At work, we get the Calgary Herald, the Globe and Mail and the National Post each day. I don’t generally read them, as I get all of my news online at my desk, but occasionally whizzing by the kitchen, one of the papers will grab my eye.

The other day, it was an article in the entertainment section of the Calgary Herald, on the Emmy’s. Now, before I begin, I have to note that the Herald denied me my favourite pasttime of blaming them entirely for this strange article, because it was written by Reuters. I was a little sad, because I do love finding faulty logic in the Herald, it is an asshole hobby that I have. (And don’t worry, I do it with equal fervor to the Globe too.)

The was article was entitled, “Emmy wins prove ‘modern’ families are U.S. hits,” and you may be able to guess where they’re going with this. Yup, they’re talking about race and homosexuality. The essential thesis of the article is that because Modern Family won the Best Comedy Emmy, it must mean that Americans are more open to interracial adoptions and being gay.

I suppose I get where this article was trying to go, but I take exception with its conclusions and in particular, the people interviewed for it.

I took exception to the self-congratulatory about the tone of the article, like “Yay! Look at our society! We’re progressing!” and the quick conclusions that it reached about how the average American views gay people. I don’t think congratulations are in order, because we have a long way to go before we reach true acceptance of “alternative families.”

The first point that I found problematic was made by Todd Gold, the managing editor of Fancast.com:

While many may disagree with issues like gay marriage, (Americans) have shown that they are incredibly tolerant and accepting when it comes to entertainment

I’m sorry, I don’t get what that means. To me that says that Americans are okay with theoretical gay people, but not when they get married, move next door and have kids. If that’s the case, fine, that’s a separate issue – but that doesn’t mean that people are tolerant and accepting.

Tolerance in entertainment is not necessarily reflective of tolerance in real life. History has shown repeatedly that we are willing be entertained by those that we do not necessarily appreciate or respect (prostitutes, gladiators…sorry I was free-associating, but you get the idea.) You might even go as far as to say that entertainers are a lower class, in that sort of “dance, monkey, dance!” kind of way. So it does not matter that we don’t support them getting married, they’re beneath us.

In addition, the gay couple in the show emphasize parental responsibility. “They are not finger-snappy fabulous gay guys. They are more homey, slightly nerdier, smarter gay guys and in many ways the most traditional of the parental units in our show, so I don’t think we ever thought that was going to be too much for Americans to accept,” said Lloyd.

Oh, Lloyd. Christopher Lloyd is the co-creator of Modern Family and I have to point out that he is currently in hot water with the kids on the social networks, because the gay couple on Modern Family has not yet kissed, after a whole season. I’m just going to let that sit.

Also, notice how the writer made the connection between parental responsibility and flamboyant gay men vs. traditional parental units? Sneaky.

Flamboyance is something that I have noticed is great sticking point for a lot of people – they have no problem with people being gay, as long as they don’t act gay. It calls into question their understanding of gender norms and the social structure. It’s unnerving and foreign.

I personally don’t have a problem with flamboyance, I have a problem with the assumption that gay men are flamboyant. In reality, gay parents probably don’t even act flamboyant. They’re focused on their kid, just like every other parent, not traipsing around like a club rat cliché. If anyone is flamboyant, it’s the 18-year-old gay man sorting through their own identity, and to that, I counter with the screechy 18-year-old teenage girl. Both are equally irritating and confused. But in women, we find that endearing.

In the end, I do agree with Todd Gold that Hollywood is reflecting changes in society. They’re not widespread changes, but they’re still afoot. I also agree that the millennial generation is much more comfortable with “alternative families” than older generations. Our parents broke the traditional marriage model, and we got through it okay, so what’s wrong with two people of the same sex coupling up? Surely it’s no more damaging than being told that you have a new father at 10.

Hollywood is a pretty liberal place and I think those of us who are of the liberal persuasion like to think we’re so awesome – we’ve accepted gay people like the rest of us! But there’s a lot of prejudice and sense of the “other” that still clouds the way society as a whole treats people in same sex relationships. We shouldn’t give ourselves too much credit, winning an Emmy is cute, but it’s not the end zone. Especially if they haven’t even kissed!

