders. There is little public awareness of the ubiquity of the crimes, and insufficient funding for education, prevention, prosecution, or protection for women.

When the media covers stories about victims like Natalee Holloway, it’s usually in the most sensationalistic, ineffective way. If the women are attractive, white, and middle class, as she was, networks endlessly recycle former cheerleading or prom photos. But rarely do Larry King, Greta van Susteren, or Bill O’Reilly and co. accompany these horrific stories with facts about how widespread violence against women is, featuring direct service workers, experts in the field, who can educate the public with real statistics and solutions.

Today, in the Bay Area, Roselyne Swig, founder of Partners Ending Domestic Abuse took a step towards helping to stop the violence in a more effective way. Swig convened a summit in San Francisco with leaders from Bay Area organizations committed to ending violence against women. Swig’s hope is that these Bay Area organizations will collaborate, providing a leadership position, bringing public awareness to this widespread issue, taking action to end it.

JaMel Perkins, Board President of Partners, opened the summit by sharing terrifying statistics including some of these:

31% of American women report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend.

Around the world, 1 in 3 women are beaten, coerced into sex or physically abused.

Women of all races and ethnicities are equally vulnerable to violence by a domestic partner.

Homicide is the leading cause of death for pregnant women.

77% of those deaths occur in the first trimester.

Abused women are 60% more likely to require hospitalization while pregnant.

90% of our homeless population are victims of abuse.

The health-related costs of rape, physical assault, stalking and Homicide committed by domestic partners exceed $5.8 Billion each year. Nearly $4.1 billion of this is spent on direct medical and mental health care services.

1 in 5 female high school students reports being physically or sexually abused by a dating partner.

The summit was attended by representatives from Bay Area organizations including SF Child Abuse Center, Blue Shield Against Violence (the leading private DV funder in the state), La Casa de la Madres, the police department and DA’s office who convened to network and collaborate.

“Domestic violence is something we should all be concerned about,” said Swig. “We need to create a collaborative voice.”

Marcia Smolens of HMS Associates, a local lobbying group, urged advocates to use social media to bring awareness to the issue of domestic violence to create change.

Judy Patrick, President and CEO of the Women’s Foundation of California, said that the goal of her foundation is to ensure that women and families are safe, healthy, and economically secure.

Marj Plumb of the Women’s Policy Institute trains women leaders who work in direct service to affect change in Sacramento. Women working on the front lines need the skills to lobby legislators to make policy that will help women and prevent violence.

Plumb had the women at the summit break into groups and identify problems and solutions to eradicate violence. Most groups felt that education was key, including curriculum for kids at middle school level, educating families, cultural awareness, and men.

I wish the media was a better educator. It’s such a missed opportunity. Domestic violence, and all violence against women, should be renamed as “gender crimes,” receiving the elevated level of attention and punishment that hate crimes do. The word “domestic” has always softened the crime for me, a crime that’s already not taken nearly seriously enough. Too often, crimes against women are written off as cultural issues, a misunderstanding, a married woman can’t possibly be raped by her husband or alcohol was involved so no one is to blame, or she’s to blame, or the guy who said he raped her was “just bragging.”

If the Taliban had been named worldwide for what it was– gender apartheid– maybe there would have been the universal outrage against it that people felt for South Africa’s racist government. Instead, most Americans, even good old San Francisco liberals, looked away, ignoring a regime where women were beaten and murdered, daily by their husbands and fathers as part of “cultural ritual.”

This year Yale student Annie Le was murdered and stuffed into a wall; UVA star Lacrosse player, Yeardley Love was murdered by fellow lacrosse player, George Hughley; Bruce Beresford-Redmond, a producer of the show “Survivor” is the prime suspect in the murder of his wife, Monica Beresford-Redmond, who was found dead in Mexico.

All of these killings received media attention, because these women were young, attractive, or middle class. Would we know about Peruvian Stephany Flores if Natalee Holloway hadn’t been killed by the same suspect? Maybe, her father is wealthy, but she’s got a strike against her: she’s not white. How many gender crimes happened today worldwide that we don’t know about? How many are happening right now?

Statistics say that in America 3 women are murdered by their husbands and boyfriends every day.

