Don't Tell Me What to Do

Don't Tell Me What to Do!

Amy Poehler shouted this at the camera at the end of guest appearance on SNL's Weekend Update segment 'Really?' which focused on the issue of birth control in America and American politics.  This brief moment has stayed with me, echoing in the back of my mind.

It seems like the kind of thing a child would shout, being unable to form a nuanced, logical argument.  But when Amy shouted it, to me it seemed completely radical.  After countless articles, speeches, rallies, discussions, years . . . patriarchal society still doesn't get it.  We've tried the nuanced, logical argument approach.  What it boils down to is that these patriarchal, sexist, misogynist, racist, prejudiced systems and people have no right to tell us who/what/how to be and what to do.

Don't tell me what to do!  It gets at the fundamental issue of power imbalance.  You think that you are better than me, more capable than me, that I should obey you because you are a man.  Well you aren't and I'm not going to.

The fact that Amy Poehler is wise and bold enough to shout this at the top of her lungs on national television is a beautiful gift.


via GIPHY

Try saying it some time yourself.  Preferably to someone who is trying to silence you or control you.  It's pretty great.  I've done it.

At lunch at work, my coworkers had the tendency to fuss around me whenever I was cutting an apple or pear.  My female boss would ask me if I wouldn't rather let one of the guys use the knife for me.  Male coworkers would instruct me on how to hold the knife.  Seriously?  How do these people think I have survived this long unable to cut an apple?  I still have all my fingers and limbs.  One day I retorted, Amy's voice in the back of my mind, "Don't tell me what to do!"  No one was giving the men in the office tips on wielding culinary instruments.  If they didn't need to tell other people what to do, they didn't need to tell me.

When getting into a discussion that requires challenging sexist or racist points of view, whenever I made a strong point male coworkers, flustered that I had 'scored' as it were, would joking tell me to "just go and [insert something related to my job]."  While meant as a good-natured way to acknowledge that I was right and that they were wrong, the fundamental joke about the statement was  the unspoken truth that the world would be better if I would just go disappear, just go shut up---so that they didn't look bad, so that they didn't have to hear something that took them safe zone of male privilege.  The goal of such a statement was in the end to silence me as a woman (and protect them from ever having to truly acknowledge that they were wrong or ignorant).  It would all be fun and games until someone accidentally said "just shut up woman and make me a sandwich."  I've now deployed Don't Tell Me What to Do 'jokingly' back at them.

It almost always shuts down the sexist behavior immediately.  It so cleanly and precisely exposes the underlying assumptions that men should control women and that men know better that women and that women should obey men.  It's like a sharp knife that cuts right to the bone.  It avoids getting bogged down in debating the nuances of politics, nature vs nurture, whether or not you have statistics at your finger tips to back up your claims . . . it just points out:  you think you're better than me, well, you're not.  When I want your advice, I'll ask for it.

You're not the boss of me.  Don't Tell Me What to Do.

Primary Day

Today is a big day for Ohio. It's the day that we as voters actually matter. It is primary election day. For some reason that I've never really understood, Ohio is a hugely important state in national elections. Maybe it just boils down to electoral votes and delegates, maybe it's something else, but either way, voting here is always important. In a state that never consistently goes red or blue, every vote matters, so I went to cast mine today.

I wanted to have a voice, to take the time to say "This is who I believe would lead and represent the country/county/area well, and they support the things I believe in." However, saying that is not always easy, especially in the part of Ohio I grew up in and currently reside in. I live just north of Cincinnati. Until the past two presidential election cycles, all of the counties in the area went red. About as bright red as they could get. When Obama first won in 2008, that was the first time in my life I had ever seen Hamilton County (the county that contains Cincinnati) go blue. Every other county was still bright red, however. I live in prime, gun-loving, pro-life, pro-god-in-schools, anti-gay, anti-anybody-who-isn't-a-white-Christian territory. I've watched Bernie Sanders signs be placed on street corners at intersections, only to be defaced, damaged, or removed and replaced by Trump signs within a matter of days. If you are liberal-leaning in this part of Ohio, it's often not worth the effort or risk advertising it.

Given the area I live in, and given recent events that unfolded in the past few days as Trump made appearances very near me in West Chester, and not too far away in Dayton, I went to the polls a little apprehensively. When I went to vote, I was asked for my ID (problematic in itself. See this John Oliver video for more- LINK), asked to verify my name and address, then I was asked which ballot I wanted to receive: republican or democrat. I stood at the table, and before I muttered my answer, for the first time in my life I was actually afraid to cast my vote for a non-republican party. I became very aware of the two older white men glaring at me as they waited for their voting cards, after they heard me respond with "Democrat, please." I became very aware that Ohio is a state that allows concealed carry, and that many people in this area support and take advantage of that law. As I went to vote today, I was reminded of all of the things that were done by generations past to ensure that I could even go vote in the first place, and I was also reminded of all of things that are being done to people who don't agree with the hateful rhetoric being touted by a certain candidate. After voting I spoke of my unease with a relative of mine, who is rebellious in that she dares to be a female democrat in the heart of the south. She told me that I was not alone in my fear and anxiety, that she was also afraid to show support for either democratic candidate because she feared the repercussions. She was afraid her car would be vandalized, or worse, that she would be shot for simply displaying signs or putting a sticker on the bumper of her car.

