Tina Fey: Celebrity Crush

Brad Pitt, Scarlet Johansson, Jake Gyllenhaal - we all have them. The celebrities that make us swoon. Who's my celebrity crush? Without a doubt, Tina Fey. I simply can't resist a smart, funny, sassy woman who’s not afraid to have a job, crack jokes, and wear glasses on television.

Now, to be fair, Fey is by no means the epitome of feminist expression. Her TV character persona, while single and professional, is also lonely and self-deprecating. Fey’s "30Rock" alter-ego, Liz Lemon, is in a constant quest for male suitors, and relies heavily on jokes relating to a single woman's desperation as she approaches the big 4-0. Despite often unconvincing attempts to pretend she is happy as an unmarried, childless, overworked, underappreciated professional woman, Lemon always falls victim to the seemingly inevitable truth that a lady needs a man to be satisfied.

Such assumptions also provide ample space for another reoccurring joke – if a woman is single, over 35, and more into her career than the way she looks, she must be a lesbian. And while Liz often comically toys with the idea of lesbianism, thinking that perhaps the love of a woman could fill the void left by the absence of a man, she ultimately reaffirms man-centric thought and the hetero woman’s fear of lesbian comparison. Take this favorite Lemon exchange between our plainly dressed heroine and her boss, the ultra-Republican CEO stereotype Jack Donaghy (played by the entertaining Alec Baldwin):

Jack Donaghy: How was your evening with Thomas?
Liz Lemon: You mean Gretchen Thomas, the brilliant plastics engineer slash lesbian? What made you think I was gay?
Jack Donaghy: Your shoes.
Liz Lemon: Well I'm straight.
Jack Donaghy: Those shoes are definitely bi-curious.
Liz Lemon: Regardless, I am straight. One-hundred percent completely straight.
Jack Donaghy: Well I'm sorry if I offended you.

And later

Jack Donaghy: All right then. You're not a lesbian. Duly noted. I'll correct that on your file. It's too bad, though. Thomas thought you were great.
Liz Lemon: She did?
Jack Donaghy: Yes. She said she thought you looked like Jennifer Jason Leigh.
Liz Lemon: Really? She said that?
Jack Donaghy: Yes, I made her repeat it. I was sure she meant Jason Lee.

Feminist? Not really. Funny? Yes. And who doesn't love someone who can laugh at themselves. Again, in the interest of fairness, "30Rock" does deserve props for attempts at gender equality. It's not just Liz Lemon who is unhappy with the single life, but her male counterpart Jack Donaghy is also in need of love and tenderness. The difference? Liz can't get a date (unless you count a hilariously pitiful beeper salesman) while Jack spent last season dating two beautiful women at once. The show, full of witty social commentary, does a great job, however, at pointing out this discrepancy and making fun of the pervasive double standard.

While browsing the blogosphere for insight into public opinion of my celebrity crush, I found that most feminists seem to have a love/hate relationship with Ms. Fey. Here is a woman who is bringing an intelligent, valued female voice to the entertainment world, but yet her favorite comedic targets are single women (interestingly enough Fey herself is married with a daughter). A March Vogue article featuring the self proclaimed "normal" celebrity, describes her comedy as an original "brand of superfunnysmart feminism." How feminist it is may be up for debate, but most people I know can agree on the super funny smart part. At least the folks at the Kennedy Center who just awarded her the prestigious Mark Twain prize for American Humor seem to think so. Taking her brand of informed, satirical, socially conscious humor for what it is, I can’t help but love Tina Fey.

photo credit: Cary Pohlhammer on flickr.com

Teen Parent Shows… Good or bad?

Before I jump into this question, I would like to introduce myself. I am Annie Neimand, a new intern at the Los Angeles office! Woo! I have been given allowance to use my feminist eye to write, and sometimes rant, about questionable things in our society. So as my first blog… drum roll please...I have decided to ask the question: Are shows like MTV’s Teen Mom, The CW’s Life Unexpected, and ABC Family’s The Secret Life of an American Teen, good or bad for American teens?

