Tag: Television

With a Complex Black Female Protagonist Created by a Black Female Showrunner, I’m Rooting for ‘Scandal’

Kerry Washington as Olivia Pope in Scandal

I love Grey’s Anatomy. Is it melodramatic? Absolutely. But its dramatic storylines, sharp dialogue and diverse cast have hooked me from the very first episode. So when I discovered writer, producer, showrunner Shonda Rhimes created Scandal, a political thriller TV series revolving around a woman of color, I knew I had to watch.

Kerry Washington (a feminist in real life…huzzah!) plays Olivia Pope, an assertive attorney who’s a “crisis management expert,” inspired by former George H.W. Bush administration press aide Judy Smith (who also happens to be a producer of the show). Olivia runs a small organization of lawyers who fix scandals and clean up messes like murder charges and infidelity. With a subtle and nuanced performance, Washington is definitely the best part of the series.
What’s so interesting (and fucking sad) is that Scandal is the only prime-time TV show on right now centering around an African American woman. And it’s the first network show with a black female lead in 30 years (that is horrifying). I’ve often heard Washington is a fantastic actor and she was great in the heartbreaking For Colored Girls. Here she commands the screen with confidence and poise. Olivia is an intelligent, successful and empowered woman. Others look up to her, revere her and even fear her shrewd insights and relentlessness to finish a job. She’s demanding, requiring her staff to pull all-nighters and enforcing rules like no crying in the office and not answering “I don’t know” to a question she asks. Powerful politicians turn to her for advice. She negotiates deals on her terms. While new employee Quinn (Katie Lowes) idolizes her, Olivia is far from a paragon of perfection. She’s vulnerable with a messy and complicated love life. She’s flawed, not always likeable (although I personally love her!) and uses Machiavellian tactics to complete a job. But this mélange makes her all the more interesting.
Washington was recently on The Melissa Harris-Perry Show (one of my absolute favorite feminist icons EVER!!!). She talked about inclusivity and how she and Harris-Perry, as two women of color on TV, are “expanding the idea of who ‘We the People’ is.” She also discussed playing a complex female character on-screen:
“…When I read this script, I was so blown away by this woman who in one area of her life, in her professional life, she’s brilliant and sophisticated and in power. And then in her personal life she’s vulnerable and torn and confused. And I thought this is an incredible challenge for any actor. But we also don’t get to do that often — as women in this business, as people of color in this business — to have all of that complexity to explore.”
And she’s right. We too often don’t see complex women, especially women of color, on-screen.
I loved the political intrigue and the focus on a single, accomplished, career-driven woman. And of course how could I not be delighted that Henry Ian Cusick (aka dreamy Desmond from LOST) has found a new series. I was thrilled that the show opens from Quinn’s perspective, taking a job with Olivia because of her reverence for her stellar reputation. I also loved that within the first 7 minutes, a character derided a potential client because he was an anti-choice, anti-gay Republican. While many people assume the media suffers from a liberal bias, too few shows actually discuss abortion or LGBTQ issues. 
While most of it is good, some of the dialogue felt a bit staged or forced. I cringed when Olivia body polices and chastises new employee Quinn for displaying too much cleavage and when Abby (Darby Stanchfield), one of Olivia’s employees, gleefully calls a female murder victim a whore…and drops the whore word a few more times in the next episode too. While there are several female characters (none of whom are really fleshed out yet beyond Olivia), most of the time they’re interacting with men. Although Olivia does have conversations with a young woman who claims is having an affair with the president (Olivia’s former boss) and with the wife of a Supreme Court nominee. No strong female friendships emerge yet. But we’re only 2 episodes into the series. Female friendships comprise the cores of Rhimes’ other shows, Grey’s Anatomy and Private Practice. So I’m hopeful that we’ll see more female interaction as the series progresses.
Much like its complicated protagonist, the series isn’t perfect yet. But it’s got potential. I’m rooting for it because we can never have too many sharp political dramas. And we can never have too many female leads, especially with women of color. 
Scandal is a big deal. Not only do we have a woman of color protagonist, we have a series written and created by a woman of color. With Grey’s Anatomy, Private Practice and Scandal, Rhimes belongs “in an elite group of TV show runners who have multiple series on the air at the same time.” In each of Rhimes’ television shows, she puts women at the forefront. While she has held open casting calls for all ethnicities and has African American, Latina, Asian American and white women in her shows, she’s never had a series revolve around a woman of color. Until now.
In an Essence interview, Kerry Washington said she felt “lucky” to be a woman of color in Hollywood right now:
“I think it’s a really special time to be a woman of color in this business. The landscape of who has the power is changing. We are in more influential positions and are able to have a say in the stories that are told. I feel very lucky to be in the business now…”
But The Grio’s Veronica Miller asserts that it’s hard to have faith in “Hollywood’s relationship with black actresses:”
“It will be easier when black actresses become more visible in roles across the spectrum, (think fantasy hits like Harry Potter, or romantic dramas like The Notebook) and not just ones that call for an African-American female.”
Racialicious’ Kendra James points out the pressure TV shows like Scandalwith black leads face:
“It’s risky for a network that depends on millions of viewers for advertising revenue to cast a lead that the majority of viewers (read: white people) may not relate to. While a show like Pan Am (fondly known as Carefree White Girls Explore the Third World) can fail to take off without consequence, it feels, at times, as if the fate of every black actor and actress on television rides on the success or failure of one show each season.”
Here at Bitch Flicks, we talk a lot about the need for more women in film and TV, in front of and behind the camera. Women comprise only 15% of TV writers and 41%-43% of TV roles are female. But we also desperately need more women of color. 
In a time when Trayvon Martin was shot for being a young black man wearing a hoodie…when racist Hunger Games fans can’t empathize with a black character in the film adaptation…when accomplished and ridiculously talented black female actors like Viola Davis have a hard time finding roles…when black female actors must play either maids or drug addicts or sassy best friends…when female actors of color get sidelined from the cover of Vanity Fair — our society tells people of color over and over and over again implicitly and explicitly that their bodies and their lives don’t matter.
It’s time to change that. It’s time for our media to stop revolving around white men’s stories and reflect the diversity of our world.

Call for Writers: Reproduction and Abortion in Film and Television

In the United States we are experiencing unprecedented attacks on reproductive rights, with record numbers of bills introduced in states in 2011 and already in 2012 that restrict access to abortion. A major national debate revolving around female contraception and whether or not it constitutes “preventative care,” and whether employers and insurance companies should be required to cover things like birth control pills and IUDs, is raging. While this is a brief overview of the issue, one thing is clear: rights that U.S. women won in the 1970s are once again under attack.
Anyone who cares about media knows that it reflects and shapes our values and opinions. For some time at Bitch Flicks we’ve wanted to focus specifically on how reproductive issues and abortion are represented in movies and television shows. A moment like the infamous “schmamortion” scene in Knocked Up–when a character can’t even speak the word “abortion”–says that Hollywood isn’t helping the reproductive rights cause. However, you can contrast that with the strikingly honest and realistic take on abortion represented in the television show Friday Night Lights. But there are always more than two sides to the story, and we’d like to explore as many as we possibly can.
Here are some ideas for films and television shows to write about, but please propose your own ideas. Your piece should (in case it’s not obvious) focus on how the film/TV show treats the issues surrounding reproduction. (Note: We’re not looking for pieces specifically about motherhood; that’s an upcoming theme we’ll announce.)
Friday Night Lights
Vera Drake
Roseanne
Knocked Up
Juno (we’ve already published a review, but will accept a piece looking specifically at Juno’s choice)
House
American Dreams
Mad Men
Grey’s Anatomy
Waitress
American Horror Story
Obvious Child
Six Feet Under
If These Walls Could Talk
Dirty Dancing
Maude
The Cider House Rules
Greenberg
4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days
Degrassi
American Horror Story
Battlestar Gallactica
Mother and Child
The High Cost of Living

…and the list goes on

Here are a few basic guidelines for guest writers on our site:
–We like most of our pieces to be 1,000 – 2,000 words, preferably with some images and links. 
–Please send your piece in the text of an email, including links to all images, no later than Friday, April 20th.
–Include a 2-3 sentence bio for placement at the end of your piece.
Email us at btchflcks(at)gmail(dot)com if you’d like to contribute a review. We accept original pieces or cross-posts.

Submit away!

Guest Writer Wednesday: You Know What I Was Just Thinking?

HBO’s Entourage
 
This cross post by Melissa McEwan originally appeared at her blog Shakesville.

That if President Obama REALLY wants to convince me that he’s totally an ally to ladies, he would definitely agree to a cameo in Entourage: The Movie.

SO THIS IS VERY GOOD NEWS FOR ME!

Adrian Grenier, star of the hit series “Entourage,” says he’s made a deal with President Obama.

“I promised to make the ‘Entourage’ movie if he would do a cameo. He agreed. Seriously,” Grenier wrote on Facebook on Friday.

Obama was a big fan of the HBO show.