Tags: acceptance, bigotry, Emmy, gender norms, homosexuality, Modern Family, society, television, tolerance

If only I hadn't broken up with my boyfriend before driving the car. Sad face.

I have this problem. All of my male acquaintances are ministry-approved driving instructors. I know, right? So strange! How is it that male friends, family members and coworkers have all managed to become qualified to comment on my driving when they’re a passenger in my car?…Oh wait, they’re not.

For a group of people who have snagged themselves speeding tickets, traffic violations and are explicitly not qualified to comment on or judge a person’s driving skills, I have a few backseat drivers in my life. And all of them are men.

I’m not sure what it is about men and women in cars, but I don’t think my experience is unique.

For whatever reason, many men seem to think that it is reasonable and not-at-all irritating for them to criticize a person’s driving, while they are driving a car. Because this makes so much sense. Yes, it’s a great idea to undercut a person’s driving confidence, while they’re in the middle of operating a vehicle with which, if things went really badly, they could kill you!

Logic fail. Why on earth would you do something so stupid as to make a person feel like a bad driver, while they are driving?

Am I perfect driver? Sometimes it takes me a minute to park in a tricky spot, sometimes I take a quick turn that I should have waited on. But so far, I’ve got a clean driving record and aside from a stupid pole-induced scrape on my front bumper, I’ve managed to avoid destroying my car. I should not have to defend my driving to you.

I passed my test. I had my driving scrutinized, I got yelled at when I failed my G2 (Class 5 GDL) test the first time for speeding. I got it. I passed. In fact, the government has said that I am allowed to operate a vehicle, all by myself! Go me. And you know what? Most days, my lady hormones don’t even get the best of me. I can drive a car without having an emotional freak out, tears streaming down my face as I nearly lose control of the vehicle, because it’s so overwhelming being a woman and driving a car.

So why the commentary?

I have no idea. There is no succinct conclusion to this post/rant. I’m inclined to make a sloppy judgment on the bravado/stupidity of men = “I’m a great driver!” = more fatal crashes. But you know, I wouldn’t want to presume.

But I did do a little research. The conclusion, as one might assume, is that there is no clear evidence for who is the better driver. Studies have found that men have better technical handling of a car (ex. can park a car quicker,) but women have better judgment (ex. not speeding when it is idiotic to do so.) It has pretty much been proven that men are more likely to die in a car crash than women, because they employed poor judgment while driving.

Which can only lead me to say:

Dear Future Male Passengers,

Please a) have some respect for your driver and b) acknowledge that I have passed my driver’s test and don’t need you to teach me to drive while I am operating the car. In fact, I don’t really need you to teach me to drive at all. And c) remember that it may take me a correction to park the car, but in a battle of judgment vs. handling in a parking lot, who is less likely to die? Go me!

I look forward to our next road trip. You can bring the timbits and the show tunes.

Love,

Allison

Tags: car accidents, driving, driving confidence, men

Julia, looking loved up and happy. How dare she?

So, as I’m sure you’ve heard, Eat, Pray, Love is gracing us with its presence on the big screen, starting this weekend. And the lady blogs and bloggers have been having a field day. Blogs like Jezebel and Feministing have been saying absolutely nothing new about Elizabeth Gilbert and her memoir, but are still making a big deal out of the film’s debut.

Courtney at Feministing, while she wasn’t hating on Eat, Pray, Love, felt compelled to point out that most people can’t escape to an Indian asharam when the going gets tough.

Jezebel has been crazy with the coverage – photos from the premiere, a story about attending the premiere, questioning whether or not Gilbert ruined Bali, discussing self-help culture and how tough it is to be upper middle class and white. I’m not going to link to all their posts, but here’s a link to their hashtag on the topic.

Bitch wrote an essay about priv-lit and women’s insatiable desire for enlightenment. To be honest, I didn’t get through the entire article, because I immediately felt talked down to.

The lady blog coverage of Eat, Pray, Love seems obsessed with reminding us that Gilbert is privileged, special and even a bit self-indulgent. That not all of us can afford to travel, gallivant and eat exquisitely. That not everyone can escape to Italy, India and Indonesia when their life goes down the toilet. Funny, I didn’t really need that explained to me. So why are they dragging on about it?