I can’t help but feel somewhat stoked that there are shows discussing teen pregnancy, but I somehow feel like they are rooting for some team other than mine. I am of course progressively pro-choice and pro sex-ed, but these shows don’t seem to tackle any of those things. In fact it seems to be creating a whole different side, a side that capitalizes on and glamorizes teen mommies! Oy!

These shows, which are centered on young women making ‘choices’ about their lives and families, don’t discuss abortion or even highlight it as an option. They show girls either keeping their babies or opting for adoption.
Note: they seem to portray adoption as a choice you will eventually feel incredibly regretful of. Hmm…

Furthermore, I feel like these shows should look at why these girls got pregnant in the first place, and why they decided to keep it. For instance, maybe teen A didn’t know about contraception, or maybe teen B didn’t have a clinic or a parent to turn to. I think these factors would make the show be and mean something more than another teen drama.

You know, I would like to see an undercover show where they expose abstinence-only education or the anti-choice rhetoric as a culprit in the teen mom scenario, or at the very least MTV can give Abstinence-only the moon man it deserves.

So after reading my clearly unbiased bit, do you think this is a step forward or backward for the pro-choice/sex-ed platform? Do you think these issues belong together? What do you think?


If you have any ideas or questions for me you can email me at aneimand@feminist.org

But What Will I Do Without My Daily Dose of Racist Biggotry?

Oh, if only this sign were true and CNN talk show host Lou Dobbs was like an imaginary friend (and like most imaginary friends, we could have given up on his existence when we started pre-school and started making real friends.)

Unfortunately, that reality will never be, but we have a close second for Utopia: Yesterday, Lou Dobbs abruptly announced that, starting today, he will no longer be hosting Lou Dobbs Tonight, vaguely citing the pursuit of "new opportunities" as his rational.

So, as an early holiday gift to all those feminists out there, grab some popcorn, sit back and watch the premature resignation happen all over again.








Yes, I understand that this level of schadenfreude may be a hit to my karma, but I do not stand alone in thinking Dobbs' tactlessness on "illegal" (always Mexican) immigrants shouldn't land him a place in equality's Hall of Fame.

Just ask Geraldo Rivera, who described Dobbs to the Huffington Post as "a man who was an accomplished journalist, and who left to start his own venture in the digital media… and then came back to CNN, and nobody was watching his program. He discovered that one of the ways he could get people to watch was to make of the image of a young Latino trying to get into this country a profoundly negative icon. Lou Dobbs is almost single-handedly responsible for creating, for being the architect of the young-Latino-as-scapegoat for everything that ails this country."

Anyone who is feeling abandoned by Dobbs and looking for counseling, leave a comment. I'm sure FMLAs will start a support group to get through this loss.

Normalizing Violence: Have We Gone Too Far??

We're approaching "sweeps week," you know, that lovely week when television shows fight for ratings with extravagant tricks of plot twists, celebrity guest stars, girl-on-girl make-out scenes or musical numbers. Growing up, we've learned that this is to be expected and is "perfectly normal."

As a culture, we've accepted the message that sex/violence sells and may be have even encouraged it with our nation-wide viewing records. I would be a hypocrite if I were to say I've never been sucked into a Law and Order SVU marathon. Ice T and Mariska Hargitay aside, it has felt like these images have gotten worse and worse over the years.

Proving that I'm not an old lady, reinventing the perfection of "when I grew up," a new study by Parents Television Council/Women In Peril shows that we have, in fact, gone WAY too far. Over the past five years, there has been a 120% increase in the television depictions of violence against women and a 400% increase in the number of victimized teens!

While beatings were often the scenario of choice at 29%; stabbings, rape, torture and threats were not too far behind. The study also found that if the character did not consequentially die from the violence (19% of the time,) the graphic consequences were made visually explicit to the viewer (92%) rather than just implied or described (8%.)

Using these themes to lure an audience may be good for the network marketing director, but the effects of such extreme, normalized violence on a person and a culture goes far beyond the time in front of the tube.

