What we missed

Share on TwitterShare on TumblrSubmit to StumbleUponDigg This

Hey have you donated to Miriam Perez’s awesome project to create a Radical Doula guide? Well, you still can.

Matt Weiner answers the question, “where are the black people on Mad Men?

Please read this very real story from Jesse Taylor at Pandagon about why the killing of Trayvon Martin hit home. 

The president makes a searing testimony about Trayvon Martin.

Ever since Komen’s terrible decision to attempt to cut funding for breast exams to Planned Parenthood–they have felt a financial hit. 

Share on TwitterShare on TumblrSubmit to StumbleUponDigg This
Tagged | Leave a comment

The Hunger Games: A story for women and girls that everyone can love

Share on TwitterShare on TumblrSubmit to StumbleUponDigg This

The only thing that could have made me more excited about The Hunger Games is if the trailer was put to Rihanna…Oh look!

In case you didn’t notice (ha!), last night The Hunger Games premiered at midnight across the country. The highly-hyped movie sold more advance tickets on Fandago than any other non-sequel film ever and brought in an estimated $19.7 million last night. Its expected box office numbers for opening weekend–between $115 and $120 million–could break records.

I haven’t seen the movie yet, but we wrote about the books last year, and I’m excited about its success for many reasons. It’s a story about class and inequality and power that resonates deeply in these times. And as Courtney wrote in the New York Times recently, it’s sparked some pretty awesome fan-fuel activism through the “Hunger Is Not a Game” campaign–an effort that Lionsgate, in a total douchey move, is now trying to shutdown.

Plus, as Melissa Silverstein wrote recently, The Hunger Games is poised to become the first huge movie franchise with a female lead–that isn’t Twilight. While Twilight’s audience skewed female and, as Silverstein says, “made the huge numbers in spite of the fact that it was about a girl,” The Hunger Games seems to be gaining a broad-based, gender-neutral, Harry Potter-like fan base. Silverstein writes, “That’s the thing about this movie that is so revolutionary–that it is a typical Hollywood franchise film that happens to be a story about a girl.”

Of course, it’s not entirely true that people haven’t even noticed that Katniss Everdeen is a girl. The books’ immense popularity with teenage girls means there’s been plenty of wondering about whether boys could possibly like it too–as if appealing to one gender automatically means alienating the other. I think that overestimates how much guys these days actually give a fuck about the gender of their action heroes–and underestimates Katniss’ universal appeal. But then again, I’m clearly biased. As one negative review warned, “Be wary of reviews by female critics, as they’re probably more susceptible to the lore of this young-female-adult-propelled franchise than most (‘You go, Katniss!’).” Well, yeah. Sue me.

Which is why, while I hope Silverstein is right that this movie finally proves to Hollywood that movies about girls kicking ass can be commercial successes, I don’t really care if guys don’t love it as much as girls do. They’ve still got plenty of movies “for” them. Laurie Penny wrote in a brilliant piece on The Hunger Games and the Twilight series:

Both series have male fans, but they’re not specifically catered to, in the way that James Bond films, Bruce Willis films or, indeed, 95 percent of the rest of the output of the film and fiction industries don’t particularly concern themselves with the female gaze. In these series, it is women and girls who have desires, passions and problems, women and girls who act on those desires or are consumed by them, and men who are the objects of desire, even if they show up in the story addicted to the whiff of the heroine’s funky-smelling blood.

Identifying with a character of the opposite gender is something that women and girls learn to do automatically, out of necessity, because there is no other choice if you are a lady who likes to watch movies that aren’t rom-coms sometimes. It’s high-time guys gave it a try–and I promise the awesome Katniss Everdeen will make it easy for you.