Many feminists seems to have a complicated relationship with Gilbert and her work (specifcally, Eat, Pray, Love and Committed.) There seems to be some almost jealousy of her good fortune, which explains the incessant reminders that her story is unique and not a reality of for most people, but also an enduring fascination with her. It’s like they want to make her problems trivial, but they can’t hate her enough to follow through. They kind of really like her.

I think this is because feminism has an uneasy relationship with women (generally, caucasian) who are relatively well-off in life. They can’t be real feminists. They don’t know real suffering and struggle, therefore, what the hell do they know about feminism? Their problems are all silly and a reflection of their twisted socialization, as opposed to legitimate issues.

(For the record, this has happened to me. I wrote about it here.)

There are actually a lot of feminist aspects to Gilbert’s story. Leaving your husband is hard, you’re purposefully and bravely dismantling your entire life. I think that takes great courage. Gilbert had the courage to not just leave her husband, but to take up with a younger boyfriend and following that relationship’s demise, to gallivant around the world for a year. I think it’s in Gilbert’s selfish and self-indulgent behaviour that we can see acts of feminism. She fought for her own happiness.

She acted like a man. She made a choice that put her happiness first, and she didn’t care what other people thought. We all know that any woman at her age who leaves her husband and travels for a year with no real plans is considered a flake, immature, selfish, foolish. I think that she was brave.

Feminism is about women, all women. The tendency to write off Gilbert’s experiences as shallow and consumerist is the very bitchiness that causes so many internal problems within feminism. She’s not feminist enough for you, so you’re going to rip apart her year of self-exploration on your blog. Cool. Would it be better for you if she was a single mother with a drug problem?

Tags: Eat Pray Love, Elizabeth Gilbert, enlightenment, Feminism, Feministing.com, Jezebel, pop culture, upper middle class, women

This is a quick post about social media, I know.

What inspires it though, is the rise of the middle school-esque behaviour I’m seeing on twitter. Specifically, people who know who you are, but don’t follow you back, or chat with you repeatedly, but don’t follow you back.

Let’s face it, we’re all concerned with our twitter ratio. No one wants to follow more people than they have following them, it just looks uncool. But there is the unspoken, polite rule that if someone follows you who is a real person and in the same group of friends/industy/group of acquaintances, you should probably follow them back. If you know who they are in real life, you should probably follow them back.

You look like an immature meanie if you don’t. It reminds me of being in grade 6, when the most popular girl in school was slightly mean and neglectful to all of her friends, just so that they remembered who had the power.

It’s twitter karma, I think. Don’t be the jerk, don’t be the fake person who is social with everyone but has no actual follow through (pun INTENDED!) Who can’t commit to a simple following back. It changes my opinion of you. You go from cool and interesting to a little bit lame. When you don’t follow me back I think, “Oh, did you have no friends in grade 6? Some deep popularity issues that you’d like to work out on the internet?”

And yup, this comes from personal experience. I don’t get people who interact with me fairly regularly but don’t follow back on twitter. Social media is a valid and enduring form of communication, and that just wouldn’t slide in face-to-face interaction.

Let’s just be friends on twitter, okay? I promise that 90% of what I tweet is either sarcastic or links to newspaper articles pushing my own political views. I don’t have a boyfriend or a cat that I tweet about, and I’m genuinely interested in meeting people in Calgary. I’m consistent. If you’re funny or smart, I’ll retweet you. Or make fun of you. But I show my affection for people by making fun of them.

I’m also stuck in grade 6.

Tags: humour, sarcasm, social, social media, twitter

Last year in south Florida, one teenage girl killed another over a boy.

It’s a typical, nauseatingly salacious story. Sarah Ludeman was dating Josh Camacho, who was cheating on her with his ex, Rachel Wade. Sarah and Rachel taunted each other, online, over text, in person – often ending in physical altercations. Josh was also seeing other girls, including someone named Erin, who he got pregnant. All the girls knew about each other, but they still keep seeing Josh, and mostly reserved their anger and hatred for each other, as opposed to the boy at the centre of it all.

The climax came when Sarah, sick of Rachel taunting her, drove over to her apartment with a group of friends intending to fight her. Rachel was prepared, she had a very sharp steak knife, and in the tussle of their fight, Rachel stabbed Sarah in the shoulder and the heart. She died within the hour. Rachel is now facing a life sentence.