Women In Peril describe short-term and long-term effects of viewed violence by saying that:
Short-term exposure increases the likelihood of physically and verbally aggressive behavior, aggressive thoughts, and aggressive emotions. Recent large-scale longitudinal studies provide converging evidence linking frequent exposure to violent media in childhood with aggression later in life, including physical assaults and spouse abuse. Because extremely violent criminal behaviors (e.g., forcible rape, aggravated assault, homicide) are rare, new longitudinal studies with larger samples are needed to estimate accurately how much habitual childhood exposure to media violence increases the risk for extreme violence.

Do you want our generation/the generation below us to become the next set of "data samples" needed for the extreme violence study? I sure don't!

Moral of the story:

Correlation is key: any country that on a whole actively watches young women victimized day-after-day is bound to be negatively effected. Please don't zone out to the tube, numb to what you are watching. Make your friends, family and networks aware that you will not stand for this trend to continue any more!

chart credit: Parents Television Council
photo credit: sternenrauschen on flickr.com

Elmo can make everything better... (well, almost)

As someone who went to bed very hopeful about Maine, waking up to contradictory headlines was not an easy thing. Assuming that many of you are in the same zombie-drone-combo state as myself, I figured a good googly-eyed, pick-me-up was in order. Here we go:

Today the beloved children's educational television show Sesame Street turned 40 (*necessary Count Von Count laugh: HA HA HA!*) While the show is most often recognized as one of the more adorably fluffy ways to learn about counting or sharing, it is its strong stance on social awareness and incredibly progressive approach to education that makes it special.

From its conception, Sesame Street made a point to not just teach, but show and normalize an urban, multi-racial environment that apparently did not exist in TVland at the time. I mean, with the time's popular shows like Lassie, Beverly Hillbillies, the Brady Bunch and I Dream of Jeannie, you'd never guess there was a Civil Rights Movement!

Subtly pushing an underlining of social consciousness along with the learning tools, the show intentionally included interracial couples, strong female figures (particularly after talks with NOW) and age-appropriate conversations about September 11th and Hurricane Katrina.

Even Big Bird's revealing of Snuffleupagus to the adults had a hidden message, as it proved to kids that parents will believe them if they tell secrets, a lesson aimed at any child viewer who had experienced or was experiencing sexual assault.

With guests like Ralph Nader, Michelle Obama, Oprah and Ray Charles, the show has grown to become an international staple; causing moms to publicly take out other moms for a Tickle Me Elmo during the Christmas of 1997 and more "mature" adults like myself to still get the warm and fuzzies.

In feminism and equality, I present to you these classic clips:

Jesse Jackson:

Feminism of Today: Girls of the World

Feminism of the past (although the message still applies): Women can be anything!

No Dignity For NBC

Michele Kort, Senior Editor of Ms. Magazine recently posted about the recent Law and Order episode "Dignity," based on Dr. Tiller. The original post is here


By Michele Kort, Senior Editor

Anyone who’s watched the long-running NBC series Law and Order—the original, not the spinoffs—knows that its stories are often “ripped from the headlines.” So it wasn’t all that surprising that the October 23 episode, entitled “Dignity,” was obviously inspired by the murder this past spring of Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller in his church.

What was shocking, though, was how the screenwriters used Tiller’s assassination as a jumping-off point to debate whether it could be considered a “justifiable” homicide and whether Roe v. Wade has somehow become outmoded. Although the murderer of the fictional doctor is ultimately judged guilty, the final verdict of the teleplay is probably expressed best when one of the district attorneys says, “Roe v. Wade could stand another look.” Thus the whole legal doctrine, which serves as the basis in the U.S. for women’s rights to birth control as well as abortion, is thrown into question.

We expect that Law and Order will tackle controversy, and use its characters as mouthpieces for competing viewpoints. One cop takes a pro-choice line, the other an anti-abortion stance. A similar pro-con occurs in the district attorney’s office as they plan their prosecution. One nurse defends the doctor’s work, while another quits her job over a fictionalized late abortion case in which that fetus is born alive, then euthanized.