Women shown mentoring women on ‘Nashville’ revolutionary for TV

I love “Nashville.” It’s my favorite show on TV, and I watch it weekly with my husband (who is a musician) and my 10 year old daughter who is an aspiring musician.

1ab4aa042ed4c616dfd24ffaba335781

I’ve blogged before about the reasons why this show is so great: female protagonist, female supporting roles, complex/ realistic relationships between women, women who are defined, first and foremost, by their professions not love interests, a 40 something woman in her career prime is lusted after by multiple hot men, and the music is great. But I have to do one more blog about this show, because after we watched it last night, I said to my husband, “I don’t think I’ve ever seen a female mentor another female on TV.” I’m so used to seeing women  stereotyped and pitted against each other. It’s one of the reasons the whole Minority Feisty thing upsets me so much, females are continually isolated from each other– an old, effective tool for domination. I’m not saying women should stand in a circle and sing kumbaya. Not only is that boring, it’s not realistic. But in “Nashville,” you see women work through conflict and then come out on on other side in ways unpredicted and unexpected. It’s really inspiring to watch. If you didn’t know, Callie Khouri of “Thelma and Louise” fame writes the show. It’s great and I encourage you to watch it with your kids (I recommend for age 9 and up, if they know about sex. There are no graphic or long sex scenes but there are brief ones and sex is alluded to.)

Reel Girl rates “Nashville” ***HHH*** (up one H this season to highest heroine rating)

From the Disney store to Stride Rite to Whole Foods: the degradation and annihilation of Princess Leia in kidworld

Princess Leia has gone missing from kidword. The Mary Sue reports the latest example of her degradation/ annihilation:

Last week, Disney admitted that they have no plans for any Princess Leia merchandise in the Disney store, a situation of distinct irony for reasons I hope I don’t have to explain.

 

Of course, this is far from the first time I’ve noticed Leia’s absence. There are so many LEGO “Star Wars” sets but few feature female characters. The origin of that problem obviously is the lack of females in the “Star Wars” movies, but still, why does Leia go missing? If you search on the internet, you can find her in LEGO sets, but as my daughters and I go about our day, walking through toy stores or book stores or Target, we see Leia hardly anywhere. My seven year old and I did spot her one time, and we bought the set but were disappointed that the scene depicted was where she was clad in a metal bikini chained to Jabba the Hut. Do you really want your kids playing with this story? It wouldn’t be so bad if there were many scenes and outfits for Leia, but unfortunately, that’s not the case.

1459127_591015430953231_969825805_n

My 5 year old daughter and I go to Whole Foods most mornings where I get a cup of coffee and she reads the rack of kids books. Yesterday, she picked up Darth Vader’s Little Princess, the companion book to the New York Times best-seller Darth Vader and Son. But unlike Luke’s studious and heroic upbringing, in this story, young Leia likes to talk on the phone and paint her nails. The metal bikini she wears is presented as her independent, rebellious choice and not the outfit she was forced into when she was Jabba’s slave:

unnamed3

In case my 5 year old doesn’t get that Leia exposing her body is her choice as a growing, independent female, here is the same message in text and image on another page of the book:

unnamed4

Let’s just say that if I were to write a story about the young Leia, it would be completely different than this sexist, not funny at all, I honesty hope not a best-seller book.

I’m so mad about the degradation and annihilation of Leia not only for girls but for boys. Here is a great opportunity for boys to experience, play with, and admire a heroic female character and that chance has been swiped away from them.

It’s not just the Disney store and the Whole Foods book racks (and all book racks), but Leia also can’t be found among the “Star Wars” clothing merchandise, for example the socks and shoes sold at Stride Rite. When my daughter wore her “Star Wars” shoes, she was teased by other little kids in her class for wearing “boy shoes.” A ridiculous premise in the first place, but why exaggerate this boy/ girl “Star Wars” split by excising Leia?

It’s not only Leia who is missing from Stride Rite. Black Widow, the female Avenger is gone, as is Wonder Woman, the female that used to be shown with the Superfriends. Check out these socks.

socks

Thousands of years ago, conquering armies smashed the idols of their victims and stole their stories, an extremely effective tactic to destroy a community and steal its power. Christians did this to pagans, but of course, this act is all over history. Just like the goddesses morphed into the Virgin, girls are going missing right now in 2014.