Outlaw Needs

Outlaw Needs the illegitimate, non-hegemonic ways we meet our basic needs of love, affection, education, leisure time, health care, food, shelter, etc. Examples: non-heterosexual love, using illegal drugs as a recreational activity or as a medicine, robbery

The fight for social justice isn’t just about anger and outrage.  Anger and outrage are merely the starting point for understanding why we’re so motivated (and unmotivated) to resist.  For example, many out there see the #Occupy Movement as just a mass riot of trouble making, angry anarchists with no objectives or demands. The anger is real and legitimate, precisely because our needs and the needs of our loved ones aren’t being met.  We’re out there because oppression and exploitation proliferate and control us.  Our health care is shitty, exploitative, profit motivated.  Our lives revolve around meaningless consumerism. Our jobs, if we have one, are alienating, boring, underpaid, meticulous, competitive. Our very lives and the lives of those we love are broken and fragmented, destroyed by forces which are kept invisible and hidden from our eyes.

Yes, this movement is fired by anger, an anger which should be understood, realized, and paid close attention to, but—complimentary to that—a movement endures through our love for others and for our community.  We human beings want fulfilling, enriching lives where we are free to act and love in a world which is safe, but we are, although rightfully, too busy with the agony and pain we are experiencing under a system that hasn’t been addressing our fundamental needs.

It is important to recognize that love is connected to our survival needs.  Historical Materialism¹, in fact, takes survival needs as a starting point (i.e., as a species we require food, shelter, etc.).  But humans meet these needs socially—through concrete, historically-specific modes of social organization. We keep our bodies alive through social interaction as we must support one another and care for one another in order to survive.  The easiest example is the one where caretakers feed, cloth, and care for young who are helpless on their own.  This demonstrates that we need one another and need love from others in order to survive and thrive.  Hence, social interaction IS a vital need just as water or food is a vital need.  Love IS a vital need as we need others to care about us in order to survive.

Workers in capitalist society, however, don’t control their human needs, but are in fact outlawed and controlled.  This is one site of struggle under capitalism.  When workers exchange their labor power for a wage, they’re forced to give up their human needs in several ways.  First, the minimum wage isn’t a livable wage as it doesn’t cover the costs of basic needs (i.e. food, clothing, housing, health care, education, intellectual and creative development).  Second, the production of labor power (i.e. care for the proceeding generations of workers, children) is not fully covered by wages.  The feeding, clothing, and caring of children is underpaid or unpaid as this has been seen as women’s natural unpaid role, i.e. the mother.  Third, and lastly, consciousness has been commodified, which has separated mind from body, public from private, ways of knowing from their historical material conditions, and love from the meeting of human needs.

Critical psychology was elaborated in the early 1970s by European Marxists who rejected mainstream bourgeois psychology. One of their key concepts is Action Potence, which refers to an individual’s ability to satisfy needs and assure a satisfactory life.  There are two types of Action Potence: Restricted Action Potence and Generalized Action Potence.  Restricted Action Potence refers to an individual trying to make the best of their current position. Generalized Action Potence, on the other hand, refers to an individual trying to go beyond their current positioning in order to better their existing position. The first refers to action that is immanent to the existing order, while the latter attempts to transcend that order.

Restricted Action Potence is encouraged under capitalism as it maintains the capitalist system by producing compliant subjects who accept their current, alienating social conditions.  Sexual identities (and all other reified identities) are an example of Restricted Action Potence as they restrict the power to collectively change the existing society as it divides social relationships.  So what is the Generalized Action Potence which can see change and go beyond our existing conditions?  Revolutionary love which begins with our human needs and relates them to the historical reality of capitalism and to the form of society that will emerge from its ashes. 

Outlaw needs are the grounds for beginning the process of politicizing capitalism and people.  We need to tap into people’s alienated labor, their costly health care, their dead end jobs which pay little, their dehumanized sexualities, their depleting leisure time, even their boredom.  This is the starting point for politicizing people and helping them see that capitalism is a dead end.  Our own personal lives are destructed and decaying due to the current exploitative system of capitalism which outlaws so many of our basic needs.

 We must also begin with the exiting realities and see that we cannot dismiss people’s experiences, which are organized through reified categories (like gender and sexual identities), but we must work on them and beyond them through the process of creating collective consciousness. And that’s not just a rational process, but one that is also affective, emotional and symbolic.  We should work on forming collective consciousness through disidentification. That is to say, through an unlearning practice/process where we work on our existing ways of identifying by uprooting them in order to see them in a historical frame which was produced from a mode of production which outlaws many human needs.  This process is not easy, and can lead to fear, anger, and frustration as it calls into question the identities we’ve relied on our whole lives.  This process is never over as we are limited by our historical position and always in a position of reworking our awareness to make visible the historical and material conditions of capitalist culture.

(1) According to The German Ideology by Marx and Engels, historical materialism’s starting point for social theory is the presence of real living individuals who need to produce what is needed to survive (i.e. Species Being).  Under Capitalism, our Species Being is mediated by the collective of human laborers, but these human laborers are stratified into a class structure where the product of their labor is owned and controlled by the bourgeoisie in order to accumulate a profit.  Capitalists extract this surplus labor from human laborers in order to obtain a profit.  

 What is Feminism? An Introduction to Feminist Theory by Chris Beasley summarizes seven definable “types” of feminism which include Liberal, Radical, Marxist, Socialist, Psychoanalytic, Postmodern or Poststructuralist, and Race/Ethnicity Feminists.  There are many more definable categories of feminism but the book restricts itself to these seven westernized feminisms, which I think is a mistake.  This is a mistake because it limits what feminism is as a whole, taking in only some of the pieces of the whole puzzle.  Without a complete puzzle, the finished picture cannot be discerned, nor be meaningfully discussed.  However, this focus on a few western feminisms does help us zoom in a bit, aiding us in getting a closer look at specific areas of feminism or specific pieces of the puzzle.

While feminism is difficult to define and has extremely diverse perspectives, there are some premises that can be discerned.  Feminism is usually understood as expanding, altering, or breaking away from traditional social and political thought or what could also be referred to as mainstream thought.  Mainstream thought is seen as being flawed as it’s seen as being ‘malestream’, focusing on men as the center of analysis and leaving women to the sidelines who are viewed as second rate men or other.  Mainstream thought is also structured by misogyny and dualisms with hierarchies, which Feminists reject to varying degrees.  Feminism is also an alternative to the normative (the mainstream) which concentrates on women or womanhood as the center of analysis, although there is much debate within feminism about how woman or womanhood should be defined.