But we’re never allowed to develop any real understanding of the need for late abortion or the circumstances that confront women. While the screenwriters include exposition that explains the most common reasons for late abortion—catastrophic fetal anomalies, pregnancies as the result of rape of children, life-threatening conditions for the pregnant woman—they choose to focus on a case about a fetus with a serious but survivable skin condition. That serves to trivialize the preponderance of late abortion cases, where it’s far more likely that the brain or other vital organs are missing.

Indeed, the murdered doctor is branded a fanatic and a murderer himself, rather than a brave and compassionate human being. When a fellow doctor stands up for him vigorously in court testimony and says that abortion providers won’t be stopped from their work, the district attorney concludes, “So now we know there are fanatics in both camps.”

Anyone who knew George Tiller, as a friend or coworker or patient, must have been appalled by this second assassination, even if it was only of the character variety.

Perhaps most alarmingly, the judge in the case allows a “justifiable homicide” defense—which has never been allowed in a U.S. court—and so the extremist rhetoric that links abortion to murder is allowed to get quite an airing on the show. These arguments themselves are given “dignity” since they’re expressed by someone identified as not being an extremist fanatic. The screenwriters thus fail to recognize that such a rationale can be just the “license to kill” that extremists need to justify their murderous actions against abortion providers and their staff: Nine have been killed since 1993.

Yes, it was just television, constructed for maximum dramatic conflict. But this episode of Law and Order was not only insensitive to the recent grief over Dr. Tiller’s death and the reality of his compassionate treatment of his patients, but it was dangerous in offering such a large public platform to anti-abortion rhetoric and distortions of medical facts. By equating the arguments on both sides, the show has failed to understand how false but vehement arguments are a precursor to unrelenting harassment and even brutal violence.

If you want to express your displeasure over this episode, write to the executive producer of Law and Order, Rene Balcer, at 100 University City Plaza, University City, CA 91608.

And if you want to read the truth about the life, work and dignity of George Tiller, read an excerpt from “A Man who Trusted Women” in the Summer 2009 issue of Ms.

Photo Credit: Steve Rhodes from flickr.com

Verdict: Anti-Choice and Disappointing

I have been a big fan of the television show "Law and Order" since high school, but I haven't been watching the new episodes recently. I've been sort of feeling nostalgic about the whole show, so imagine my feelings when I read the article on Salon today about the most recent episode that appeared to take the tragedy of Dr. Tiller's death and turn it into an anti-choice supporting episode.

How do you do that? By fabricating events that make the murdered abortion provider seem like a bad person, instead of someone who is performing a legal service that saves the lives of women. Gee, that strategy sure sounds like something the anti-choice movement would do.....

So, why did "Law and Order" do it?
Photo courtesy of www.flickr.com

Glee brings feminist sex positivity to TV

After watching the President's address to Congress last night (more on that to come), I tuned into some slightly lighter fare: the season premiere of Glee.

This was only the second episode ever, but I have to say I am digging this show. I'm a sucker for musicals, and while the show initially appeared to be a High School Musical rip-off when first advertised, it actually has a lot of dark humor and smart dialogue that make it anything but. Also, Jane Lynch, who pretty much pwns anything she ever does. One thing that is making my white privilege radar go off is the character Mercedes Jones, who seems to be stuck in some sassy black girl stereotypes, but I am hoping that they will develop her character and the rest of the supporting cast over the season.

Some slight spoilers ahead, so reader beware.

Last night's episode made me exceptionally happy with its sex positive message. Rachel, the talented outcast leading the glee club, joins the celibacy club in an attempt to win the affections of Finn, her fellow glee member. The activities of the club are played for some cheap laughs (which I enjoyed) until Rachel just can't take it anymore. She addresses the club with a kickass speech (I couldn't get a clip, so go to 21:47 to check it out)



Rachel: Did you know that most studies have demonstrated that celibacy doesn't work in high schools? Our hormones are driving us too crazy to abstain. The second we start telling ourselves that there's no room for compromise we act out. The only way to deal with teen sexuality is to be prepared. That's what contraception is for.

Quinn: Don't you dare mention the "C" word.

Rachel: You want to know a dirty little secret that none of them want you to know? Girls want sex just as much as guys do.

Boy: Is that accurate?