The only time that I ever feel patriotic is when I go and vote. I'm not sure that the same can be said for me today. Instead of feeling pride in trying to make my voice heard, I felt something much different. I felt ashamed that this process has become such a circus, and a second-rate one at that. I'm ashamed that while my voice and my vote might go the opposite way, the image that this country is projecting internationally is one of hatred and intolerance. Today, I voted, and today, I felt ashamed that I was afraid to be heard.

Marketing: the enemy of women in film?

A few weeks ago I attended a female-centric film festival in New York.  This was my second time at the film festival.  I was really excited to go back because I had a really good time the first time around.  I was hoping to learn more about the barriers that hold women back in the industry and learn the innovative ways women were coming up with to break those barriers down or at least circumnavigate them.  I was particularly excited to attend a panel of female short film directors speaking about barriers, and a panel on unconscious bias.  With all the talk about diversity and gender discrimination in the industry, I thought this festival would be full of vibrant solutions and ideas for the future.

Unfortunately, this really wasn't my experience.  (I write about it more in this post for TYCI.) Most of the solutions proposed rather seemed to support the status quo, and panels were often fraught with disagreement as panelists argued over what the right solutions were, or even what the problems were.  Most disappointingly, digital media was almost never mentioned, which had been something I had expected to hear a lot about. I suppose that this teaches me one thing: it's silly to treat 'women in film' as a monolith, full of women who all have the same experiences and share the same opinions and perspectives.  There is power in having a diversity of approaches to making change; when one solution doesn't work, perhaps another might be more effective.  One size does not fit all.

However in thinking back over what I saw and heard at the festival, and trying to figure out what helpful lessons I could glean--- even if they weren't the ones I was expecting to find--- one issue floats to the surface: marketing.

Several times throughout the festival, filmmakers mentioned clashing with marketing teams and described how marketing ended up becoming an oppressive and/or anti-feminist force under which they or their projects suffered.

When asked about why her film Jennifer's Body, while very amusing and written by a popular, Oscar-winning writer, had flopped so badly, director Karen Kusama described how much of the film's problem was the way it was marketed.  (You can watch here.) While she had envisioned the film as a horror/girl comedy made mostly for women in which Amanda Seyfried played the main character, the marketing team's main approach revolved around "We've got Megan Fox. She's hot."  The film ended up being marketed as a sexy horror film, directed towards young men, and starring Megan Fox.  I found this really interesting, because I remember when Jennifer's Body was being marketed and distinctly remember deciding not to see it because it looked like a stupid sexy-Megan-Fox vehicle--- it didn't look like something was made for me, included me, or respected me.

Kusama says the film confused the marketing team by being both a comedy and horror, and being a story that mostly centered around girls and girls' experiences.  The "default setting" Kusama says for marketing then becomes "just market it to boys."  Kusama recalls being flummoxed by trailers that never showed the main character of the movie (Amanda Seyfried's character) because it focused on teasing whether or not Fox's body would be exposed.  Kusama also mentions begging the marketing team not to ask Megan Fox do press with porn sites because it would have just been too demoralizing to the actress.  "We're selling a lie,"  Kusama commented on the marketing strategy, and emphasized how impactful how the movie is framed in the press and to critics can be.

I found Kusama's story about Jennifer's Body really thought provoking, because it got into the details of an issue I had heard hinted at many times in other places.  It pointed out a harsh reality that even once you've made your female-centric, female-lead film . . . if the marketing team is not on the same page as you and doesn't share your goals, they can still kill you film, bury your message, and make your project inaccessible.  Often times we are so focused on just getting the film made, and making a good film, everything that comes after is a bit of an afterthought.  However, the way the film gets marketed can be a big fight that can make or break whether your story gets heard and reaches those you are seeking to reach.

So perhaps this is one thing women can do to improve the representation of women in film/television on and off screen: get more marketing savvy, become feminist marketers, select marketing teams carefully, and stay in control of the marketing of your projects!

Dropout Reads: The Chalice and the Blade

Its been a while since I've done a feminist book review, so when Riane Eisler's The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future became available through my public library's digital collection I decided to give it a try.  Unbeknownst to me, this book is considered a seminal work in women's studies and remains a best seller under Amazon.com's "Women's Studies History" category.

I must admit that I found the book to be a bit of a mess.  I've found that "seminal works" often cover too much ground, lack focus, and end up repeating themselves haphazardly in their quest to revolutionize established systems of thought.  All three criticisms apply in this case.  Despite these shortcomings, however, I believe the book's underlying premise offers great value.  Let me explain.

 

The Premise

Eisler's thesis revolves around two proposed societal models: partnership societies and dominator societies.

• Partnership societies value creation and renewal.  Their interpersonal relationships link people, connect them, and stress affiliation.  Power and organization are used for enabling and actualizing functions. 
• Dominator societies, in contrast, value violence and destruction.  Their relationships are ranked such that some individuals hold superior positions over those deemed inferior.  Its power structures pursue domination. This model arguably prevails in our current reality.

These models don't revolutionize much on their own, but Eisler goes one step further.  Most of us assume that our persistent dominator proclivities trace all the way back to cave men hoisting clubs and dragging women around by the hair.  Eisler argues the opposite, that Neolithic partnership societies existed for thousands of years before a few rouge dominator groups invaded and crashed the party.  As such, creative, equal, and supportive societies are not Utopian fantasies.