While Feminism in general does see sexual difference as shaping the social and political (i.e. how we think and feel), there are five different viewpoints within feminism about sexual difference.  First, there is the notion of sameness where women and men are seen as being the same.  This view is linked to Liberal Feminism and Marxist/Socialist Feminism.  The Second view sees differences between men and women but challenges the hierarchy between men and women.  This view is linked to Radical and Psychoanalytic Feminists.  The third view shifts its focus away from the sameness/difference dichotomy to the question of power, wishing to resist and destabilize sexual hierarchy.  This view is linked to Postmodern/Poststructuralist Feminists.  The fourth view sees men as potential political allies for the struggles of women where men and women are seen as becoming similar through political struggle and alliance.  This view is linked to Race/Ethnicity Feminists, Socialist Feminists, and Postmodern/Poststructuralist Feminists.  The fifth view of sexual difference sees women as morally or innately superior to men.  This last view is linked to Radical Feminists. 


There are four major groupings of feminists: Classical, Psychoanalytic, Postmodern/Poststructuralist, and Race/Ethnicity.  Classical Feminists include Liberal, Radical, Marxist, and Socialist Feminists, all of which focus on realism and materialism and stress the externalized factors of oppression.  Liberal Feminism, also termed penis envy feminism, focuses on the individual, reform, sameness, the public sphere, and Welfare Liberalism.  Liberal Feminists wish to reform policies and practices (i.e. endorse welfare liberalism where benefits and opportunities are redistributed but doesn’t challenge the organization of society) to allow individual women equal access to the male dominated public sphere.  This perspective likens equality to letting women being able to do what men do.  This view is much less structural, not seeing the inherent incapabilities of capitalism to give women liberation.  Liberal feminism is also very focused in on the mainstream, seeing women’s oppression as individualist problems needing fixing through changing individuals.  It doesn’t see the capitalistic system as inherently oppressing women or other minority groups, much less see how it’s oppressing all people.  Like my parents, they don’t see the entire capitalistic system oppressing its people.  What they do see is the negative outcomes of capitalistic society, but they don’t relate it to capitalism as inherently oppressive.  Notice I emphasized inherently.  I’ve emphasized inherently because my parents, and many other liberals, do recognize the problems found within capitalism (i.e. the drive for profit, deregulation, poverty, environmental degradation, etc.) but they don’t see capitalism as the main problem.  They believe reforming the system (not overthrowing the system) is the way to go, but they don’t see that once reform/reregulation is achieved it will at some point be obliterated due to capitalism’s need to oppress all people in order to exploit their labor for profit, separate and isolate people through ideology in order to keep their focus off the inherent ruthlessness of capitalism, and tear apart the welfare system in order to further make a profit concentrated in the hands of the very rich¹.


Radical Feminism focuses on the private sphere (i.e. sexuality, bodies, sexual violence, the reproductive body, feminine motherhood), difference, separatism, patriarchy/men being the main enemy being fought, and on revolution through small-scale action.  I have always found Radical Feminism as strange, but at the same time intriguing.  Just like Liberal Feminism and maybe all Feminisms, Radical Feminism is narrow in its perspective.  While Radical Feminism does critique patriarchy and heterosexuality critically in useful ways, it doesn’t seem to sympathize with men and sees separatism away from men as the answer (these are broad statements; not all Radical Feminists believe this way).  They see men as the enemy being fought, as something to separate from in order to create spaces for women.  While I do think it’s important for women to be able to discuss the variety of issues at hand and create “safe spaces” without the presence of men in order to facilitate skills that men dominate in, we can’t separate ourselves completely and endlessly from men.  Why is this?  Because men aren’t inherently oppressive.  Capitalism is inherently oppressive, not men.  After all, if we hold to separatism, how can you explain my own radicalization without the influence of two men who really expanded my understanding of feminism itself?  Also, if we separate from each other as men and women, then we lose the experiences of the other, which I believe is critical for understanding the ways in which capitalism shapes all our lives in oppressive systems.  Radical Feminists are sometimes perceived as critiquing men as the ones who are inherently oppressive, which I don’t agree with.  To illustrate my point in a different way, blacks are oppressed under the capitalistic system, but blacks aren’t biologically, inherently, essentially oppressed outside the confines of capitalism.  Radical Feminism also maintains sometimes biological, clear-cut differences between men and women, seeing women as something to celebrate, leaving men to the side as something not worthy of their time.  I think men are worthy of our time.  As a preliminary tactic while we hasten and await, men need to develop alongside women in order to facilitate a process of growth outside of capitalist oppressive structures.

 

Marxist Feminism focuses on economics, class, capitalism, revolution, sameness, collectivity, and the public sphere.  Marxist Feminists see capitalism as the main enemy being fought, as opposed to Radical Feminists who see men and patriarchy as the main enemy.  Marxist Feminism’s idea of sameness is different from that of Liberal Feminism’s idea of sameness.  While Liberal Feminists see sameness as something women need to achieve on par with men (women need to become like men, having equality within the public sphere of politics, government, and social life), Marxist Feminists see sameness as something that has been disrupted by capitalism.  Without capitalism, women and men wouldn’t differ very much.  Marxist Feminism see oppressed people through a collective lens, believing men, women, and all oppressed people need to come together in unity as workers of exploitive wage labor in order to overthrow the oppressive  and exploitive structures of capitalism.  They see unity among the proletariat as we all are exploited for our labor.  They say we can’t unite under identity politics in the long run (i.e. gender/sexual identity, racial identity, etc.).  Rather we must unite under our common exploited labor, which is where our sameness lies.  Marxist Feminism sees class relations as built upon a hierarchy where wealth is distributed unequally; they also see class relations as the source of power, oppression, and inequality.  Lastly, Marxist Feminists see class oppression as the creator of sexual oppression and as the primary oppression of women.  Radical Feminists, on the other hand, see sexual oppression as the creator of class oppression and as the primary oppression of women.  In other words, Radical Feminists see the interrelations between men and women as primary to oppression, while Marxist Feminists see economics as primary to oppression.  As debates occurred between Radical Feminists and Marxist Feminists in the 1960s and 1970s over the causes of oppression, Socialist Feminism was birthed as an inbetween drawing from both Marxist and Radical Feminists perspectives to form one cohesive viewpoint.  Socialist Feminists look critically at both capitalism and patriarchy, bring them together into a single analysis.  This Socialist analysis critiques both class relations and sex/gender, relating them together.