NEAT! That is such a FUN FACT about the President, and also a very cool show for dudes to like!

For the record, yes, I realize that this is just some shit that some douche who starred in a horrible show about horrible people based on Mark Wahlberg’s real horrible life wrote on his Facebook page, but it has been three days and no horrified press release has been issued saying that the President categorically is not interested in appearing in the horrible movie spin-off of this horrible show, because no doy it’s fun to just let the cool bros think the prez is totes gonna do it and WHO ARE YOU GOING TO VOTE FOR, WOMEN WITH SELF-RESPECT, IF NOT FOR THE PRESIDENT WHO LOVES ENTOURAGE EVEN MORE THAN ROE V WADE?! Answer me that!

———-

Melissa McEwan is the founder and manager of the award-winning political and cultural group blog Shakesville, which she launched as Shakespeare’s Sister in October 2004 because George Bush was pissing her off. In addition to running Shakesville, she also contributes to The Guardian‘s Comment is Free America and AlterNet. Melissa graduated from Loyola University Chicago with degrees in Sociology and Cultural Anthropology, with an emphasis on the political marginalization of gender-based groups. An active feminist and LGBTQI advocate, she has worked as a concept development and brand consultant and now writes full-time.

Guest Writer Wednesday: Ann Perkins and Me: It’s Complicated

Leslie Knope and Ann Perkins
This is a guest post from Peggy Cooke.
 
I feel guilty bringing up Ann Perkins in any discussion of Parks and Recreation, mainly because the positive relationship between Ann and Leslie is one of the main things that makes the show so great (and groundbreaking!) for many people (read: feminists) I talk to about it, but: I don’t like Ann Perkins.

When Ann was introduced in the pilot episode of the NBC sitcom as a disgruntled citizen at a public forum being hosted by Leslie Knope of the Parks and Rec Department of Pawnee, Indiana, she seemed to be one of the many cranks with whom Leslie tends to deal on a regular basis. Some of the funniest recurring characters on this show are the kooky folks who keep turning up to these forums, most notably the sprinkler-tea-making, poop-eating-dog-having woman who constantly blames her alarming lack of basic health knowledge on local government; and the “except for Turnip! Except for Turnip!” chanting guy who is a favourite in our household. But no, Ann had a legitimate complaint about a pit into which her boyfriend had recently fallen, a pit whose betterment would form the main goal of the show’s first (and worst) season.

The fact that Ann and Leslie got off to an antagonistic beginning makes it even more wonderful that they were able to become best friends, brilliantly subverting the cat fight trope that most other sitcoms would have gone with. Throughout the series Ann and Leslie have butted heads, but always remained respectful of each other, and their relationship is one of the best examples of female friendship in pop culture today. It is real, and it is lovely, and it is one of the two main purposes I believe the character of Ann serves on the show.

Leslie Knope and Ann Perkins
The other purpose, which was used brilliantly in the second season and half of the third, was as a kind of “only sane man” counterpoint to the Parks and Rec department (for what I hope should be obvious reasons, the “only sane man” trope will be from hereon out referred to as “only reasonable person,” or ORP). As the only main character not working at City Hall, Ann was able to provide a lens through which your average viewer could watch the story unfold, and I believe that in the capacity of ORP she prevented the writers from making the world they had created too insulated and self-referential. The show is a successful satire in part because it never gets too carried away or too cartoon-y. Making fun of local government isn’t entertaining if only people who work in local government get the jokes.

Until the arrival of the state auditors in season three, Ann perfectly fulfilled the role of ORP. However, gradually Ben began to usurp that role, with his Jim Halpert-esque glances into the camera, and his total confusion over the appeal of Li’l Sebastian (“he just whinnied!”). Even though he worked at City Hall, Ben was more of an outsider than Ann – he’s not from Pawnee, after all. This easily set up Ann’s transition to actually working at City Hall, which makes it easier to explain why she is always there, but takes away a vital aspect of her character’s purpose.

I still believe Ann should be on the show because, like I said, her relationship with Leslie is pretty much the best thing on TV right now. But I find it somewhat ironic that a character who is part of such a feminist depiction of female relationships – that manages to be both aspirational and realistic – is so utterly two-dimensional that it seems she is only on the show to fill that role. Part of this could be due to Rashida Jones’ questionable acting talent (you have to admit she is the weak link in an otherwise phenomenal cast), but mostly I believe it is a rare lazy tendency on the part of the writers. Now that she is no longer the ORP, what is the point of Ann? Why can’t they seem to flesh her out a little?

Mark and Ann
One of my main issues with the portrayal of Ann is in her romantic relationships, which alternately make me cringe, and bore me to tears. The Mark-and-Ann (“Anndanowitz”) arc of season two was so dull I wanted to leave the room every time they were onscreen. Ditto Chris and Ann, who had zero sexual tension, and whose only moment of interest came about a week after they broke up, when Ann finally found out (and honestly, the best part of that storyline came from Leslie reciting the horrible ways in which various men have called it off with her).

The flipside of the boredom is the cringing. Andy and Ann were terrible together, a fact which the show (and pretty much every character in it) has at least had the decency to acknowledge. The whole concept of Ann being attracted to Andy because she needs someone to take care of is so played out, and it was great to see the writers just stick that whole mess on a shelf and get Andy and April together, because they are a) a way better match, and b) adorable.

And then there’s Ann and Tom. Holy crap, is this a bad idea or what? It’s all the cringe-worthy grossness of Ann and Andy, all the boredom of Mark and Ann, and about the same amount of chemistry as Ann and Chris. Minus a million. First of all, Ann has never shown anything but contemptuous tolerance (is that a thing?) for Tom since the beginning. His maturity level alone is enough to tell her that he’s not worth her time. Earlier in the series, any time Tom hit on Ann it was so clearly a joke, I don’t think any fan of the show would ever be cheering for these two to get together. What possible madness seized the writers’ room and made them think this was a good idea?

Tom and Ann
There have been a couple of great moments of Ann calling Tom out on his custom-hats, waiting-in-the-rain bullshit, but no moments at all that would indicate that Ann is even interested in being with Tom. In the recent episode “Sweet Sixteen” they had a perfect set up to end it – ie they both realized the numerous reasons they were incompatible – but inexplicably got back together at the end of the episode in a dialogue we weren’t even shown, probably because the writers didn’t know how to write it, because what would they say?

Ann: Hey we aren’t compatible at all and I kinda don’t even like you. Your constant objectification of me and lack of respect for my basic humanity tend to somehow make both of us less appealing.

Tom: Yeah. Oh well, what else do you have going on?

Ann: Apparently nothing. Let’s ride this out.

I mean, seriously. Many people seem ready to give this otherwise terrific show the benefit of the doubt, but I’ve already had enough of waiting for Ann’s storylines to appeal to me. And the line at the end of the record studio episode where Ann agrees to go out with Tom, saying that he “wore [her] down,” would have made me quit on a less consistently feminist show. That shit is not cool.

In my (obviously super correct and valuable) opinion, Ann needs to be a lot more three-dimensional before her storylines are all taken up with relationship plots, much like in life how relationships always work out better when you’re cool with yourself first. As a viewer, I would like to care as deeply about Ann as I do about Leslie (and let me tell you something, that is pretty deeply) before I will care about how she fares in a relationship with some dude.

On the flip side of that, I need Tom’s ridiculous antics to be something we are supposed to laugh at; not something that is validated by relationships with women who are way too good for him. And we all know that Ann is probably way too good for Tom; we just need the story to show us that. Otherwise what message are we supposed to take from what used to be the most progressive show on TV?

———-

Peggy Cooke is a Canadian feminist who works as a non-profit staffer by day and a reproductive justice rabble rouser by… later that same day. Her resume has been described as “fascinating.” She writes about abortion at Anti-Choice is Anti-Awesome and Abortion Gang, and she reviews fiction set in Toronto at Smoke City Stories.

‘Don’t Trust the B—- in Apartment 23’: The Upcoming TV Show and the B Word

ABC’s upcoming show (premieres April), ‘Don’t Trust the B—- in Apartment 23’
Written by scATX. Originally published at scATX: Speakers Corner in the ATX. Cross-posted with permission.
Don’t Trust the B—- in Apartment 23 – That would be the title of ABC’s newest sitcom. According to Entertainment Weekly:
“The story is about a naive young woman who comes to New York City and ends up with a trouble-making party-girl roommate.”
This sounds so fun.  I love when American pop culture makes fun of the ladies! As one of the commenters at Entertainment Weekly said: “How about “Don’t Trust the M–F–ing C– Wh-re in Apartment 23″?” Or as another put it: “What’s wrong with Don’t Trust the Girl in Apartment 23. That would have gotten my attention too, either way it’s an unusual title.” I don’t think they meant “unusual”, though. I think they meant “offensive.”
There are, of course, plenty of supporters for this. As some dude there argued: “The ABC sitcom DTTBIA23 doesn’t offend me. I’m a male with a sense of humor though. If the title is a female’s perspective of another female, the show could have catty, campy potential.” And then there’s this gem of an observation: “Watch shows like The Office or 30 Rock or Arrested Development and you will understand why it’s sometimes okay to be racist or sexist for comedy. When you do it right, it’s more funny than it is offensive. This title is risque, yes, but funny at the same time.”
I mean, after reading these comments about people’s reaction to the TITLE of this show, I can’t possibly see why anyone would be offended that ABC would back such a project. I mean, dudes with senses of humor get it. And it is okay to be racist and sexist in comedy. Sheesh.
______________
In case you are wondering what is wrong with using the word “bitch” in this way, check out Shakesville’s take on using the word “bitch” (and the word “cunt”) as an insult. But, you know, it is encapsulated by this:
“…demeaning and marginalizing sexist language has the capacity to make women feel demeaned and marginalized.”