Before I get into the girls, I would like to note that I think this case is another prime example of the holes in the justice system that can harm women. No, Josh never told Rachel to kill Sarah, but he is has an ethical and moral responsibility in this case. He is the root cause of this tragedy. There should be some recognition of his involvement, we have punishments for other crimes that address implied or negligent action. Instead, absolutely nothing will happen to him.

I don’t believe that Rachel really killed Sarah over Josh, I believe that there is so much more to it than that.

As I’ve discussed in my post about female friendships, competition is such a big part of so many female relationships. It’s omnipresent and especially strong when one woman is Type-A. Rachel was a self-sufficient woman at a young age, she got her high school GED at 16 and supported herself living in her own apartment serving tables at Applebee’s. Sarah, until meeting Josh, was a straight-A student who wanted to be a veternarian. Clearly, these girls have capability, pride and ambition. They potentially have the qualities of Type-A people who like to win.

But coupled with this capability is also the insecurity that most women struggle with. I truly do believe that women struggle with insecurity more than men. The world is set up for men to succeed, it allows them to believe in themselves to the point of error. Josh would have never forseen the tragic consequences of his sluttiness, because he was confident in himself and therefore in his mind, it was inconceivable. He did not consider the impact that his actions had on the young women around him.

By contrast, women grow up in a society that tells them that they must be perfect. They can’t just be smart or capable, they have to be beautiful, thin, able-bodied, get the guy, be classy but sexually adventurous, it goes on and on. And society loves to play women off of each other, it encourages competition. There can only be one Angelina Jolie, and if you’re not Angelina Jolie, you’ll end up as Jennifer Aniston, and someone will steal your man. Then what will you be? Insecure as all get out, that’s what.

So for the girls, I posit that it wasn’t really about Josh, it was about losing Josh. If they lost Josh, they would be a failure, because they were not perfect. Never mind that Josh was two-timing them all, in their minds, without the participation of the other girls, there would be no competition and no threat. They felt that they had to take out the threat.

Obviously, this is all my personal opinion and total extrapolation of the situation, but I don’t think it’s implausible. I’m not sure that Rachel Wade is a cold-blooded killer, I think she’s an 18-year-old girl with a lethal combination of insecurity and pride who made a tragic error. She screwed up big time, but I don’t know if she ever wanted to kill Sarah Ludeman. And we’ll never really know.

We can change the scenario that leads to these kind of tragedies. We can give girls the tools to change their habits and to know better.

Only once in my life have I ever hated another girl because a of a guy, and I will never do it again. He was not worth it and it made me feel really awful. But I eventually pulled myself out of it, because I was given the tools via strong parenting and high self-esteem to recognize the bullshit and get out. And not only that, but I was able to channel the negative feelings from that low point into greater success in the future. That attitude and confidence is learned and not innate in all women. (But yes, some women are born that lucky.)

The tragedy that comes from this story is that Sarah will have died for nothing. This story will be reported salaciously and sensationally, teen love triangle gone wrong! There will be little to no discussion about why these girls were throwing themselves into this subpar male, as opposed to taking up a new hobby or taking out a college loan.

Last summer, I worked at a day camp and supervised a mixed group of 12-13 year olds, predominantly hailing from inner city Montreal. They had behavioural problems that overwhelmed me constantly and I came home either raging or crying on more than one occasion – a mixture of anger at these kids and genuinely feeling sorry for their challenges.

Out of all of their issues, the girls troubled me the most. I had only 4-5 girls in a group of about 20, and so they were already the minority. They were taunted and bullied by the boys constantly. Miraculously, aside from the occasional scuffle, they avoided bullying each other, which going into the summer, I was sure was going to be a problem. But the girls troubled me because of their clearly dysfunctional attitudes and ideas about men, at 12-years-old.

I had two girls offer to wrestle for the boys, having already figured out that thanks to, I don’t know, muddle/soap/something wrestling at the Playboy mansion, some men like that kind of thing. I had another camper who was obsessed with my male costaff and would physically push the other girls away from him, so they couldn’t get near him. Oddly, however, she was obsessed with the idea of he and I dating, and was willing to “share” him with me. And aside from all of this, I had to deal with the typical bullying, harassment and general crappy behaviour that we tell boys is okay from an early age.