The 2^nd major feminist grouping are Psychoanalytic Feminists, which include Freudian, Lacanian, and Post-Lacanian French Feminists.  All of these types of feminisms deal with the issue of difference, seeing women as other.  They focus not just on the economic aspects of power but also on the psychological aspects.  Freudian Feminism focuses on differences due to the formation of subjectivities, the category of sex, the mother who helps form a sexed self, and believe altering the psychological will change social relations.  While critiquing the psychological element of humans is of importance for analysis and can be of help in changing individual people away from capitalistic ideology, Freudian Feminism is limited in its ability to change the system.  It doesn’t seem to be too critical of the capitalistic system, and its analysis seems to forgo seeing things through the lens of the oppressive and exploitive capitalistic system.  Like Susie Orbach’s book Bodies², she seems to have a good understanding of our psychology and bodies, but she doesn’t base our psychology as due to a capitalistic system but rather on the beauty, fashion, etc. industries within the system.  Lacanian Feminism focuses on the abstract, difference due to the sexed self, language which is based on a symbolic system of differences where the sexed self arises, and the symbolic phallus which is the ultimate signifying mechanism of society.  The self and sexuality are seen as socially constructed, arising out of language and the symbolic phallus, which are both masculinized.  Lacanian Feminists believe the outsider status of femininity can’t exist outside the masculinized arrangement of society.  This makes sense; if the dichotomy of masculine and feminine are obliterated, then neither one will exist anymore.  The current state of femininity can’t exist outside the current dominate masculinized culture because femininity is based on subordination, submission, and oppression.  Post-Lacanian French Feminism rejects this notion of femininity being utterly castrated.  While French Feminism does accept the notion that femininity is an outsider status under the current arrangement of society, they believe a new, alternative language needs to be developed which destabilizes the existing order and challenges the way women are interpreted in language and culture.  Lacanian Feminism and French Feminism seem to both have slightly different angles on the subject.  Lacanian Feminists interpret women/femininity as an inferior position (which it is under the current dominate system of capitalism), while French Feminism critiques this inferior position of women, calling for a reinterpretation of the current position of women.

The third major grouping of feminists are Postmodern/Poststructuralist Feminists (i.e. Post Feminists) and Queer Theorists, all of which stress the differences between men and women and who also stress differences among women and vice versa.  As opposed to other Feminists, they really emphasis difference to the point of rejecting any sort of unity (universalism) between people.  They reject universalism as it marginalizes differences and is connected to domination and censorship.  For example, if there is unity between men and women then these Feminists see this as a way to ignore the differences between them and therefore the domination of men occurs under this “unity”.  They also reject any form of fixed categories or identities (i.e. woman, black, middle-class, straight, etc.) saying we’re all essentially different.  These Feminists are perhaps correct to state that we are all different, but aren’t we similar in some ways also?  Aren’t we all made of flesh, blood, bone, have brains which are the center of the nervous system, take in nutrients into our bodies to survive, cry, and so many other things?  We obviously have our similarities, but Post Feminists may make it sound like we have none at all.  Even under a capitalistic society which divides us into categories/identities, we still have our similarities.  Under capitalism we are ALL oppressed.  Isn’t that a similarity, even if those oppressions are different?  Under capitalism, workers predominately work under exploitive wage labor.  Now isn’t that a similarity?  While Post Feminists do reject universalism, their main focus isn’t on this sameness/difference dichotomy.  They’ve shifted their focus to the question of power wanting to destabilize and resist hierarchy.  Like Radical Feminists, I am very drawn to Post Feminists/Queer Theorists, even if I don’t completely agree with them… But I don’t completely agree with ANY one “type” of particular feminism.

The last major grouping of feminists are Race/Ethnicity Feminists who are similar to Post Feminists/Queer Theorists in that they also reject universalism, sameness, identity categories, etc. as they see it as marginalizing minority groups like blacks.  They hold to anti-assimilationist views where they see universalism or sameness as marginalizing or ignoring differences among people, which reiterates hierarchy.  They don’t see women as a unified grouping/category (for example, black women have differing political concerns compared to those of white middle class women).  While they do critique unity in sameness, they see men as potential political allies for the struggles of women where men and women are seen as becoming similar through political struggle and alliance. 

¹ Richard Wolff’s Capitalism Hits the Fan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZU3wfjtIJY

² Orbach, Susie. Bodies. New York. Picador. 2009.

January 5^th 2011

Today my body will be dissected, surgically altered in order to amputate proliferating

polyps confined within my skull.

Infestation.

Anesthesia will burn through my veins.

forced unconsciousness.

We are slumbering away in unconscious space anyways so sleep away my baby.

Forget this world.

My “asthmatic” body will be infiltrated by weapons that “treat” symptoms,

but never perceive a cause.

CAPITALISM

unlinking its deathly blows from its own symptoms

I AM A PUPPET OF CAPITALISM

sedated by its strings.

Numbing coercion so sweetly silent.

Dorm Construction work. Inescapable silent toxic chemicals pervading my lungs.

Can’t BREATH!! $21,000 Emergency Room now!

 Rx prescription drugs swallowed, snorted, shot up.

“Antibiotics, Steroids,” they tell me.  “Take it, feel better.”

Needles. Pinprick holes. Damaged flesh. Anosmia.*

X-Rays.  Pulsing radiation. Cancer.

Doctors prodding inflamed bodily flesh. Weekly.

Advair* triggering Heart Palpitations. Steroidal yeast infections.

Fuck this. No escape.

[Insert Suicidal Thought].

 NO! FIGHT!

. . . but thoughts cling to me saying don’t live, be seduced by sweet death, by postmodern meaninglessness.

Desiring Death, an enemy inside forcing its way out.

Russian Roulette. Pull Trigger. Squish!

NO! FIGHT!

Revolution must touch my lips, fingering me deep inside.

I scream, please keep me alive, keep me sane.

Red liquid antidote. Revolution. Hope.

Let’s turn this revolver the other way around this time.

Open my crusty, tear strained eyes. Headache.

Oh sweet baby please open your eyes.

No, open my eyes!

Capitalism is death, and it will always haunt you, call to you, ask for your number, sleep inside you.

We must pull the trigger but this time reverse who’s victim.

Together.

united.

Kill that mother fucker.

*Anosmia: The inability to perceive smells

*Advair: a black box drug used to prevent asthma

Original art done by me. 

The Body

 

This outright hatred of so called ‘fatness’ enables an all-out war on the body.

This relentless war demands the complete disconnection of the body and the soul.