The title is making fun of a woman for her lifestyle of “partying”. It is an insult. It is a particularly gendered insult, one that can only be lobbied at a woman. Because if you call a man a “bitch”, it’s an effective insult in that you are calling him a slur that is used to cut down women, so he’s not only a mean person but a feminine one, too. And we all know being like a woman is insulting. [On a side not: Is there a truly insulting cuss word/insult for a white hetero dude that doesn’t also demean a woman or a minority OR can’t also be used on a woman or a minority? I don’t think such a thing exists. If you think of one, let me know. I think this is yet another instance of white hetero male privilege.]
Here is a GREAT article in The Washington Post from the Andi Zeisler, a cofounder of Bitch magazine (go read it), from 2008 that Melissa McEwan at Shakesville refers to in the above link. And here is the part that matters for me right now:

“Bitch is a word we use culturally to describe any woman who is strong, angry, uncompromising and, often, uninterested in pleasing men. We use the term for a woman on the street who doesn’t respond to men’s catcalls or smile when they say, “Cheer up, baby, it can’t be that bad.” We use it for the woman who has a better job than a man and doesn’t apologize for it. We use it for the woman who doesn’t back down from a confrontation.

“So let’s not be disingenuous. Is it a bad word? Of course it is. As a culture, we’ve done everything possible to make sure of that, starting with a constantly perpetuated mindset that deems powerful women to be scary, angry and, of course, unfeminine — and sees uncompromising speech by women as anathema to a tidy, well-run world.“

It’s not within a cultural vacuum that this show chose its title. The creators and ABC all know it demeans women. But they obviously don’t give a shit. What’s new?
______________
Also, according to TV Week (in a post about this show): “And for your own edification, some stats about the word bitch. According to the Parents Television Council, “The use of the word, “bitch,” for example, tripled in the last decade alone, growing to 1,277 uses on 685 shows in 2007 from 431 uses on 103 prime-time episodes in 1998,” it has been reported by The New York Times.
And Entertainment Weekly wrote just this past fall that “Oprah bans the word ‘bitch’ from her network.”
I’m sure this statistic is totally and completely unrelated to this tripling of the word “bitch” on TV (post from Entertainment Weekly by the fabulous Jennifer Armstrong, first posted on Oct. 30, 2009):
“Women are being beaten, tortured, and brutally murdered more than ever on network TV: A new study by the Parents Television Council shows violence against women on television is up a stunning 120 percent in the past five years. Violence overall in the same period increased only 2 percent, which seems to indicate there’s very little guy-on-guy combat happening, relatively speaking.”

There’s no connection between demeaning language against women on TV increasing and violence against women on TV increasing. It’s not like all of these shows are created by the same people in the same cultural atmosphere selling to the same American public, right?
scATX is a liberal Texan, historian, mother, and twitterphile. She is a pro-choice advocate who runs the reproductive rights blog, Keep Your Boehner Out of My Uterus. You can find her personal blog at scATX.com.

‘Don’t Trust the B—- in Apartment 23:’ The Upcoming TV Show and the B Word

ABC’s upcoming show (premieres April), ‘Don’t Trust the B—- in Apartment 23’
Written by scATX. Originally published at scATX: Speakers Corner in the ATX. Cross-posted with permission.
Don’t Trust the B—- in Apartment 23 – That would be the title of ABC’s newest sitcom. According to Entertainment Weekly:
“The story is about a naive young woman who comes to New York City and ends up with a trouble-making party-girl roommate.”
This sounds so fun.  I love when American pop culture makes fun of the ladies! As one of the commenters at Entertainment Weekly said: “How about “Don’t Trust the M–F–ing C– Wh-re in Apartment 23″?” Or as another put it: “What’s wrong with Don’t Trust the Girl in Apartment 23. That would have gotten my attention too, either way it’s an unusual title.” I don’t think they meant “unusual”, though. I think they meant “offensive.”
There are, of course, plenty of supporters for this. As some dude there argued: “The ABC sitcom DTTBIA23 doesn’t offend me. I’m a male with a sense of humor though. If the title is a female’s perspective of another female, the show could have catty, campy potential.” And then there’s this gem of an observation: “Watch shows like The Office or 30 Rock or Arrested Development and you will understand why it’s sometimes okay to be racist or sexist for comedy. When you do it right, it’s more funny than it is offensive. This title is risque, yes, but funny at the same time.”
I mean, after reading these comments about people’s reaction to the TITLE of this show, I can’t possibly see why anyone would be offended that ABC would back such a project. I mean, dudes with senses of humor get it. And it is okay to be racist and sexist in comedy. Sheesh.
______________
In case you are wondering what is wrong with using the word “bitch” in this way, check out Shakesville’s take on using the word “bitch” (and the word “cunt”) as an insult. But, you know, it is encapsulated by this:
“…demeaning and marginalizing sexist language has the capacity to make women feel demeaned and marginalized.”

The title is making fun of a woman for her lifestyle of “partying”. It is an insult. It is a particularly gendered insult, one that can only be lobbied at a woman. Because if you call a man a “bitch”, it’s an effective insult in that you are calling him a slur that is used to cut down women, so he’s not only a mean person but a feminine one, too. And we all know being like a woman is insulting. [On a side not: Is there a truly insulting cuss word/insult for a white hetero dude that doesn’t also demean a woman or a minority OR can’t also be used on a woman or a minority? I don’t think such a thing exists. If you think of one, let me know. I think this is yet another instance of white hetero male privilege.]
Here is a GREAT article in The Washington Post from the Andi Zeisler, a cofounder of Bitch magazine (go read it), from 2008 that Melissa McEwan at Shakesville refers to in the above link. And here is the part that matters for me right now:

“Bitch is a word we use culturally to describe any woman who is strong, angry, uncompromising and, often, uninterested in pleasing men. We use the term for a woman on the street who doesn’t respond to men’s catcalls or smile when they say, “Cheer up, baby, it can’t be that bad.” We use it for the woman who has a better job than a man and doesn’t apologize for it. We use it for the woman who doesn’t back down from a confrontation.

“So let’s not be disingenuous. Is it a bad word? Of course it is. As a culture, we’ve done everything possible to make sure of that, starting with a constantly perpetuated mindset that deems powerful women to be scary, angry and, of course, unfeminine — and sees uncompromising speech by women as anathema to a tidy, well-run world.“

It’s not within a cultural vacuum that this show chose its title. The creators and ABC all know it demeans women. But they obviously don’t give a shit. What’s new?
______________
Also, according to TV Week (in a post about this show): “And for your own edification, some stats about the word bitch. According to the Parents Television Council, “The use of the word, “bitch,” for example, tripled in the last decade alone, growing to 1,277 uses on 685 shows in 2007 from 431 uses on 103 prime-time episodes in 1998,” it has been reported by The New York Times.
And Entertainment Weekly wrote just this past fall that “Oprah bans the word ‘bitch’ from her network.”
I’m sure this statistic is totally and completely unrelated to this tripling of the word “bitch” on TV (post from Entertainment Weekly by the fabulous Jennifer Armstrong, first posted on Oct. 30, 2009):
“Women are being beaten, tortured, and brutally murdered more than ever on network TV: A new study by the Parents Television Council shows violence against women on television is up a stunning 120 percent in the past five years. Violence overall in the same period increased only 2 percent, which seems to indicate there’s very little guy-on-guy combat happening, relatively speaking.”

There’s no connection between demeaning language against women on TV increasing and violence against women on TV increasing. It’s not like all of these shows are created by the same people in the same cultural atmosphere selling to the same American public, right?
scATX is a liberal Texan, historian, mother, and twitterphile. She is a pro-choice advocate who runs the reproductive rights blog, Keep Your Boehner Out of My Uterus. You can find her personal blog at scATX.com.

2012 NAACP Image Awards Nominations

The 43rd NAACP Image Awards air Friday, February 17th

In the midst of awards season, it’s easy to become overwhelmed with which awards are happening and when, and it’s easy to start thinking that the same movies/shows/actors/directors are being nominated for all the awards (for example, there are striking similarities between this year’s Academy and Independent Spirit Award major category nominees). 