The worst part about all of this is, coming out of that summer, I don’t think I changed anything. I tried to talk to the girls and encourage them to have a little more confidence and self-respect, but it’s a difficult age and some of their behaviour reflected years of lacking a strong female role model.

Building self-esteem and self-confidence has start young, with parents and teachers and other caretakers. We have to consistently “indoctrinate” our girls from an early age, so that they have the power to not tolerate sexual harassment, to not engage in harmful competition for men and to respect themselves. We put so much fanfare into not presenting girls with distorted body images in the media, which is fabulous, but it will be all for nothing if we don’t work on their minds at the same time.

My feminism has been with me for as long as I can remember. It has evolved over time in both ideology and practice, but it’s always been there. When I was 10 years old, a boy in my class told me he wanted to have sex with me while I was waiting for the bus. I felt uncomfortable and harassed and kicked him in the balls. Not the best response, but I’m still sort of proud of my ass-kicking 10-year-old self.

I was indoctrinated so subtly and skillfully, that I actually believed for a long time that my ideas were all my own. How naive. My feminism is in part from my own interest, but was also influenced by my parents, who always encouraged me to be strong, independent and ambitious. They have always believed in me, and therefore, I can believe in myself. And at the end of the day, wage and reproductive debates aside, that’s what feminism is about.

Tags: Feminism, high school, insecurity, Relationships, self esteem, self-confidence, teenage girls, women

I received a couple of comments, from moms, on my post discussing the popularity of both The Pioneer Woman and Jezebel.com. I thought about responding to them individuality, but I decided that another post might be in order.

First and foremost, I want to say that I never intended to criticize mothers. I don’t think that my post came off that way, but if it did, I’m sorry. Like most people, I have a mother (who was a stay-at-home mom for the latter part of my upbringing) who I love and respect very much.

I did, however, intend to criticize mommy blogs. When I said that they were self-indulgent and exploitative, I figured that I would get a response that all blogs inherently are, at least under the former criteria. And I agree with you. However, my exception to the mommy blogger self-indulgence and exploitation lies squarely with my issue about blogging about one’s children. Specifically, I love it when mommy blogs write about being a mother, I don’t like it when mommy bloggers write extensively and openly about their children.

I think children have a right to privacy and to not become a teenager and have to live with the fact that their mothers threw their photos all over the internet as babies. I don’t think Dooce’s children are going to very pleased as 14-year-olds that a large part of their mother’s success depended on them. (Yes, she is expanding away from her children into home and decor and telling the same stories about her dog’s crap over and over – but how many photos have we seen of Marlo?)

While I do respect the right of women to make decisions about what is best for them and their families, I think it’s inappropriate to document your child’s growth and development so extensively on the internet. They are going to have to live with it one day. As a blogger, I consented to opening myself up to criticism and judgment – these children did not.

And in terms of choosing between working and exclusively being a stay-at-home mom, you don’t have to defend it to me. Your choice is not one that I would make right now, but I may very well make it in the future, who knows.

My only point about working mothers and staying at home is that I see more women having to choose, rather than not. Yes, feminism gave us the freedom to make that choice, but the circumstances of life often make it for us. It is a very particular type of family in which the woman is free to stay at home with her kids and maintain her pre-motherhood interests and hobbies. Most women do not have that freedom because of external circumstances.

And finally, tying it all back to the original point, the blogs ranking, I was musing over whether or not the stark contrast in the two biggest women’s sites reflects that same “having to choose” reality.

If you’re a female runner, you probably know what I am talking about. You’re down to the final stretches of your run, flicking somewhat obsessively through your iPod to catch the perfect song to carry you through to the end. You’re tired, your knees may hurt, you feel out of breath and uncomfortably sweaty.

And then some bro starts hollering at you. “Hey baby! Keep it up! Nice work, honey!” while hanging out the window of his car. Assaulting you verbally and invading your space.

You feel distracted, crappy, fat in your shorts and slow in your stride. This moron has managed to make you feel like an embarrassed and humiliated piece of meat, instead of an athlete. Eleanor Roosevelt said that no one can make you feel inferior without your consent, but this guy has pulled off a pretty impressive act.