At birth these two were one, but, acclimating within a body perfectionist culture forces the soul to vilify the body.

The body, once at peace with the soul, is turned into the enemy being fought.

 

Once the body is twisted into an object of disgust, the soul begins the attempt to control itself by fragmenting into shards.  

This splitting of the soul is unavoidable as control mandates the mind to divide into a ‘me’ that’s being controlled and an ‘I’ that’s doing the controlling.

This leaves the body disconnected from the soul and the soul fragmented in pieces.

We, as human beings, have been fragmented by our culture, left to feel nothing but abhorrence for the body, which merely becomes a vessel holding a ruptured soul of nothingness.

 

This body warfare will always end in devastating losses as it is an endless struggle in a culture that inherently contradicts itself.

Capitalism demands souls to accept a narrow definition of body perfection in order to make souls feel inept and buy more to perfect the body, but Capitalism also necessitates the ceaseless consumption of goods, including the great amount of goods we ingest into the body.

In this Capitalist World-System, the soldiers at war with their bodies 

Will. Never. Stop. Fighting. 

because peace commands a complete revolution of the system.

"Pretty" by Katie Makkai

Here is one amazing poetry slam where Katie Makkai talks about the impossibility for a woman to be pretty and the consumerist culture behind it.  VERY interesting.

Here is a transcript thanks to Diana.

When I was just a little girl, I asked my mother, “What will I be? Will I be pretty? Will I be pretty? Will I be pretty? What comes next? Oh right, will I be rich?” Which is almost pretty depending on where you shop. And the pretty question infects from conception, passing blood and breath into cells. The word hangs from our mothers' hearts in a shrill fluorescent floodlight of worry.

“Will I be wanted? Worthy? Pretty?” But puberty left me this funhouse mirror dryad: teeth set at science fiction angles, crooked nose, face donkey-long and pox-marked where the hormones went finger-painting. My poor mother.

“How could this happen? You'll have porcelain skin as soon as we can see a dermatologist. You sucked your thumb. That's why your teeth look like that! You were hit in the face with a Frisbee when you were 6. Otherwise your nose would have been just fine!

“Don't worry. We'll get it fixed!” She would say, grasping my face, twisting it this way and that, as if it were a cabbage she might buy.

But this is not about her. Not her fault. She, too, was raised to believe the greatest asset she could bestow upon her awkward little girl was a marketable facade. By 16, I was pickled with ointments, medications, peroxides. Teeth corralled into steel prongs. Laying in a hospital bed, face packed with gauze, cushioning the brand new nose the surgeon had carved.

Belly gorged on 2 pints of my blood I had swallowed under anesthesia, and every convulsive twist of my gut like my body screaming at me from the inside out, “What did you let them do to you!”

All the while this never-ending chorus droning on and on, like the IV needle dripping liquid beauty into my blood. “Will I be pretty? Will I be pretty? Like my mother, unwrapping the gift wrap to reveal the bouquet of daughter her $10,000 bought her? Pretty? Pretty.”

And now, I have not seen my own face for 10 years. I have not seen my own face in 10 years, but this is not about me.

This is about the self-mutilating circus we have painted ourselves clowns in. About women who will prowl 30 stores in 6 malls to find the right cocktail dress, but haven't a clue where to find fulfillment or how wear joy, wandering through life shackled to a shopping bag, beneath those 2 pretty syllables.

About men wallowing on bar stools, drearily practicing attraction and everyone who will drift home tonight, crest-fallen because not enough strangers found you suitably fuckable.

This, this is about my own some-day daughter. When you approach me, already stung-stayed with insecurity, begging, “Mom, will I be pretty? Will I be pretty?” I will wipe that question from your mouth like cheap lipstick and answer, “No! The word pretty is unworthy of everything you will be, and no child of mine will be contained in five letters.

“You will be pretty intelligent, pretty creative, pretty amazing. But you, will never be merely 'pretty'.”

The Fakeness of Reality TV Shows

Here is an interesting interview with Jennifer Pozner who speaks about the fakeness of reality TV shows and how women are betrayed poorly.

Q: Why do you say it’s “bulls–t” that viewer demand has created the deluge of reality TV?
A: Michael Hirschorn, the brain trust behind VH1’s Flavor of Love and Flavor of Love: Charm School and basically the guy who is responsible for bringing the modern minstrel show to television, has said in an interview that – this is the quote, “If women don’t want those shows they wouldn’t get made,” That’s what I call bulls–t, because what reality producers and what the entertainment press sells us is this notion that we, the public, have just demanded via massive ratings that they give us this bottom-feeder low-quality reality TV fare, and this is just a big lie. It’s true that some reality shows—American Idol, The Bachelor—have gotten high ratings, but many others languish with paltry ratings and they get to stay [on air] because these shows are really cheap to produce. It can cost about 50 per cent less—sometimes even 75 per cent less—to make a reality show than to make a quality scripted program.

Q: And they can also get advertisers to pay big money for stealth product placement.
A: People think that product placement is just a Coke can or a Coke cup on the desk at American Idol. But advertisers can pay millions of dollars per episode to integrate their products into the casting choices, the plot development, the dialogue, the scenery, the “challenges” of shows. Take The Apprentice, which has gotten upwards of $2 million per episode from a variety of Fortune 500 type companies to integrate into the challenges, so every episode is basically one long infomercial for Sony and Chrysler and candy bars and cars and sneakers. Some seasons The Apprentice has done very well in the ratings, and other seasons it’s done so poorly that NBC cancelled it. But then they hired a new entertainment division president, Ben Silverman, and he happened to be a former reality TV producer. He was one of the people responsible for producing a show called The Restaurant. NBC paid not one dime to create that show, it was created by a reality TV production company that works with advertisers to create content that advertisers want people to see, and then they gave that show, for free, to NBC. So NBC didn’t invest anything; they were just able to sell commercials. So Ben Silverman gets to NBC, realizes that The Apprentice was a cash cow even though the ratings had plummeted, reversed the decision to cancel The Apprentice, and then turned it into The Celebrity Apprentice, sprinkled D-list fairy dust on it and brought it back. Was it because people, the public, really wanted that show? No, it was plummeting in the ratings every single season since it debuted. Now it’s back because Silverman, a reality TV stealth advertising fan, decided that it was too cheap and too lucrative to let go.