Share on TwitterShare on TumblrSubmit to StumbleUponDigg This
Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

White savior complexes, hurt feelings and the undue pressure put on writers of color

Share on TwitterShare on TumblrSubmit to StumbleUponDigg This

Teju Cole has a deeply nuanced and informative piece at the Atlantic Monthly about a phenomenon that now finally has a name: the White Savior Industrial Complex. According to Cole, the specific type of activism where white and/or other privileged people enter communities, countries and cultural contexts that are not their own, is still a site rife with misunderstanding, assumptions, faulty generalizations and ultimately, misguided “do-gooding.” His piece was in response to Kony 2012 and in defense of a series of poignant tweets, including:

@tejucole 5- The White Savior Industrial Complex is not about justice. It is about having a big emotional experience that validates privilege.

I suppose you could see how these tweets were controversial–except that they are totally correct. So, really the only people that are going to be offended by them are people whose very work relies on them always thinking everything they do is good, and to help people, and worst of all, that race doesn’t matter. Cole was forced to spend much of the article defending the minutiae of the tweets that were retweeted, defended and debated endlessly, but ultimately ruffled some feathers. The kind of feathers that rely on the White Savior Industrial Complex.

After laying out the very real considerations that people of color are tasked with if they ever want to critique anything ever, he responds to Nicholas Kristof’s potentially hurt feelings for being grouped in with the “white savior,”

It’s only in the context of this neutered language that my rather tame tweets can be seen as extreme. The interviewer on the radio show I listened to asked Kristof if he had heard of me. “Of course,” he said. She asked him what he made of my criticisms. His answer was considered and genial, but what he said worried me more than an angry outburst would have:

“There has been a real discomfort and backlash among middle-class educated Africans, Ugandans in particular in this case, but people more broadly, about having Africa as they see it defined by a warlord who does particularly brutal things, and about the perception that Americans are going to ride in on a white horse and resolve it. To me though, it seems even more uncomfortable to think that we as white Americans should not intervene in a humanitarian disaster because the victims are of a different skin color.”

Cole, rightly notes, this is a problematic response on behalf of Kristof. I would add that it is also childish and something I would expect someone in elementary school to say, not a famous columnist for the New York Times. Are you going to tell me next that you don’t “see” race like Stephen Colbert or that you are so happy that there are so many different kinds of people in the world and you see them all as your kin?

Kristof’s response asserts a certain type of holier-than-thou supremacy where he mitigates any possibility that there is a problematic relationship between a white person and a person of color–even that there is a history of problematic relationships between white people and people of color when it comes to social welfare. Instead, it is flattened to banal ideas of racial harmony and helping others. Read More »

Share on TwitterShare on TumblrSubmit to StumbleUponDigg This
Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Belvedere Vodka ad jokes about date rape

Share on TwitterShare on TumblrSubmit to StumbleUponDigg This

We will just echo Amina and say: FUCK YOU BELVEDERE VODKA.

Of course, Belvedere is now sorry that you were offended. But if you don’t find that apology sufficient or have more to say about why joking about date rape is not the best way to sell vodka, you can contact Belvedere here or by emailing info@belvedere-vodka.com.

Share on TwitterShare on TumblrSubmit to StumbleUponDigg This
Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

2nd anniversary of health reform and the fight to save it

Share on TwitterShare on TumblrSubmit to StumbleUponDigg This

“Repeal and replace.” That has been the refrain of many conservatives who opposed the Obama Administration’s landmark health reform law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), passed exactly two years ago today. Never mind that we haven’t seen much by way of exactly what the ACA will be replaced WITH. For now, in true can-do fashion, the conservatives’ focus seems to be on “repeal.”

On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments about the constitutionality of the ACA with a specific focus on the individual mandate  and Medicaid expansion parts of the bill. The individual mandate element is getting is getting the bulk of the media attention, as it would require everyone to have health insurance coverage. This is a policy position that is based on the assessment that if we all had insurance (rather than just the sickest folks) it would be dramatically cheaper for everyone involved. It’s a solid economic principle, and when it’s coupled with strong regulations of the insurance industry, it can be very effective in keeping costs down. We see it at play in many other arenas of social protection: income tax and car insurance, for disparate example.