However, the Image Awards offer a break from the monotony of many other mainstream awards shows–and, more importantly, they highlight the cultural contributions of people of color, who are so often pushed aside, ignored, or rendered practically invisible by Hollywood and mainstream entertainment complexes. The Image Awards celebrate: 

the outstanding achievements and performances of people of color in the arts (television, recording, literature, motion picture and writing & directing), as well as those individuals or groups who promote social justice through their creative endeavors.

One could look at this year’s list of Academy Awards nominees and think that there are very few people of color acting in films, and even fewer writing or directing–and when you specify women of color, the list gets even shorter (the women of The Help are this year’s exception that proves the rule). While there is truth in that statement, the Image Awards show us people who are making movies (and making television, and writing books), and they also show us how these contributions still aren’t as culturally valued. 
Here are some nominations from a few of the film categories (find a complete list on their website, including awards for Television, Recording, Literature, Motion Picture, and Writing & Directing).
Outstanding Motion Picture
Jumping the Broom
The First Grader
Tower Heist
Outstanding Actress in a Motion Picture
Adepero Oduye for Pariah
Emma Stone for The Help
Paula Patton for Jumping the Broom
Viola Davis for The Help
Zoë Saldana for Columbiana

Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Motion Picture
Bryce Dallas Howard for The Help
Cicely Tyson for The Help
Kim Wayans for Pariah
Maya Rudolph for Bridesmaids
Octavia Spencer for The Help
Outstanding Independent Motion Picture
I Will Follow
MOOZ-lum
Kinyarwanda
The First Grader
Outstanding Directing in a Motion Picture
Alrick Brown for Kinyarwanda
Angelina Jolie for In the Land of Blood and Honey
Dee Rees for Pariah
Salim Akil for Jumping the Broom
Tate Taylor for The Help

The 43rd NAACP Image Awards air live on NBC this Friday, February 17th, at 8 PM EST. Will you watch?

Saying Goodbye to ‘Prime Suspect’ and One of My Fave Badass Female Characters

Maria Bello as Detective Jane Timoney on NBC’s “Prime Suspect”
Some argue women fare better on television than in films. The roles are more complex, with more feminist issues explored. One of the most interesting female protagonists I’ve watched in a long time? Detective Jane Timoney on Prime Suspect. A show I love that sadly comes to an end this Sunday night (1/22.)
Prime Suspect centers around NYC Homicide Detective Jane Timoney, played spectacularly by Maria Bello. I’ve been a long-time fan of Bello’s work from ER and A History of Violence to Payback and The Private Lives of Pippa Lee. Bello gives a tour-de-force performance as Detective Timoney, a role she personally identifies with since she envisions herself as Jane, only “nicer.”
It’s a gritty, raw and surprisingly funny show. Detective Exuding strength and keen intelligence, Jane Timoney is tough and self-reliant. She’s fearless and complicated with a big mouth and a bitingly sarcastic sense of humor. She drinks a lot and shoots perfectly at the firing range. She possesses a sharp mind that thinks of scenarios others might overlook when solving a homicide. Timoney doesn’t give a fuck what other people think about her and she’s not afraid to be herself. And that might be the most refreshing aspect of all.
Having a show revolve around a female detective isn’t a groundbreaking concept. Following in the footsteps of the original British series with Helen Mirren playing the lead, it echoes The Killing, The Closer, Saving Grace, Cold Case, Rizzoli & Isles, and Cagney & Lacey. But a show created and written by women, with a strong female lead who’s willing to say fuck you to anyone and everyone? You don’t see that every day.
Female protagonists aren’t often allowed to be unlikeable or do despicable things. Even rarer are the characters who don’t give a shit what anyone thinks of them. The female roles on TV I can think of include Roseanne Conner (Roseanne), Captain Kara Thrace (Battlestar Galactica), Maude Findlay (Maude), Elaine Benes (Seinfeld), Christine (New Adventures of Old Christine), Xena (Xena Warrior Princess) Jackie Peyton RN (Nurse Jackie), Dorothy Zbornak (Golden Girls) and Patty Hewes (Damages). Although, I happen to like almost all of these female characters.
Detective Jane Timoney (Maria Bello) “Prime Suspect”

In the premiere, the sexism Timoney faces jars and appalls. As a woman, she’s entered a perceived male domain. Her male colleagues insinuate and (some outright say) that she doesn’t deserve to be in homicide as she only got transferred to the department after sleeping with a chief. She faces the wrath of her co-worker, Detective Duffy, who accuses her of leading a homicide case only because another detective died of a heart attack.  To their chauvinistic paradigm, she’s transcended boundaries and they’re going to make sure she knows it. When Timoney finds another angle to the case and gets information out of a witness that the previous detectives hadn’t. Calling her a bitch (by implying she’s a witch), Detective Carter snarkily asks her:

Carter: You ever worry that someone’s gonna drop a house on you?
Timoney: Car’s not going to drive itself, is it?
Carter: I guess you don’t.
The original British series premiered in 1991, evolving out of sexism in Scotland Yard. When writer Lynda La Plante discovered only 4 women were Detective Chief Inspectors (DCIs), she created the show. The first season (or “series” in the UK) contends with sexism in the workplace and the hostility that Detective Jane Tennison (Helen Mirren) faced due to her gender.
While the premiere focused heavily on workplace sexism, the rest of the series shied away. Matt Zoller Seitz at Salon reports that Alexandra Cunningham and Peter Berg made a conscious decision to “tone down” the sexism in subsequent episodes. Before the show premiered, Cunningham said:

“Obviously, it’s 2011. There’s no institutionalized sexism. There’s human resources. Women have recourse at work when things happen. “Prime Suspect” [will] try to make it more realistic, because sexism isn’t gone. It’s kind of more subtle and insidious in a modern world, and that’s what we’re going to try to do.”

What? No institutionalized sexism?? I’m not sure what world Cunningham lives in but sexism, both blatant and subtle, still very much exists.

As the show progresses, we see Detective Timoney collaborate with her colleagues. We see the hilarious friendship and banter between Detectives Blando and Calderon. We also see Timoney clash with her co-workers, boss, her loving boyfriend, her protective father and her vegan sister (yay a vegan!). Detective Timoney might be a hard-ass. But she’s also funny as hell. Here are some of Jane Timoney’s quips throughout the season:

Timoney: I love to know where the crime scene isn’t.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Timoney: Ever seen a duck? Yeah, they don’t chew either. You just ate that hot dog like a duck.
Hypnotherapist: You don’t seem to be in the right head space to quit smoking right now.
Timoney: I don’t just want to smoke right now. I want to shove a pack of cigarettes in my mouth and light it with a blowtorch.
Timoney: You look tired means you look old. You look short. How’s that feel?
Duffy: Do you know what your problem is?
Timoney: Oh, why limit it to just one?

Detective Jane Timoney (Maria Bello) in “Prime Suspect”

In addition to sexism, the show also broached racism. In one of the episodes, 10 of Detective Timoney’s colleagues get pulled from a case of a murdered Latina to work on the murder of a pretty white female who’s an NYU student. Timoney tells the Chief:

“You’re making their point for them. You couldn’t have done it better…When it’s a missing brown girl, from a nobody family, it’s an afterthought.”

While I wish the show had delved deeper, I was thrilled this line appeared at all. Rarely does a TV show with a white protagonist tackle the intersection of racism and sexism.

Prime Suspect also makes interesting gender commentaries when Detective Timoney interacts with other women. There’s another female detective, Detective Carolina Rivera, who all the men flirt with. She’s coquettish and friendly in return. It’s a stark contrast to Detective Timoney’s no-nonsense, straight-forward style. She doesn’t care if the men like her. She’s there to do her job. Timoney also differs from her boyfriend’s ex-wife, Trish, who she often has to communicate with since her boyfriend and Trish share a young son. Trish often makes snide remarks about her carrying a gun or her line of work, especially when it co. Timoney isn’t a girlie girl. And she’s no pushover. In a great scene, after Trish asks Timoney what happened to her face (which is cut and bruised from fighting with an arrested suspect):


“Listen to me: I work terrible hours, often have to leave things early, I arrive to things late. I get phone calls in the middle of the night and all day long. I’ve never been shot, but I’ve been stabbed. I’ve had lye thrown in my face once, and I’m a homicide detective, Trish. Not a policeman or a policewoman. I’m also not a divorce lawyer, but I know about going to court.”

In “Underwater,” my fave episode so far, Timoney and Duffy go on a road trip to protect a little girl. Timoney grows fond of her, telling her she doesn’t like many people but that she likes her. While she’s close with her father and boyfriend, she has seemingly chosen not to have children of her own. In an episode where a man has beaten his wife and murdered her, he asks Detective Timoney why she doesn’t have children. She replies:

“I don’t know. Lucky.”

It’s rare for a female protagonist not to want children. Films, TV series and ads perpetually tell us all women want to have babies. If they don’t, they must be damaged, deluding themselves or they just haven’t found the right man yet. Because you know silly ladies, our lives revolve around men.