Q: Do most people understand that what they’re watching is completely manufactured?
A: If you ask most people, “Do you think reality TV is real?” they’ll say, “Oh, no, no, I know it’s fake”—but in the next breath they’ll say, “Oh, but that bitch needed to get eliminated,” or, “Oh, but that guy was such a douchebag.” Well, if you think you know anything about any of the people you’ve seen on reality shows, you don’t know that the shows are not real. These shows aren’t any more real than Mad Men, without the cool clothes. But Mad Men, at least, is intentionally scripted to have a running critical commentary about the sexism and racism of the ’50s and early ’60s within the advertising industry.

Q: You argue that we need to readjust our definition of “scripted.”
A: Scripting doesn’t happen in the traditional sense of actors being given a 30-page manifesto to memorize. It starts with casting. Producers find people with addiction problems or anger problems, and think, “This will make great TV.” Women who are Mensa members or high achievers tend not to be cast. Women who are either sincerely “looking for their Prince Charming” or sincerely feeling down on their luck do. After casting, they then edit people into stock characters: the dumb bimbo, the catty bitch, the weepy loser who says, “I’m going to die alone if the bachelor doesn’t choose me!” For women of colour those stock characters are even more extreme. Editing is the predominant way that scripting happens. People don’t understand that for every 45 minutes of The Bachelor they see, more than 100 hours of film have been shot.

Q: You write about “Frankenbites,” the industry term for splicing various conversations together to create a fraudulent new one.
A: One of the most controversial scenes on any reality show was in Joe Millionaire. Viewers watched about five minutes of trees in the dark, nothingness. But what you heard were things like, “Do you think it would go better lying down?” And there were captions like “slurp” and “mmm.” Those bits of conversation were from an entirely different day. I’ll give you another example. One of the only Asian women who’d ever appeared on The Bachelor was a medical student named Tina Wu. She was recruited by the producers because the bachelor that year was a doctor, so they thought, “Oh, it would be good to have one person, at least, who has his medical stuff in common.” She hadn’t seen the show before, she thought, “Oh, maybe it’ll be a chance to have some fun vacation.” Well, she goes on the show, and she blogged about it in great, great detail—but she ripped that show to shreds. She talked about the psychologists they have behind the scenes who do all these intake interviews, so they knew that she had a very troubled relationship with her family, in particular her father. She hated being on the show, she said that it was filthy, there were rats running around the mansion, that there was very little food and constant alcohol. And she didn’t like the guy; she thought he was kind of boring. She would say on camera that she thought he didn’t really have a good since of humour, because at one point they’re out an a date where there’s big, huge yacht and he says something like, “Welcome to my yacht,” and she laughs about it because she knows that he can’t possibly afford that. She’s like, “Oh, you mean this is your yacht?” in this very kind of ha-ha way, calling attention to the product placement. Then they edit that to make her seem like she’s a dumb-ass and she really believes that this is, you know, “This is your yacht!”

She was edited into the girl who was too closed off, who wouldn’t open up, and that became the thing he would always say to her and other women would always say, “Why aren’t you opening up? You’re too cold.” So at one point she says to the producers on camera: “I’m not opening up because I’m not really interested in him, but being on this show, agreeing to do this show, was the thing I regret most in my life.”

Well, eventually, way, way, way longer into the show than she would have preferred, she eventually gets eliminated. When she finally got eliminated it was about 1:00 or 2:00 in the morning, she said, and she was grinning ear to ear, she was happy to go home. That didn’t play well with producers, and they kept saying to her, “We need you to cry,” and she wasn’t interested in crying, she wasn’t heart-broken. And they told her: “If you don’t show some real emotion here you’re just going to be edited into being, you know, the cold bitch.” And she was happy; she was going home, she didn’t want to cry. So they poke at her and poke at her and poke at her, and she’s still not giving them the tears that they want, so finally… now, imagine you’ve been up since, like, 7:00 in the morning, you’ve been in this high-pressure environment all day, and the producer is saying to you, “Don’t you think your father would be disappointed in you?” or things about your family. That’s where she cried. She felt betrayed that they would exploit her personal back story that way. And so what we saw as viewers was after she gets eliminated we hear her say, “I didn’t open up to the bachelor. This was the biggest regret of my life,” and then she cries. That’s a frankenbite.

Q: Have any contestants taken producers to task for misappropriating what they’ve said?
A: They sign away their rights to do so. In these very draconian contracts it says: “We can make a fiction out of you and we most likely will.” It says that in legal language but that’s basically the long and short of it. Not only do people sign away their rights to speak to the press negatively about the shows, they sign away their rights to own the intellectual property of things they create on shows like Project Runway or on American Idol, they sign away their rights to sue if they get injured or even killed on these shows. What these contracts do is they cause a chilling effect, because most people who show up on reality TV shows do so because they are hoping for some sort of big pay-day to change their life, right, so they’re not going to be people who have the kinds of resources to go up against Goliath, so they just don’t say all of the things that have seen happen behind the scenes. You know, they’ll maybe critique, “Oh, I didn’t like the way I was edited on the show,” to Entertainment Weekly or TV Guide, but they won’t say, “Here exactly is how they manipulate reality so that what you’re seeing is absolutely not real.”


Q: Reality shows appear to exist in a bubble, completely disconnected from social reality.
A: Absolutely. At the same time you have a housing bubble in America and the highest unemployment rate since the Depression, you’re seeing television shows encouraging us to root for massive profits for real estate speculators and house-flippers on shows like Million Dollar Listing and Flip that House. And at the same time as women are making great strides in politics, in business, and redefining personal relationships within the family, within parenting, within sexual communication and relationships, on television, in the guise of reality, producers have expected us to believe that women have no ambition, they want us to believe that women not only have no real choices, they don’t even want any. So in that way, with shows like Wife Swap in which every woman who works outside the home is pitted against a stay-at-home mom, or pitted against a woman who may work outside the home but doesn’t really want to, only has to, and all the women who actually like their careers are considered bad mothers, and all the women who stay at home are considered doormats. What I want people to understand is that this massive stereotyping, the massive regressive depictions of womanhood, of women being stupid, of women being less competent than men, of women being catty, vindictive and not to be trusted especially by other women, of women being gold diggers, all of these ideas are very much a product of reality TV producers and networks wanting to revive 1950s ideology for the contemporary age. These shows aren’t any more real than Mad Men, without the cool clothes, but Mad Men, at least, is intentionally scripted to have a running critical commentary about the sexism and racism of the ’50s and early ’60s within the advertising industry.