The idea is that if you get to participate in a society that protects your rights, you ought to be required to contribute something to it as well. Now, given the fact that we did not achieve federalized, universal health care through the ACA (would have been my personal preference), and we are maintaining the participation of private insurance companies in health care, we have to ensure that we make it possible for everyone to participate.

Republican lawmakers fought tooth and nail against this bill, and they are still fighting hard to try and prevent it from being implemented. White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Nancy-Ann DeParle isn’t worried about the challenge, though, stating, “We feel great about our Supreme Court argument and we feel great about where we are on implementation [of the ACA].”

So, why should we care? Three reasons why the ACA should be protected:

1)    What it’s already done;

2)   What it will do; and

3)   What it could do.

So first, what has the bill already done, that a repeal will undo? Well, there are a ton of great provisions in the law here are some greatest hits:

  • The Medicaid expansion is at the very top of my list. More poor people will get health care that they can’t afford right now, because they make too little to afford health care but just too much to qualify for Medicaid.
  • Preventive care for one and all without co-pays. The list of required benefits is long, and includes:  mammograms; cancer screenings, domestic violence services, HIV and sexually transmitted diseases; lactation and breastfeeding support and equipment; well-woman visits; and all FDA-approved contraceptive options. The contraceptive coverage came after a big fight, as you might remember. (Full list of all covered services.)
  • Every health care plan must include maternity coverage. Plain and simple.
  • No more “gender rating.” Insurance companies can’t charge women more for being women. They can’t deny them care if they’ve been pregnant before or if they’ve experienced domestic/intimate partner violence. Yes, this was legal before.

Secondly, there’s the matter of what the law will do once fully implemented. The biggest deal happens in 2014. Starting in 2014, if your employer doesn’t offer insurance, you will be able to buy it directly in an Affordable Insurance Exchange. An Exchange is a new transparent and competitive insurance marketplace where individuals and small businesses can buy affordable and qualified health benefit plans.  Think of it like Expedia or Orbitz for health care – compare and contrast different plans that all meet quality control and cost standards.  One of my favorite things about this is that in 2014, once the exchanges are operationalized, all Members of Congress will be getting their health care insurance through the Exchanges.

Thirdly, what is the potential within the ACA? This isn’t a question that we ask often. Here I offer you an important caveat to all this optimism about the ACA: the bill does not treat abortion like a valuable health service. In fact, states can choose not to offer abortion in their exchange plans, and there are roadblocks to private insurance coverage of abortion in the exchanges.  Further, in most states Medicaid does not include abortion – so the gap in access to abortion care will not be directly addressed by the ACA’s Medicaid expansion.

I say this in the same moment that I talk about what the bill CAN do because while I believe that it’s offered a blow to reproductive health and I think it’s also afforded an opportunity. We’ve seen this happen in fight for contraceptive coverage.

We have to push back against the silos in this moment – abortion coverage in Medicaid and in private insurance should be mentioned in the same breath as contraceptive coverage. We can’t make these distinctions in fighting for access to the full range of reproductive health services, because our opponents certainly aren’t. For them, challenging abortion and contraception in federal health care plans is as important as challenging it in private insurance plans. We have to respond in kind.

This big, bold policy makes the argument that our government should help us get health care and make sure that we can afford it. We have to keep making the case that it ought to include the full range of women’s health care needs – preventive care, birth control, cancer screenings and yes, abortion.

So, let’s celebrate this moment. Two years ago, Congress said yes, health care is a right. Everyone should have it regardless of whether they are rich or poor. Now, we keep pushing to make sure that it’s not selective. We keep pushing to make sure it’s complete.

Share on TwitterShare on TumblrSubmit to StumbleUponDigg This
1 Comment
  • Subscribe


  • blog advertising is good for you.
  • Subscribe

  • Meet Us

183 queries. 1.344 seconds