One of my favorite moments occurs in the premiere. In a heart-breaking scene, Timoney comes home to her boyfriend, after a grueling day. The two of them fought earlier. She asks him to hold her even though he’s mad because she had a rough day. In a rare moment of exasperation and tenderness, Timoney quietly cries in his arms. She’s not a caricature. She’s a fully developed, complex character who knows she can’t let down her guard and weep at work.

Detective Jane Timoney (Maria Bello) in “Prime Suspect”

In “The Sad Death of Prime Suspect,” Melissa Silverstein laments Prime Suspect’s cancellation. She also talks about the difficulties of centering a show around a female protagonist:


“One thing this show made me notice is how it is easy to write a TV show starring a man and have female and male supporting characters surround that lead, but that it is way harder to write a show about a female lead and to create a realistic ensemble around her.

“One of the issues with this show is that there were no other female credible characters on the show. It’s too much baggage for the female lead. She has to respond to the pretty cop who comes in and flirts, she has to deal with the crazy demands of her boyfriend’s ex, she has a crazy sister (where did that come from?). None of those women was a peer or someone she could have a decent conversation with to get her away from all the testosterone.”

That’s my one complaint of the show too: the lack of strong and interesting female characters for Timoney to interact with. No female camaraderie. No best friend to vent to. I wish the show contained a multitude of female characters or sexism in the workplace remained a central theme. But who knows where the show might have taken us.
Prime Suspect is a compelling show with a memorable female character. I’ll be sad as I watch the last 2 episodes Sunday night. I’m going to miss Detective Jane Timoney. We need more badass women like her.

‘War Redefined’ Challenges War as a Male Domain and Examines How Violent Conflict Impacts Women

When we think of war, we often think of soldiers, tanks, weapons and battlefields. But most wars breach boundaries, affecting civilians, mostly women and children. Soldiers, guerillas and paramilitaries use tactics such as rape, fear, murder and pushing people off their land. We need to shift our paradigm of war and look at how it affects women’s lives.
War Redefined, the 5th and final installment in Women, War & Peace (WWP), is the capstone of the groundbreaking series featuring politicians, military personnel, scholars and activists discussing how women play a vital role in war and peace-keeping. Narrated by actor Geena Davis, a phenomenal women’s media activist, written and produced by Peter Bull, co-produced by Nina Chaudry, this powerful film threads stories told in the other parts of the series: Bosnian women surviving rape camps, Liberian women protesting for peace, Afghan women demanding their rights in negotiations and Afro-Colombian women contending with internal displacement. War Redefined, and the entire WWP series, challenges the assumption that war and peace belong to men’s domain.
Zainab Salbi, Founder of Women for Women International, said: 

“If you look at the front line discussion of wars, and this is what newspapers report on – the fighting tactics, the troops, the politics, the borders, the weapons, the armies, all of these things – that is a men’s story. The back line discussion of the story is how you actually exist and live and continue on living in war. That’s a women’s story. And that story has never been told.”

Well, I think we’re long overdue for women’s stories to be told.
PROLIFERATION OF SMALL ARMS AND LIGHT WEAPONS
More than 30 armed conflicts, insurgencies and wars are fought each year. Each year?! In past wars, strategic bombing from high altitudes killed thousands. Now, except for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, “wars are smaller in scale and more intimate.” Civilians are no longer separate from battle. Often they’re targeted. In discussing war, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asserted:

“I think it’s way past time that we redefine what we mean by war because there are no front lines in the wars in today’s world…The primary victims in today’s wars are women and children.”

With “no international treaty regulating the global transfer of small weapons,” war has become simpler and more cost-efficient. Arms dealers supply warlords and guerillas with cheap weapons. It’s extremely difficult to control the distribution of small arms. Rachel Stohl discussed the staggering number of weapons produced:

“875 million small arms and light weapons in circulation today. About 650 million are in the hands of civilians. About 8 million weapons are produced newly every single year. About 10-14 million rounds of ammunition are produced every year. That’s enough weapons to arm 1 in every 8 people and enough ammunition to shoot everyone in the world twice. 

Wait, enough ammo to shoot everyone twice?! That’s mindboggling. 
Women are attacked in refugee camps and their homes. They face rape and sexual assault. Even when women aren’t the combatants, Stohl says “they’re often the victims of these weapons,” left to contend with the aftermath.
HUMAN SECURITY
Security intertwines with war, taking into account personal safety. Human security, as Professor Kaldor explains, is an alternative to national security. It puts the focus on protecting individuals and communities, not states and borders. 
In Afghanistan, women’s rights activist Shahida Hussein said she felt safer during the oppressive regime of the Taliban. Safer DURING the Taliban?! Women were able to go to the market and restaurants. But after the U.S. invaded, along with the proliferation of weapons and “atmosphere of potential violence,” it’s no longer safe, imprisoning women in their homes.
One way to protect women’s security is to engage them. Sgt. Abby Blaisdell leads a Female Engagement Team (FET) in Afghanistan. In many areas, unless they’re related, “women are forbidden from interacting with men.” The soldiers talk with women about their needs, including healthcare and education, “to improve their quality of life.”
Security goes beyond weapons. It includes many basic amenities we take for granted. Professor (and feminist!) Cynthia Enloe questioned:

“When you start thinking about women and war, you really change your idea about what security is. Security becomes, is there water out of the tap? Or, is the well polluted? You begin thinking about electricity or what happens to women’s security when electricity fails. How do they make a living in the middle of war?”

INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT
But how can you begin to think about human security when people are uprooted from their homes? Reaching “epidemic proportions,” the number of people internally displaced by violence conflicts “has increased more than 65% since the Cold War ended.”
In Colombia, guerillas and paramilitaries terrorize Afro-Colombian citizens, trying to drive them from their homes to control the gold-rich land. In 2002, guerillas launched a gas attack against paramilitaries near the village of Bojidar. A bomb landed in a church, killing 119 villagers, mostly women and children. After fleeing the massacre, the survivors joined the other 4 million internally displaced in Colombia, “one of the worst and least reported humanitarian crises in the world.”
Displacement isn’t temporary, usually lasting 5 years or more. Nobel Peace Prize-winning activist Leymah Gbowee was a refugee during Liberia’s civil war:

“Refugee life, displaced life, is one of the most undignified ways of life. It’s horrible. You don’t have a comfortable bed. You don’t have a comfortable place to sleep. Sometimes medical aid is non-existent. You rarely find food to eat. You become frozen in that moment when you left. So wherever you find yourself, your whole mind about your community is about when you left.”

When people are refugees in their own country, when should other nations respect a nation’s sovereignty and when should they intervene?
RAPE AS A WEAPON OF WAR
One of the most horrifying aspects of war is the pervasiveness of rape.
Major General Patrick Cammaert “shocked the U.N with his first-hand testimony” on the rise of rape as a weapon of war:

“It has probably become more dangerous to be a woman than a soldier in an armed conflict.”

Wait, WHAT?! It’s shocking that one’s gender alone could endanger them more than a soldier.
When faced with rape and sexual assault against women and girls, Major General Cammaert said he wasn’t “prepared for that kind of violence.” Used to uproot and humiliate women, he discussed rape’s ramifications on society:

“Any armed group that is using rape as a weapon and a tactic of war is destroying the community. The women are booted out of the community. Husbands are divorcing their wives. They are mentally broken and therefore it is such an effective weapon. You demoralize, you humiliate those people and destroy the fabric of society.”

It took the international community awhile to realize rape during war had become systematic, rather than isolated incidents. But rape as a weapon of war has been used for decades. 
Russian soldiers raped 900,000 German women in WWII. When Bangladesh split from Pakistan in 1971, Pakistani soldiers tortured and raped 200,000-400,000 Banglasdeshi women. Ethnic cleansing by Serbs caused an estimated 20,000 Bosnian Muslims to flee their homes. War crimes investigator Fadila Memisevic recorded first-hand accounts of their brutal attacks, compiling a list of over 1300 suspected rapists. Soldiers rounded women up in rape camps and raped 20,000-50,000 Bosnian women. During the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda, Hutu forces murdered 1 million ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus. It emerged later that “atrocities included the rape of as many as half a million Tutsi women and girls.”
In groundbreaking war crimes tribunals established for Bosnia and Rwanda, for the first time, rape was charged and convicted as “a crime against humanity.” Memisevic’s files were crucial evidence in getting rape recognized as a war crime. “Female prosecutors and justices were instrumental in pushing for and handing down convictions.” 
But the passage of laws doesn’t automatically alter behavior. In the eastern Congo, rebel groups battle to control diamond and gold mines. With “nearly 2 million women and children raped…at a rate of nearly 1 every minute,” the DRC has been called “the rape capital” of the world.
WOMEN IN NEGOTIATIONS
Despite atrocities affecting women, they are often shut out of the peace process. Around the world, women’s organizations challenge the notion that “that only those who are the key actors in war should be the key actors in peace.” 
In 2000, pressured by female activists, the U.N. Security Council adopted resolution 1325, which mandates women’s inclusion in all post-conflict negotiations and reconstructions. Despite this historic step, women still comprise less than 10% of those involved in “formal peace negotiations.” Secretary Clinton is helping to change that. In Afghanistan, she valiantly advocates women must be included in the peace process.
Sometimes women take matters into their own hands. The women of Liberia, led by Leymah Gbowee, joined together and peacefully protested, helping end the civil war ravaging their country. Their protests led to the ousting of warlord Charles Taylor. In 2005, Liberia elected Africa’s first female president, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. Under her leadership, Liberia has experienced the longest period of peace and prosperity. 
Earlier this year in Cote d’Ivoire, women in the city of Abidjan protested peacefully against President Gbagbo, who refused to relinquish power. Soldiers loyal to him opened fire, killing 7 women. Gbowee organized a 1,000 Women March in solidarity with the women of Cote d’Ivoire. They came together in unity. Gbowee said:

“You can’t sit and say this is one country’s issue when you are a woman and all of the wars in our region now our fought on the bodies of women. These are things that have really made it important for us as West African women to rise up and speak.”