As a society, we’ve become increasingly aware of the effects of domestic violence and the importance of stopping it. (The prosecution rate, like sexual assault, is still abismal, but that’s another post for another day.) However, I don’t think we spend enough time discussing the common and difficult-to-label assaults on women. I’m talking about catcalling, cutesy name calling, discrimination and other harassments.

The scene I described at the top of this post happened to me just the other day, and it really shook me. The guy ran his truck right alongside the sidewalk while I was running and screamed at me. And this happens all the time, to all woman. Women have stories of offenses, comments, “misunderstandings,” and assaults that go unconfirmed, unproven, and unpunished. I consider myself fortunate that I’ve experienced sexual harassment as opposed to sexual assault or rape, how screwed up is that?

Our legal system relies on tangible proof in order to punish, but how do you address a wrong where there is no proven, clear offense? Yes, it hurts women and demeans them, but there is no physical or tangible evidence of this harm. So how do you punish something that you cannot see? I don’t know if you can, or at least, I don’t know if our legal system can.

Changing the way women are perceived and treated in the world has to change within men and women, our legal system has proven it is not up to the task, nor is it there with you when you’re running down the street.

Men, treat the women around with you some respect. Treat the slutty or stupid-looking young girl with the same respect that you would your grandmother. I don’t care if you think she deserves it or you’re teaching her a lesson, it’s not your job nor your place. I know that the men who are most inclined to harass women would never read this blog, but it had to be said.

And to the men who would never say something demeaning or derogatory, we still need you as allies. A coworker and I were once talking about sexual harassment in the work place, we got onto it via some abstract tangent that I can’t even recall, and he commented that people think differently of a woman who brings a claim of sexual assault.

While I do not think this is universally true of all workplaces, I found his comments to be very interesting. He was willing to acknowledge that some men would look at her differently, which is frightening and angering to me. If in my life, I have to bring a claim of sexual harassment against someone, I should hope that my male coworkers wouldn’t think that I’m a troublemaker, a liar, or even, a helpless victim. I am  a woman whose rights have been violated, looking for recourse. Plain, but no, not necessarily simple.

For the women, I think we need to take some responsibility for how we’re treated. While we frequently can’t stop harassment before it starts, we can manage the ammo. I worked in a sports bar and I regularly saw girls offer themselves up like discount candy to men. One time, a regular patron asked my manager to please choose between two of her friends, because they both wanted to hook up with him so badly, it was affecting their friendship and time at the bar.

So to those women, shape up. Take yourself seriously and consider yourself valuable, we teach people how to treat us. I understand that women who would let a man choose between them in such a manner probably have deeper challenges with self-esteem and self-respect – but it has to start with them. I will never blame any woman for what happens to her, but I do think we have some power to decide what we will and will not tolerate.

Camille Paglia once wrote a controversial essay on the dangers facing young women on college campuses today. She posited that young women were responsible for their own safety and that they needed to be responsible for their actions, because men couldn’t control themselves. Paglia said that men were animals, meant to rape and pillage, and that women needed to use their wits to protect themselves.

I disagree with Paglia, I think she is a victim-blamer who paints men with a crude brush and uses faulty logic, but I do agree with the isolated idea of women protecting themselves. Don’t protect yourself because men can’t control themselves, protect yourself because it’s a strong and independent thing to do. Expect better of men and expect better of yourself, but don’t give anyone any ammo, don’t sell yourself two-for-one or dress like a teenage hooker (unless, you know, you really want to.)

Tags: Feminism, gender politics, harassment, misogyny, sexual harassment, women

I am an enemy of print. I’ll admit it. Well, maybe not an active enemy, but in the spirit of “If you’re not with us, you’re against us,” I’m an enemy of print. I don’t buy books or magazines. The only thing I read in print on a regular basis is my subscription to The Economist, because it’s the freaking bible of IR/IB…and my Dad renews it each year for my Christmas gift.

This is probably a sad little thing to admit, especially since I work in magazine publishing, but hey, I work on the web side. I like my product digitized and always changing. But, I recognize I can’t only read my google reader. I need to get back to basics, I need to switch my computer off at night and actually read a book, not swear at a stupid commenter on the nth blog I’ve read that night.