Contraception talk and an acknowledgment of female sexuality? Be still my feminist heart!

Highlights from the Wild World of Sociology

In these past few weeks at FMF I've looked at a lot of blogs, and I have to say that Sociological Images might be my favorite (after this one, duh). It never ceases to entertain and educate me. Anyways, enough about my deep, undying love of sociology.... Today there's a wealth of posts that I wanted to share with you!

First off, there's the guidelines for judging beauty queens in the 50's, and the utter ridiculousness of what very specific characteristics were required to win. That's followed by a clip of the Daily Show that talks about the ban on burkas in France, and the comparative freedom in the US. As if that wasn't enough, there's an icky Dutch commercial, an anylsis of those ads about making your eyelashes grow better (which have boggled my mind for weeks), and a piece about my favorite organization that think it's cool to use objectifying ads.

As feminists, I think it's extremely important that we look at our world and see how the everyday things like tv ads and books that rely on biological essentialism, sexism, and other similar forms of thinking inform the lives of every one of us.

Photo Courtesy of D Sharon Pruitt at www.flickr.com

Reality Check

Trashy reality TV has always appealed to me, especially those shows on basic cable. I love "Whose Wedding Is It Anyway?" and regularly bring up "16 and Pregnant" in conversation (much to the amusement of my coworkers). Quality shows like "Mad Men" and "30 Rock" may be my official favorites, but many a Sunday in my house has been rendered unproductive by a "What Not To Wear" marathon.

The guilty pleasure I derive from viewing these shows leaves me conflicted as a feminist. They are voyeuristic, putting others' flaws on display. Part of the fun of watching pregnancies, weddings, and makeovers is passing judgment (who hasn't felt superior after watching an episode of "Clean House" and realizing that her messy room is not that bad?). But who am I to judge these people? And there are a host of other issues involved (weddings are a patriarchal institution and billion-dollar industry, pregnancy shows rarely, if ever, mention abortion as a safe and appropriate choice for women, makeovers hinge upon socially constructed beauty standards, etc). I won't even broach the Jon and Kate fiasco.

Yesterday, however, I stumbled upon a new show that may be the most awful reality tv I've seen--and not in a good way. I had to turn it off two minutes in.



"Most Popular" is a new WeTV show. Seven women stand on stage as 100 women in the audience vote them off one by one. There is no real competition and no talent is measured. It all depends on the instincts of the audience. Whoever is left standing at the end wins up to $10,000 and the title "Most Popular."

This show seems to be the epitome of all that is wrong in our society. These are grown women on display, humiliating themselves for some money or fame (WeTV fame, but whatever works). And those are grown women in the audience, readily offering their opinions on other women's weight, face, or clothing. Their motivation is less clear.

This is woman-on-woman crime. And it needs to stop.

So yeah, maybe I will cut back on my reality tv. I may not be as mean-spirited as these women, I may be rooting for the girls on "16 and Pregnant" to be good mothers, get their GEDs, and kick the dumb boyfriends to the door, but I am still a part of this culture. And I am partially responsible.

Intro to Feminist Theory on HBO?

Women and Hollywood reported today that playwright Theresa Rebeck and former The Daily Show executive producer Ben Karlin are developing a show for HBO called Women's Studies. The series would follow the adventures of a former feminist "it girl" (Julie White) who takes a teaching position at a small liberal arts college in New England.

I feel like this could be amazing or could die a quick but painful death. I'm hoping for the former, given the quality of HBO's past shows, TONY winner Julie White's starring role, and the fact that Theresa Rebeck (pictured) has written

"As a writer, I have always considered it my job to describe the world as I know it; to struggle toward whatever portion of the truth is available to me. I am a feminist in that I believe that women are as fully human as men and that their experiences are as worthy of representation, as universally significant, as men’s. I believe that the hero’s journey is both male and female. I believe that, as a rule, women are as deeply flawed as men are. I’m interested in writing about the way both genders make mistakes and the ways we grow, or don’t grow."

See the full piece here; it's a great commentary on the struggles of female artists.

I am so excited that a blatantly feminist perspective might make it to tv.