Madeline Albright discussed the need for reconciliation and respect, of women and each other’s differences. Secretary Clinton mentioned the rise of social media in bringing visibility to social issues and fueling activism:
“Women themselves have to empower themselves, it has to come from within. And it has in so many different settings. It’s not only because it’s the right thing to have women’s voices, minority voices, etc., in the room. It’s no longer going to be possible to keep them out of the process.”
While it can certainly be watched alone, War Redefined provides an arc connecting all of the individual stories in the WWP series. A testament to compelling storytelling, I kept yearning for more, particularly coverage of women’s role in the Arab Spring. This powerful film provides an eye-opening global overview of the atrocities and obstacles women must overcome in war. 
The film left me with so many questions. How can people commit such atrocities to women? How can I stop rape or end displacement or help raise women’s voices in negotiations? How can we each make a difference?
Women are often forgotten in war. Their voices must be heard. It’s vital we include a gender lens when discussing conflict. In the film, a West African woman protesting said: 

“One African woman cries, we cry all over…We are all speaking with one voice.” 

I think it’s time we women united globally and started speaking with one voice.
Watch the full episode of War Redefined online or on PBS.

Megan Kearns is a feminist vegan blogger, freelance writer and activist. She blogs at The Opinioness of the World, where she shares her opinions on gender equality, living cruelty-free, Ellen Ripley and delish vegan cupcakes. Her work has also appeared at Arts & Opinion, Fem2pt0, Italianieuropei, Open Letters Monthly, and A Safe World for Women. She earned a B.A. in Anthropology and Sociology and a Graduate Certificate in Women and Politics and Public Policy. Megan lives in Boston with more books than she will probably ever read in her lifetime. She is a Monthly Guest Contributor to Bitch Flicks.

2012 Golden Globe Nominations

Here they are! I don’t have much to say about these (yet), but if we’ve reviewed them or commented on them, I’ll link you up.

Best Motion Picture — Drama

“The Descendants”
“The Help”
“Hugo”
“The Ides of March”
“Moneyball”
“War Horse”

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture — Drama

Glenn Close, “Albert Nobbs”
Viola Davis, “The Help”
Rooney Mara, “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo”
Meryl Streep, “The Iron Lady”
Tilda Swinton, “We Need to Talk About Kevin”

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture — Drama

George Clooney, “The Descendants”
Leonardo DiCaprio, “J. Edgar”
Michael Fassbender, “Shame”
Ryan Gosling, “The Ides of March”
Brad Pitt, “Moneyball”

Best Motion Picture — Comedy or Musical

“50/50″
“The Artist”
“Bridesmaids”
“Midnight in Paris”
“My Week With Marilyn”

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture — Comedy or Musical

Jodie Foster, “Carnage”
Charlize Theron, “Young Adult”
Kristen Wiig, “Bridesmaids”
Michelle Williams, “My Week With Marilyn”
Kate Winslet, “Carnage”

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture — Comedy or Musical

Jean Dujardin, “The Artist”
Brendan Gleeson, “The Guard”
Joseph Gordon-Levitt, “50/50”
Ryan Gosling, “Crazy, Stupid, Love”
Owen Wilson, “Midnight in Paris”

Best Animated Feature Film

“The Adventures of Tintin”
“Arthur Christmas”
“Cars 2”
“Puss in Boots”
“Rango”

Best Foreign Language Film

“The Flowers of War” (China)
“In the Land of Blood and Honey” (USA)
“The Kid With a Bike” (Belgium)
“A Separation” (Iran)
“The Skin I Live In” (Spain)

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture

Berenice Bejo, “The Artist”
Jessica Chastain, “The Help”
Janet McTeer, “Albert Nobbs”
Octavia Spencer, “The Help”
Shailene Woodley, “The Descendants”

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture

Kenneth Branagh, “My Week With Marilyn”
Albert Brooks, “Drive”
Jonah Hill, “Moneyball”
Viggo Mortensen, “A Dangerous Method”
Christopher Plummer, “Beginners”

Best Director — Motion Picture

Woody Allen, “Midnight in Paris”
George Clooney, “The Ides of March”
Michel Hazanavicius, “The Artist”
Alexander Payne, “The Descendants”
Martin Scorsese, “Hugo”

Best Screenplay — Motion Picture

Woody Allen, “Midnight in Paris”
George Clooney, Grant Heslov, Beau Willimon – “The Ides of March”
Michel Hazanavicius – “The Artist”
Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, Jim Rash – “The Descendants”
Steven Zaillian, Aaron Sorkin – “Moneyball”

Best Television Series — Drama

“American Horror Story”
“Boardwalk Empire”
“Boss”
“Game of Thrones”
“Homeland”

Best Performance by an Actress in a Television Series — Drama

Claire Danes, “Homeland”
Mireille Enos, “The Killing”
Julianna Margulies, “The Good Wife”
Madeleine Stowe, “Revenge”
Callie Thorne, “Necessary Roughness”

Best Performance by an Actor in a Television Series — Drama

Steve Buscemi, “Boardwalk Empire”
Bryan Cranston, “Breaking Bad”
Kelsey Grammer, “Boss”
Jeremy Irons, “The Borgias”
Damian Lewis, “Homeland”

Best Television Series — Comedy or Musical

“Enlightened”
“Episodes”
“Glee”
“Modern Family”
“New Girl”

Best Performance by an Actress in a Television Series — Comedy or Musical

Laura Dern, “Enlightened”
Zooey Deschanel, “New Girl”
Tina Fey, “30 Rock”
Laura Linney, “The Big C”
Amy Poehler, “Parks and Recreation”

Best Performance by an Actor in a Television Series — Comedy or Musical

Alec Baldwin, “30 Rock”
David Duchovny, “Californication”
Johnny Galecki, “The Big Bang Theory”
Thomas Jane, “Hung”
Matt LeBlanc, “Episodes”

Best Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made for Television

“Cinema Verite”
“Downton Abbey”
“The Hour”
“Mildred Pierce”
“Too Big to Fail”

Best Performance by an Actress in a Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made for Television

Romola Garai, “The Hour”
Diane Lane, “Cinema Verite”
Elizabeth McGovern, “Downton Abbey” (Masterpiece)
Emily Watson, “Appropriate Adult”
Kate Winslet, “Mildred Pierce”

Best Performance by an Actor in a Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made for Television

Hugh Bonneville, “Downtown Abbey” (Masterpiece)
Idris Elba, “Luther”
William Hurt, “Too Big to Fail”
Bill Nighy, “Page Eight” (Masterpiece)
Dominic West, “The Hour”

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Series, Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made for Television

Jessica Lange, “American Horror Story”
Kelly MacDonald, “Boardwalk Empire”
Maggie Smith, “Downtown Abbey” (Masterpiece)
Sofia Vergara, “Modern Family”
Evan Rachel Wood, “Mildred Pierce”

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Series, Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made for Television

Peter Dinklage, “Game of Thrones”
Paul Giamatti, “Too Big to Fail”
Guy Pearce, “Mildred Pierce”
Tim Robbins, “Cinema Verite”
Eric Stonestreet, “Modern Family”

Profiling Gender: Punishing the Professional for the Personal on ‘Criminal Minds’

This is a guest post by Brandy Grabow.  

Employing embedded feminism and enlightened sexism, Criminal Minds uses familiar tropes to reinforce the idea that women can either be professionals or mothers, but never both. As a prime-time drama based almost entirely in the workplace, how women are treated on the show becomes an important representation, and subtle reinforcement, of the double binds still faced by working women. Criminal Minds, and prime-time shows like it, reinforce double binds because they reach a wide audience, and are typically employed in conjunction with what Susan J. Douglas termed embedded feminism, which is “the way in which women’s achievements, or their desire for achievement, are simply a part of the cultural landscape.” The cultural landscape of the Criminal Minds universe is that women FBI agents are valued, trusted, and competent members of the team. Their abilities and equality within the institution are uncontested; therefore, the workplace goals of the women’s movement have been accomplished, and no longer require representation.