Reality TV is showing us the same kind of misogyny but they’re glorifying it and they’re pretending that it’s real. What we see in reality television is the remarkable success of reality TV producers creating a fictitious world and packaging it to us as if it’s reality, a world that the most ardent fundamentalists have always tried to achieve, one in which women’s rightful place is in the home, and women who have independence are scorned and will die alone, and in which the only role for fathers is financial provision and if they are stay-at-home parents they’re wimps and sissies and not real men, a world in which people of colour exist only as male buffoons, thugs and pimps, and female whores and the Jezebel and Sapphire stereotypes. That world is not real, but through all of this frankenbite editing and pick-and-choose and advertisers’ influence over content, we get to see what networks want us to believe about ourselves at the turn of the century: they want us to believe that the women’s movement, the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, never existed. We see no traces of that in reality TV. So just at the same time as women are winning and setting world records in any number of Olympic sports, America’s Next Top Model debuts to tell women that their bodies are specifically here just to be decorative, and the thinner and weaker the better. At the same time as Condoleezza Rice is becoming national security advisor, Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire is telling us that the biggest ambition that we can have is to be chosen in a sort of mail-order-bride/Miss America parade to get married to somebody we don’t even know in a network-arranged marriage. And that’s just not what life is like in America anymore. The age of first marriage keeps rising, people are staying single longer, the number of two-parent families where both parents work is rising because of economic conditions. The ideology of this world that we see on television is very specifically political, it’s very regressive, and it’s very intentional.

Q: You give the example of a black woman being axed from Real Housewives of Atlanta because she didn’t fit producers’ stereotypes.
A: What’s interesting with The Real Housewives of Atlanta is when you see how reality producers tweak formulas to reinforce ethnic stereotypes. The original real housewives were of Orange County, and they were depicted as blondes, bimbos, elite wealthy snob elitists. And then it went to New York where they still had a lot of the snobbery but there was a bit more of a sort of east coast flair to it, and then we have Atlanta where all of a sudden the notion is because it’s black women all of a sudden there are physical fist fights, and there’s intimidation, and people are scared of one another, and there’s consent screaming and altercations. The running subtext is “these people” are low class and no amount of money can change their inherent nature.”

That first season, DeShawn Snow, was a divinity student, she was studying for, I believe, a Ph.D., she headed a foundation for girls’ empowerment, But we never saw her studying. The fact that this was a studious, intelligent woman who was a religious person, who wanted to empower young girls, especially girls of colour, the only thing we ever saw about her foundation was as an excuse for her to have problems throwing a party and people being snubbed because they weren’t invited to the party. And the reason we didn’t get to see her cracking open the books and studying is because that would interrupt the narrative they wanted to present about black women, that narrative being that black women are ignorant and illiterate. For example, they didn’t show us DeShawn studying but they did show us NeNe Leakes not being able to help her son with math and having to get her husband to tutor him because she doesn’t know which is bigger, a third of a half . When they dropped her from the series it was because—they specifically told her—“You don’t fly off the handle the way we need you to. Next season we’re going to be amping up the drama even more and we just don’t think you have it in you.” So then the next season she was out, and who did they bring in? A woman who they edited – a hip-hop star – who they edited as basically ‘ghetto,’ and they called her ghetto over and over and over, and then they spent a lot of time on her relationship with her fiancé who had numerous kids from different mothers.

Q: A catfight does generate more interest.
A: By no means am I saying that these shows aren’t compelling. They are. They basically offer all of the sniping and gossip and voyeurism of high school cliques and office gossip without feeling like we’re affecting any real people. And if we’re questioning whether or not we’re being the best parents we can be, well, at least our families aren’t self-destructing like Jon and Kate’s. But [the appeal is] not just schadenfreude—there’s a lot of humour. That’s the biggest draw of Jersey Shore, that people behave ridiculously and it’s funny to watch. The bigger question is why there’s such a huge appetite for this prurient kind of thing. When this genre burst onto the scene with Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire?, there was the hugest public outcry: “Oh my God, this is so regressive.” Ten years later it’s a very different climate. News outlets basically just repeat the same big lies that reality TV producers sell.

Q: And now Jon and Kate are “news,” the argument being that people are interested.
A: Why do you have pictures of Snooki and Bachelorette Ali Fedotowsky and Kate Gosselin on the covers of all the tabloids? Well, because it’s so much cheaper. I’ve already talked about how much cheaper it is to run an unscripted show versus a scripted show, but think about the tabloid level: If you pay a paparazzi for a photo of Snooki you’re paying only a few bucks. If you pay a paparazzi for a photo of Angelina Jolie—and it’s a good photo—that’s a very pricy picture. It goes back to money. Same reason why CNN can run endless amounts of, “What’s wrong with Lindsay Lohan? Should she get help? Is she ever going to beat her drug addiction?” stories ad nauseam, because you pay some guy to videotape Lindsay walking around or getting in and out of her car, tape Paris Hilton getting in and out of her car and hopefully catching a crotch shot, you pay them a few hundred bucks and you’ve got your story for the entire day, and maybe even repeatedly through the entire week.

That is much cheaper than stationing, for example, a whole foreign bureau in Afghanistan to make sure that you’ve got, every single day, new coverage of civilian deaths or of whatever the new battle is. You don’t have to pay translators, you don’t have to pay videographers, you don’t have to pay numerous reporters, you don’t have to pay security personnel to keep them safe, you don’t have to pay their lodging and their travel, you just have to throw a few hundred bucks to a paparazzi who maybe gets Lindsay looking dazed or Paris without underwear and then you’ve got your CNN or your Fox story for the next half hour or for the next five days. Same thing for the tabloids, right? So again they will say, “This is what we want,” and it’s not that people won’t buy it. That’s key. People are buying it, I’m not saying nobody wants it, I’m saying people would also want quality, funny, interesting programming if we were given that option. A lot of the reason people aren’t watching scripted shows that are quality options is because those shows get yanked off the air before they can develop an audience. A show like Cheers, longest-running sit-com, would not get the chance to develop in today’s market.

There’s often a massively financed campaign to get us to believe in the appearance of spontaneous collective interest. For example, Survivor existed to test the new Infinity-Viacom-CBS merger, to test the power of cross-platform promotion. So for months before that show appeared, shock jocks on FM stations would wake people up with, “There’s going to be this show with cute chicks in bikinis eating bugs. You gotta check it out.” And then you could turn to your news station and find Mark Burnett being interviewed about a new format in which advertisers and networks work together to bring us unscripted content, and then when you get home, 60 Minutes was talking about it. Nobody was talking about that show who wasn’t on CBS’s, Viacom’s and Infinity’s payroll. And then there were embedded sponsors, the Survivor logo on Doritos, so it seemed like if you were not watching Survivor, you were missing out on a massive cultural phenomenon.