So I got a library card! Yup, I’m still too cheap to buy most books, but I’m working on that part. Slowly. Well, maybe not. Less money on books is more money on clothes, and hey, if I can get unlimited books for $12 a year, why wouldn’t I? Let’s face the harsh reality, 90% of books are not worth reading twice.

And speaking of books not worth reading twice, I’ve decided to take on a little project. I’m calling it the “Chick Lit Project,” because I’m that uncreative. It’s miraculous that my job title has the word “Editor” in it, because I am constantly asking my fellow editorial peeps at work to reword stuff for me that my poor, pathetic brain can’t make sound better. (What? You try editing wine tasting notes…)

Anyway, so the Chick Lit Project. Basically, I have a lot of confused love for chick lit movies and books, I love happy endings and cute boys. That being said, I also have a lot of ire for them – I find most of the plots, characters, themes and ideas to be woefully unintelligent, uninspiring and frequently, anti-feminist. But I have hope! I think that there are some gems out there.

So in keeping with my desire to read more books and to work through my muddled feminism about chick lit, I’ve decided to read one a month and analyze it. I’m looking for the creme de la creme, the books that can change what chick lit means. The books that won’t make me feel like a lobotomy or a G&T is in order during consumption.

How I will evaluate* these invaluable contributions to the canon of modern literature:

1. Cover – Gut reaction to the cover. Is it cute? Smart? Suggestive? etc.
2. Protagonist – Would I beat this girl up if I met her?
3. Antagonist – When the antagonist is invariably the guy that the protagonist will fall in love with, how is he as an antagonist? Smart? A sociopath? Creepy-confused-as-romantic, a la Edward Cullen?
4. Major themes/messages – Will my life be incomplete without lots of shoes and the stock broker husband? Can I find true love on marriage #2? Is it okay to still live with your parents at 30?
5. Writing style – Does the vocabulary dare to pass the second grade? Is the British humour deployed in a way that makes me laugh and cry?
6. Ending – It’s obviously going to be happy, but is it right? Or is it tied up too neatly in 6 pages, a sign that even the writer got bored of her own contrived little story?

*Criteria may change at anytime, depending on my mood.

I expect that I’ll read lots of crap, and that most of these reviews won’t be particularly uplifting or helpful. But hey! I’ll have some fun snarking about the books that I will inevitably be convinced I could have written better. (That’s funny.)

Oh, and I’ll be reading more.

Photo: Natalie’s New York

Angelina Jolie didn't have to choose, but money and fame had something to do with that.

According to the internet, in the land of women, it’s the Moms vs the feminists.

Via MediaBistro.com, a list of the most influential blogs online, from a variety of categories, was released. The rankings were conducted by Access Communications, and I know that you always have to take these kind of results with a grain of salt, but I still think that there is something very telling about the women’s and mommy blog results.

ThePioneerWoman.com was the most influential mommy blog and Jezebel.com was the most influential women’s blog, according to Access Communications.

What a contrast. Pioneer Woman is Ree Drummond, a woman who quit the city life and abandoned law school plans to live on a farm in rural Oklahoma with her hunky cowboy and bear his children. She blogs about her kids, cooking and farm life, all with a slightly evangelical slant. And no, I do not like her blog. But she is insanely popular. Jezebel.com is a site where pop culture, sex, celebrity and society are all examined through the lens of feminism. The writing is smart, funny and entertaining and the comments are among the smartest I’ve seen on the internet. I love this website.

What does it say about women, that we have such a split in results?

Mommy blogs represent the traditional and the maternal. Mommy bloggers are often women who gave up careers to have children and stay at home with them. They blog singularly and passionately about their children and the challenges of being a mother. To be honest, I find most mommy blogs to be overly self-indulgent and exploitative. I do not like them and carry a clear bias towards…

Jezebel.com – A website with young, educated, feminist readers. The website tackles everything from racial and gender connotations in pop culture to how to dress for the office.

I can’t help but think that the results from this ranking perfectly articulate the split between women today. You can’t be the Mommy blog reader and the Jezebel reader, you have to choose.