When we look closely at the numbers of women portrayed as professionals in these shows and the number of women actually working in these professions, it is clear that feminism is embedded in dramas like Criminal Minds. In 2009 Kimberly DeTardo-Bora published the results of a study in which she conducted a feminist content analysis of popular prime-time crime dramas from January 2007 through May 2007. The details of her study are fascinating, and I encourage you to read the rest of her article in the journal Women & Criminal Justice. In order to capture the wide variety of professions depicted in crime dramas, researchers looked at the “criminal justice” field, which included police, lawyers, judges, federal agents, etc. What the study found was that among the main characters in their sample of crime dramas, 54.9% were male, and 40.6% were female. In addition to the nearly equal numbers of men and women, women appeared to work in the same types of positions as men; they were just as likely to be prosecutors, or criminal investigators. While in prime-time dramas women appear to have achieved near equality with men in the criminal justice fields, as DeTardo-Bora points out, the reality is slightly different: “According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2006), 26% of criminal investigators and detectives [were] female. In [De-Tardo-Bardo’s] study, then, female criminal investigators were in fact overrepresented (39.3%).” Even though Criminal Minds was not in the sample of crime dramas for this study the gender breakdown of its cast reflects the overrepresentation of women. Of the seven main characters (six criminal investigators, and one technical analyst) 4 are male, and 3 female. This overrepresentation of women visually reinforces the idea that the goals of feminism, at least the numerical ones, have been achieved. Women characters, then, do not have to overtly espouse feminist principles, because in their television reality there is no need for them.

As a part of the cultural landscape, embedded feminism, suggests that overt sexism does not have to be confronted, and enlightened sexism can circulate freely. Douglas defines enlightened sexism as, “[the insistence] that women have made plenty of progress because of feminism – indeed, full equality has allegedly been achieved—so now it’s okay, even amusing, to resurrect sexist stereotypes of girls and women.” The number of women represented on a show like Criminal Minds supports the notion that equality has been achieved. The fact that women are also overwhelmingly the victims of crime on the show can go unremarked, as can the increasingly voyeuristic torture-porn like depictions of female cadavers. The embedded feminism of the Criminal Minds world also masks the enlightened sexism in the form of double binds the women investigators face.

Although there are several problematic patterns in the way the writers of Criminal Minds treat the female agents on the show, I want to focus on the women characters as they are written off the show. On June 14th 2010 CBS announced that it would not renew AJ Cook’s contract for the sixth season, which as Michael Aussielo put it in his “Breaking” report for Entertainment Weekly.com, “is a fancy way of saying girlfriend was fired.” Not renewing AJ Cook’s contract would mean regular character Jennifer Jareau would have to be written out. Eventually, for what was publicized as financial reasons, CBS also drastically reduced the episode count of Paget Brewster’s character Emily Prentiss for the sixth season. While other women have left the show, I’d like to focus on the season six treatment of AJ Cook, and Paget Brewster’s characters. During the course of the season each character is left with a no-choice-choice that traps them in the womb/brain double bind, and in the end each is punished by losing her position on the investigative team.

For Agent Jareau the womb/brain bind takes the form of family vs. work dilemmas that have plagued her character since she announced her pregnancy at the end of Season 3. Although her pregnancy didn’t seem to have a major effect on her ability to do her job, or travel with the team, once she gave birth to her son, Henry, her character routinely faced these family vs. work conflicts. Until finally, her status as a mother became a reason to question her ability to do her job (was the actress herself pregnant?) Yes the pregnancy was quickly written into the show for her. I think that’s part of why things didn’t get overtly sexist until later.

Agent Jareau’s job as a part of the Behavior Analysis Unit’s team is to choose which cases they will pursue. In the “Mosely Lane” episode of season five her ability to do her job is questioned when she begins to see connections between a recent kidnapping and a case that is 8 years old. As she and Agent Prentiss present the links between the cases to the team, Agent Morgan challenges her by saying, “Have you thought about why you suddenly believe [in the connections]? Do you think it might be because you are a mother?” He, and the other male agents in the room, remain unconvinced the cases are related until Agent Prentiss lays out the similarities, and ends by saying, “…and, I am not a mother.” It is as if Agent Jareau’s status as a mother makes her ability to see connections between the cases suspect; whereas, Agent Prentiss’ status as “not a mother” somehow lends credence to her analysis. Although Agent Jareau has faced difficult choices between work and family in the past, this is the first time her ability to do her job is doubted based solely upon the fact that she is a mother.

The “Mosely Lane” incident is significant because it lays the foundation for the no-choice-choice Agent Jareau must make when she is later forced from the team. The second, and her final, episode of season six is simply titled “J.J.”, Agent Jareau’s nickname. The episode begins with a tense meeting between Agent Jareau, team leader Aaron Hotchner, and his boss, Section Chief Erin Strauss. During the meeting we learn that Jareau has rejected recruitment offers from the Pentagon without letting either Hotchner or Strauss know. As Strauss tries to convince Jareau that the Pentagon is offering her a better job, her primary argument is that, “…there’s less travel with this job, you could stay home with Henry.” The implication being that Agent Jareau’s ability to mother is compromised by the travel required in her current position. By the end of the episode we learn that Jareau has been forcibly transferred from the team to the Pentagon. Since Strauss’ only support for her claim that the Pentagon job would be better was “less travel” and “more time at home,” the course of Agent Jareau’s professional life is now being determined by her personal status as a mother. In the previous season, Agent Jareau’s ability to do her job was questioned because of her role as a mother; and her ability to mother is now suspect because of the travel associated with her job. Forced into taking the promotion, her no-choice-choice is to keep a job by accepting a position she does not want. Therefore, Agent Jareau’s removal from her team can be interpreted as a punishment for attempting to be both a mother and an agent.

Although she is, in her own words, “not a mother,” Agent Prentiss finds herself in a form of the womb/brain bind, and punished by removal from her team. When the two episode arc that marks the end of Prentiss’ presence on the show begins, a case from her past as a CIA operative resurfaces. While undercover to take down an ex-IRA arms dealer, Prentiss becomes romantically involved with Ian Doyle. As her involvement in the case is revealed to the team, we are initially led to believe Doyle, seeking revenge on the woman who betrayed him, is hunting her down. At first it appears that Prentiss’ romantic past, specifically her willingness to use her sexuality to get to Doyle, has come back to haunt her. However, in a series of flashbacks we learn that Doyle revealed the existence of his son, Declan, to her by asking her to take on the role of the boy’s mother. Knowing she is undercover and that the relationship will end when the case is over, she refuses.

In the present as Doyle is about to kill Prentiss, she reveals she has actually compromised her career by acting, like a mother, to protect Declan after his father’s arrest. She explains that she did not tell her superiors of Declan’s existence until she had faked his death. She states, she knew what “they [CIA/Interpol] would do to him” in order to get to Doyle. Prentiss was faced with a no-choice-choice between acting as a surrogate mother to a terrorist’s son (putting herself in danger from Doyle), and acting as an international agent giving him up to the authorities, who she knew would harm him psychologically (at the very least). Prentiss chose to act as a surrogate mother to Declan, protecting him by faking his death, effectively hiding him from his father and the authorities. Choosing to act like a mother in the past is punished in the present when, for her own safety, Prentiss must fake her death and walk away from the job, and team she loves.

That both Agents Jareau and Prentiss are made to leave their team based on either their status as a mother, or their willingness to act like one when faced with a no-choice-choice, is a clear example of the embedded sexism within the show. It is a weekly reminder to professional women that the same double binds they have faced throughout history still apply. They can either be mothers at home, or professionals in the workplace, but not both. The embedded feminism in such dramas, only makes the messages of enlightened sexism that much stronger. Embedding feminism, even if it is primarily through the numbers of women, into dramas like Criminal Minds provides the writers with the opportunity to show the world what real feminist change in the work place could look like, instead of trapping women in the same old double binds.

—–
Brandy Grabow completed her MA in English at the University of North Carolina Greensboro, and her BA in Theatre Arts from Minnesota State University, Mankato. At UNCG she served as a writing consultant and the Graduate Assistant Director to the Writing Center. As the Coordinator of Writing and Speaking Tutorial Services enjoys working with the diverse students and faculty of NC State.

Afghan Women Fight to Not Have Their Rights Bargained Away in ‘Peace Unveiled’ in ‘Women, War & Peace’ Series

This is a guest post by Megan Kearns. She also contributed reviews of Part 1 and Part 2 of Women, War & Peace.