Q: You watched a thousand hours of reality TV to do this book and you write that not everything is odious. Shows shows like Project Runway or Amazing Race, for instance you, like.
A: I’m really glad that you asked that. People make the mistake of thinking that what I’m saying is that they should absolutely turn the TV off, that they shouldn’t watch any reality shows if they don’t want to be brainwashed, or that they’re bad people if they watch reality TV, and that’s not at all what I’m saying. The problem with reality TV is not the format. You can do interesting, compelling, and non-bigoted things with the format of unscripted television, but that requires intentionality. There are a few shows here and there that have been actually quite edifying, a show like Project Runway that focuses mostly on talent, that focuses on people creating something out of nothing under tight deadlines with very few limited resources and odd materials. I think I call it in the book “Macgyver meets Milan.” That show tends to celebrate people’s differences as opposed to pitting people against each other based on difference, and that is an intentional part of their narrative. But people were wondering why this season of Project Runway seems to feature so much more back-biting and arguing and—to some degree—stereotyping than we’ve seen on many seasons before.

I was not surprised by this at all because now that it’s on Lifetime it’s a different set of producers: it’s Bunim/Murray Productions who created The Real World. I was worried as soon as I heard that Bunim Murray was going to take over Project Runway that the narrative would shift. And they know they can’t shift it too much because it’s a success based on this talent-over-everything-else mould that has been created by Bravo over the years for that show, but they have built in more stereotyping this season; they have built in more arguing and more contestants yelling at each other, etc. And so again when you see the differences there you realize producers really decide how people are going to behave and what kinds of narratives occur. But in general, the reason so many people love Project Runway is because it’s not based on humiliation, it’s based on validating artistic endeavour.

Q: Explain why you see a link between the [U.S.] Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the shrinking size of actresses.
A: Telecom ’96 happens [and] media companies merge at a much faster rate than ever before, and we see the introduction of really cheap-to-produce tabloids, both print and TV, that do very little more than follow celebrity women around shaming them about their bodies. All of these “Baby Bump?” arrows pointing at bellies, when somebody basically ate a bagel that day. This was not the case when media companies cared about profit but also, in a measured way, about the quality of their content. So in the ’80s you had shows like Beverly Hills 90210, in which the girls basically looked like thin but healthy young women. Fast forward after Telecom ’96 to the current show 90210—almost every single girl looks unhealthily skinny.

Q: Why do you say violence against women is part of the subtext and text of reality shows?
A: Violence against women has always been part of the subtext and also part of the text of reality TV on networks, since 2000. That first show, Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire, the guy who was considered the crown prince had a restraining order against him. Flavor Flav [of The Flavor of Love] has had charges against him for domestic violence, and yet he gets three seasons of a dating show. And then you have shows like America’s Next Top Model, which in the long and storied tradition of fashion and beauty advertisers have repeatedly used images of women in fear, in pain, and even in coffins, and in beautiful corpse challenges in which they’re supposed to pose as gorgeous, glamorous dead girls, murder victims, while judges say things like, “Beautiful, gorgeous! You look great dead.” So what are we to make of season after season after season of beautiful corpses and Tyra Banks telling girls, “Pose as if you’re in pain. Think pain but beauty.” You remember, I’m sure: in Canada this was a big thing—two summers ago where Ryan Jenkins got voted off the show Megan Wants a Millionaire, went home—where he was positioned, by the way, on that show as great boyfriend relationship material—went home, married his ex-girlfriend, Jasmine Fiore—she was a model—married her, and then allegedly killed her and mutilated her body so badly that she was only able to be identified through the serial numbers on her breast implants, and then killed himself. People at that time called me, lots of reporters called me and said, “Has reality TV created a monster?” No, they did not create a monster, they cast a monster, and they should have known that they were casting a monster because he had a record for domestic violence.

And the thing that that says is that reality producers tend to rank women’s safety lower on their priority list than lighting and the provision of alcohol and set design. And the idea to women at home that these people are princes among men, that these people are worthy of being fought over, says basically as long as a guy has a firm ass and a firm financial portfolio he doesn’t need to be respectful, he doesn’t need to be smart, he doesn’t need to be loyal, he doesn’t need to be funny, he doesn’t need to be a good partner, and even at the baseline he doesn’t need to treat you with any kind of physical dignity, he can be a batterer, and you should still fight over him because he can bring you the bling.

Q: Is reality programming the new reality?
A: If we continue to allow media companies to let market forces define everything to the point where quality means nothing and the economics behind production is 100 per cent of the priority, then every season will have more provocative, more bigoted fare. For example, Bridalplasty is about to debut: cosmetic surgery given to brides who compete to get procedures while they plan their wedding. We’ve had Extreme Makeover, The Swan. So what can they do to make it even more disgusting? Oh, let’s merge the wedding-industrial-complex shows with the cosmetic-surgery-is-liberating-for-women shows. They have to go further and further, more racist, more misogynistic, more over-the-top. We will see more of that if we don’t become very critical very quickly.

Not Ever

This Scottish 30 second ad campaign, "Not Ever, addresses women-blaming attitudes towards rape such as claims that dressing provocatively, being drunk or flirting with men are contributory factors. Its hard-hitting approach is intended to make people stop in their tracks, and to shake out and challenge ingrained prejudices many people have towards women who have been raped."



Here is the site for Rape Crisis Scotland and NotEver if you're interested.

New Girl Effect Awareness Video

Here is another new video from The Girl Effect. Enjoy!

The Story of Cosmetics

How safe are your cosmetics?



If you would like to see how safe any of your cosmetics are search them here at Cosmetics Database where products are judged on a rating system from low, moderate, or high hazard.

If you would like to see other great videos from The Story of Stuff Project go here to their website.

And here is the Safe Cosmetics website talked about in the video.

Over It: Let her eat cake!

This short video (2 minutes and 44 seconds) basically describes my life back in high school.  Except I didn't take diet pills or laxatives.  I did, however, weigh myself every day, count my calories with the help of fitday only allowing myself 1,000 calories a day and 20 grams of fat, and cared more about my weight than my health.  I got myself down to 105 pounds, and I will never again subject myself to that even though I'm constantly bombarded by the media, our culture, and my female friends and relatives with these messages that I need to be thin in order to be happy, which is nonsense.