For the past year, revolutions swept across North Africa and the Middle East. Despite their vocal presence, the media didn’t initially display women’s involvement in the protests. The same could be said in Afghanistan. It appeared the strides women made might be lost as women were shut out of the peace process. But just as they did in the Arab Spring, women strive to play a vital role in the reconstruction of Afghanistan.
In the documentary Peace Unveiled, the third installment of Women, War & Peace, written by Abigail E. Disney and directed by Gini Reticker (and WWP series co-creators), we witness 3 tenacious female activists, Parliamentarian Shinkai Karokhail, Hasina Safi and Shahida Hussein, struggling for their voices to be heard in Afghanistan’s treacherous peace negotiations. Following the 2010 surge of U.S. troops, the Afghan government arranged peace negotiations with the toppled Taliban. The women valiantly fight to protect their gains and not have their rights bargained away.
Hasina Safi, one of the 3,000 members of the Afghan Women’s Network (AWN), a non-partisan NGO working to empower women, visits villages to monitor the programs she coordinates for illiterate women. Classes for women could not be held openly with the Taliban in power. Almost 90% of Afghan women cannot read or write. Through classes, many women are just learning Islam encourages women’s education.
But working women like Safi risk their lives. They receive death threats via horrific letters in the night, telling them they must stop working or else their children will be killed and their homes burned. Safi admits:

When I go out of the house in the morning, I say goodbye to my children and my family because I say that I never know if I’m coming alive back home or not.

 

While women have made massive strides in Afghanistan, a peace deal between the Afghan government and the Taliban, supported by President Karzai, “threatens to trade away their hard-earned freedoms.”
Shinkai Karokhail, a founding member of the Afghan Women Educational Center (AWEC), a non-profit seeking gender equality and ending violence against women and children, was elected to parliament in 2005. Karokhail doesn’t want to see women’s rights erode. She warns:

I am hopeful that my sisters understand the importance of this process…I hope that the Afghan government and, especially, the president, whom women helped elect, do not make a deal that leads Afghan women into miserable lives again.

Women’s lives have drastically improved since the toppling of the Taliban in 2001. In 2004, Afghanistan’s new constitution guaranteed greater equity for women, including the right to vote and 25% of parliamentary seats. Now, women work, girls attend school, have increased healthcare access and can choose not to wear the burqa. Sadly, that doesn’t mean women are empowered everywhere throughout the country.

 

In heavily-populated Kandahar, “the birthplace of the Taliban,” the city is plagued with administrative corruption and armed men terrorizing citizens. “Prominent working women are being assassinated. No one knows who’s doing the killing.” Women must wear the burqa to go into the streets. It’s amazing to think that a new constitution protects women’s rights, yet means nothing here.
Shahida Hussein, a women’s rights activist in Kandahar, stands as a beacon of hope amongst the tumult. Women turn to her with their legal and property problems. Hussein serves as a mediator between them and the courts. Yet she worries:

Women go out with great fear & trepidation. Will there be a suicide attack? Will American tanks or NATO forces fire on people?

Despite the supposed protection of U.S. troops, women aren’t safe here. In fact, Afghanistan remains one of the most dangerous countries in the world for women. An anonymous woman wearing a burqa tells Hussein:

When I go out I’m terrified. We are powerless. What kind of government is this? Neither the Americans nor the government rule here. The Americans are on one street and the Taliban on another. They can see each other!

After the end of the Soviet occupation in 1988, civil war erupted in Afghanistan. The U.S. supplied arms to the Mujahideen (guerilla fighters), fueling the turmoil that ripped the country apart. Homes were destroyed, people raped, burned and massacred. The Taliban emerged from this chaos, coming to power in 1996. Karokhail said:

During the time of the Taliban, women endured the worst era. They were imprisoned in their homes, every form of activity in their lives was taken away.

For 5 years, the Taliban ruthlessly oppressed women. They were forced to wear the burqa; if women showed even a hand, they were beaten. “Banned from public life,” they weren’t allowed to work and couldn’t go to a doctor without a male relative, even if in mortal danger. Those years “haunt women who are trying to modernize their country.”
Women strive to be heard; worried the Taliban’s demands will undermine their rights. Yet President Karzai and the government continually shut them out of peace negotiations. No Afghan women were invited to the London Conference for the Afghan peace talks. Male politicians tell the women they must now “surrender their rights” in order to achieve peace with the Taliban. Instead, the women don’t listen, choosing to mobilize so they can be included in Karzai’s peace jirga, or council.
President Karzai promised women only 50 out of 1600 seats at the jirga. But Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pressures Karzai to secure women 20% of the delegate seats. Safi, Hussein and Karokhail all attend to advocate for women’s rights.
On June 2, 2010, the day of the peace jirga, the women take part in the first public debate amongst Afghan citizens to help end the war. Despite attacks from the Taliban, the jirga continues. Karokhail knows the symbolical significance of women’s attendance in negotiations. She asserts:

It was the first time that Afghan women came together with Afghan men and discuss peace. Maybe it was even very symbolical but it was like breaking something, like break the culture and impose the presence of women.

 

Amidst peace negotiations, a Parliamentary election looms. Karokhail was the only woman running for Parliament in Kabul. Unsure she should even enter politics, thinking she couldn’t accomplish much, Karokhail’s friends convinced her that this “is the most important time” to run. Facing campaign fraud and candidates assassinated, Karokhail bravely persists in her re-election campaign. She knows that in order to win, she needs the respect of the men. Karokhail declares:

Most of these men also make decisions for their wives to whom they should vote. You have to convince them to support women.

But as research in India has shown, once you get women into political office, both men and women are more likely to support more women serving in office. It’s vital to have more elected officials like Karokhail, staunch advocates for women’s rights.
When another peace conference is held in Kabul with over 70 nations in attendance, Safi and AWN representatives meet with Ambassador Karl Eikenberry to garner women a seat. As a result of their meeting, a women’s representative will have 3 minutes to address the conference with their concerns.
Secretary Clinton addresses the Kabul Conference, insisting on the importance of including women in Afghanistan’s peace process. She asserts:

The women in Afghanistan are rightly worried that in the very legitimate search for peace, their rights will be sacrificed…None of us can allow that to happen. No peace that sacrifices women’s rights is a peace we can afford to support.

Palwasha Hassan, an AWN Representative and Karokhail’s sister, spoke as a representative for the women. She insists that “for peace to take hold, everyone in society must be protected.” Hassan became “the first woman ever to address the world from an Afghan stage.” She passionately declares:

Critically, women’s rights & achievements must not be compromised in any peace negotiations or accords…Women’s experiences of both war and peace-building must be recognized in the peace process.

But her words go unheard. When the conference concludes, no one “stipulates that women must take part in reshaping the nation.” Disappointed and disheartened at the lack of support for women, Hussein laments:

Girls in Kandahar have had acid thrown in their faces. Girls have been assassinated. They have been kept at home by their fathers. Schools are being burned. In the rural districts, there are no schools at all.

…What astonishes me, what my final issue is that the world community came, saying, “We will work for the people of Afghanistan, especially for the women.” It’s worse than being a dead person in Kandahar. We don’t have a life anymore.

Following the Kabul Conference, President Karzai forms a Peace Council to reconcile with the Taliban. Secretary Clinton sends U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues Melanne Verveer to ensure women participate in negotiations. Ambassador Verveer worries Karzai doesn’t want to include women in negotiations. But she hopes to secure women at least one-third of the seats on the peace council.
When President Karzai finally announces the Peace Council representatives, the government shuts women out again. Equality remains elusive.
Despite barriers and set-backs, Safi remains resilient. She asserts:

I don’t want to go back. I want to make it easy for my daughters. We will struggle; we will struggle till our last breath. We cannot do anything alone. We are a part of the world. We have to be identified to the world. The world has to support us in this.

Women provide a unique perspective when included in the decision-making process. Yet across the globe, with gender parity in politics a rarity, women are continually relegated to the sidelines of most peace negotiations. Until women and men can participate equally, their rights protected, no peace can exist. Governments must learn that if they ever hope to attain lasting peace, they need to start listening to the voices of their entire population.
Afghan women face an uncertain future as they fight to hold onto their rights. After 9/11, I remember the rallying cries of U.S. politicians claiming we liberated the women of Afghanistan from the Taliban’s totalitarian regime. But all of the women’s freedoms they’ve garnered for themselves threaten to be taken away. The international community must ensure that never happens.
Watch the full episode of Peace Unveiled online or on PBS.
—–

Megan Kearns is a blogger, freelance writer and activist. She blogs at The Opinioness of the World, a feminist vegan site. Her work has also appeared at Arts & Opinion, Fem2pt0, Italianieuropei, Open Letters Monthly, and A Safe World for Women. She earned her B.A. in Anthropology and Sociology and a Graduate Certificate in Women and Politics and Public Policy. Megan lives in Boston with more books than she will probably ever read in her lifetime.

Megan contributed reviews of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, The Girl Who Played with Fire, The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest, Something Borrowed, !Women Art Revolution, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, The Kids Are All Right (for 2011 Best Picture Nominee Review Series), The Reader (for 2009 Best Picture Nominee Review Series), Man Men (for Mad Men Week), Game of Thrones and The Killing (for Emmy Week 2011), Alien/Aliens (for Women in Horror Week 2011), and I Came to Testify in the  Women, War & Peace series. She was the first writer featured as a Monthly Guest Contributor.