Our culture needs to let go of the notion that thinness brings us happiness in order to start accepting ourselves.  We need to be more concerned with being healthy rather than thin.  I would also like to say that bulimia and anorexia are not the only eating disorders... many women subjugate themselves to this sort of behavior described above and in the video.  This is also not an individual problem as the term eating disorder suggests; this is a problem that stems from our culture.

Thanks to Feminist Fatale for suggesting this amazing video on their blog.  The following is stated on the blog.

Artist statement:
An ephemeral drawing is one that is created to be destroyed. It addresses the relationships between medium, subject, and significance.

over it is the documentation of an ephemeral art piece that talks about overcoming disordered eating through the creation and consumption of a cake with a scale drawn on it with icing. Though its narrative is deeply personal, the experience is nearly universal in our image-obsessed culture with its narrow standards of feminine beauty.

The Bechdel Test: A Test for Male Centered Movies

Ever heard of the Bechdel Test?  Well, make sure you do the next time you go to the movies.  The Bechdel Test is a simple way to gauge the active presence of female characters in Hollywood films and just how well rounded and complete those roles are. It was created by Allison Bechdel in her comic strip Dykes to Watch Out For in 1985. It is astonishing the number of popular movies that can't pass this simple test. It demonstrates how little women's complex and interesting lives are underrepresented or non existent in the film industry

Here are the 3 Rules:
      1. There are at least two named female characters
      2. These two women must talk to each other
      3. They must talk about something other than a man

Here in this video Anita Sarkeesian talks about The Bechdel Test.  I also HIGHLY recommend checking out her her blog called Feminist Frequency where you can find many other videos like this.



Here is a site where it lists movies that pass the test or not.

Jennifer Kesler wrote this wonderful article below, which I abridged as always.  She took film classes at UCLA and noticed something strange there, which eventually led to her leaving the film industry.

My screenwriting professors taught me not to write scripts that passed the Bechdel/Mo Movie Measure/”Dykes To Watch Out For” test, and I can tell you why, and this needs to be known.

As you go through all your favorite movies (and most of your favorite TV shows, though there’s a little more variety in TV), you find very few movies pass this test.  It’s not a coincidence. It’s not that there aren’t enough women behind the camera (there aren’t, but that’s not the reason). Here’s what we’re up against.

When I started taking film classes at UCLA, I was quickly informed I had what it took to go all the way in film. I was a damn good writer, but more importantly (yeah, you didn’t think good writing was a main prerequisite in this industry, did you?) I understood the process of rewriting to cope with budget (and other) limitations. I didn’t hesitate to rip out my most beloved scenes when necessary. I also did a lot of research and taught myself how to write well-paced action/adventure films that would be remarkably cheap to film – that was pure gold.

There was just one little problem.

I had to understand that the audience only wanted white, straight, male leads. I was assured that as long as I made the white, straight men in my scripts prominent, I could still offer groundbreaking characters of other descriptions (fascinating, significant women, men of color, etc.) – as long as they didn’t distract the audience from the white men they really paid their money to see.

I was stunned. I’d just moved from a state that still held Ku Klux Klan rallies only to find an even more insidious form of bigotry in California – running an industry that shaped our entire culture. But they kept telling me lots of filmmakers wanted to see the same changes I did, and if I did what it took to get into the industry and accrue some power, then I could start pushing the envelope and maybe, just maybe, change would finally happen. So I gave their advice a shot.

Only to learn there was still something wrong with my writing, something unanticipated by my professors. My scripts had multiple women with names. Talking to each other. About something other than men. That, they explained nervously, was not okay. I asked why. Well, it would be more accurate to say I politely demanded a thorough, logical explanation that made sense for a change (I’d found the “audience won’t watch women!” argument pretty questionable, with its ever-shifting reasons and parameters).

At first I got several tentative murmurings about how it distracted from the flow or point of the story. I went through this with more than one professor, more than one industry professional. Finally, I got one blessedly telling explanation from an industry pro: “The audience doesn’t want to listen to a bunch of women talking about whatever it is women talk about.”

“Not even if it advances the story?” I asked. That’s rule number one in screenwriting, though you’d never know it from watching most movies: every moment in a script should reveal another chunk of the story and keep it moving.

He just looked embarrassed and said, “I mean, that’s not how I see it, that’s how they see it.”

Right. A bunch of self-back-slapping professed liberals wouldn’t want you to think they routinely dismiss women in between writing checks to Greenpeace. Gosh, no – it was they. The audience. Those unsophisticated jackasses we effectively worked for when we made films. They were making us do this awful thing. They, the man behind the screen. They, the six-foot-tall invisible rabbit. We knew they existed because there were spreadsheets with numbers, and no matter how the numbers computed, they never added up to, “Oh, hey, look – men and boys are totally watching Sarah Connor and Ellen Ripley like it’s no big deal they’re chicks instead of guys.” They always somehow added up to “Oh, hey, look – those effects/that Arnold’s so awesome, men and boys saw this movie despite some chick in a lead role.”

According to Hollywood, if two women came on screen and started talking, the target male audience’s brain would glaze over and assume the women were talking about nail polish or shoes or something that didn’t pertain to the story. Only if they heard the name of a man in the story would they tune back in. By having women talk to each other about something other than men, I was “losing the audience.”

Was I?

There certainly are still men in this world who tune out women when we talk, but – as I and other students pointed out – this was getting less common with every generation, and weren’t we supposed to be targeting the youngest generation? These young men had grown up with women imparting news on national TV (even I can remember when that was rare), prescribing them medicine, representing people around them in court, doling out mortgages and loans. Those boys wouldn’t understand those early ’80s movies where women were denied promotions because “the clients want to deal with men” or “who would take a woman doctor/lawyer/cop seriously”? A lot of these kids would need it explained to them why Cagney & Lacey was revolutionary, because many of their moms had worked in fields once dominated by men.

We had a whole generation too young to remember why we needed second wave feminism, for cryin’ out loud, and here we were adhering to rules from the 1950s. I called bullshit, and left film for good, opting to fight the system from without. There was no way Hollywood really believed what it was saying about boys who’d grown up with Ellen Ripley and Sarah Connor as action heroes, and so there was no way to change the system from within. I concluded Hollywood was was dominated by perpetual pre-adolescent boys making the movies they wanted to see, and using the “target audience” – a construct based on partial truths and twisted math – to perpetuate their own desires. Having never grown up, they still saw women the way Peter Pan saw Wendy: a fascinating Other to be captured, treasured and stuffed into a gilded cage. Where we didn’t talk. To each other. About anything other than men.