I don’t know what this means, but it makes me nervous that maybe we can’t be both. I have no interest in getting married or having children for quite some time, and I’m not even entirely sold on the whole official marriage part, but I do see it in my future. I want long-term monogamy and I want kids. But I also want to keep my last name, I’d love it if my kids shared our last names (hyphenation is unwieldy, but I do love the equality and recognition of both parents), I don’t want to sideline my career for my husband’s and I want to make my own money. Do we eventually have to choose?

Conventional (and some what condescending) wisdom says that I will grow into that period in my life where I want to hang out with the hubby and the kids all day, but I kind of hope I don’t. I don’t want to become that singularly focused on my family, just like I don’t want to be a perpetually family-less woman who gave herself to her career instead of a meaningful personal life. I strive, like so many women before me, for the work-life balance.

Maybe it is all just a myth.

Update: In response to comments, I wrote a little follow up, in which I attempt to clarify and expand my views.

Tags: blogs, Feminism, Jezebel, mommy blogs, motherhood, The Pioneer Woman, women's blogs

If you’ve talked to me or looked at my tweets in the past two weeks, you may have noticed that I am currently nursing quite the obsession with True Blood. I’ve sort of had an off-on relationship with the series since it premiered. I was curious about some of the vampire pop culture that’s been so hot lately and loved True Blood because it wasn’t effing Twilight (sorry, but I hate Twilight. I watch the movies for free only when I want a reason to get mad or snarky.) However, as fast as I’ve gotten back into it, I’m starting to back away from it once more, simply because, frankly, it’s becoming Twilight.

And herein, I bemoan the lack of 3D (figuratively, not literally) women on True Blood.

When the series began, Sookie Stackhouse, the protagonist, was an attractive but intelligent and capable character. As the series has progressed, her character has become increasingly irrelevant and weak in the multitude of male characters that have been introduced on the show. I have a problem with this, and it’s not just because the TV series is based on the Sookie Stackhouse novels.

Of late, many people have levelled criticisms against the show for its extensive and unnecessary depictions of violence against women. Racialious recently had a roundtable discussion on episode 4 of season 3, in which they articulate their concerns about violence against women and the protrayal of black women (Tara) on the show. I’m not going to summarize, but if you’re interested, check it out. Racialious does weekly roundtables on the episodes – I don’t always agree with what they say, I sometimes find that they get too victimish about women on the show, but they’re very interesting and worth a read.

I agree with the criticisms that there is a lot of violence against women on True Blood, but that is not my biggest problem with the show, it’s the lack of fully fleshed out and important female characters. I suppose that my logic is, if they had created fully developed and strong female characters, maybe they would be able to defend themselves and be less of victims. Instead, they are always relying on hunky male vampires to get them out of trouble. They’re never equal and capable of fighting back against the violence.

For example, take Sookie. In season 1, she killed a dude in self-defense and came to Bill’s rescue. Now, she is traipsing all over the south with either Eric (hunky vampire) or Alcide (hunky werewolf) to look for Bill. Yes, it’s all well and good that she is brave enough to go and court danger while looking for her lost love, but she’s not exactly doing it on her own. In fact, the men that chaperone her tend to make most of the decisions, while she sulks/cries or looks pretty in a corner. We do see her use her telepathy, but that is about the only useful thing she does, most of the time.

Furthermore, it has recently been revealed that Sookie has some sort of power that she can “zap” away bad guys with – the manaed at the end of season 2, and the guys who tried to capture her in episode 5 of this season. Why hasn’t this been explored more? Sookie seems shocked, but unnaturally disinterested in the fact that she suddenly has a new power. She doesn’t know what it is and how to control it – surely she would take 5 minutes away from moping over Bill to figure this out? If I was constantly on the run from baddies and figured out that I could zap them in self-defense, I’d want to figure out pretty damn quick how to make this power work to my advantage.

The other women in the show do not fair much better. Tara, Sookie’s best friend, always seems to be controlled and a victim of bad people. Yes, we’re supposed to understand that this is because she didn’t get enough love from her alcoholic and abusive mother, but, come on! Throw the girl a bone! In season 2, she was controlled by Maryann and in this season, she is controlled by Franklin. And Franklin fucking creeps me out. Some people think the character is funny, I think they have control issues. Tara needs to be more independent and strong, it’s absolutely depressing watching her be abused and controlled time and time again.

Jessica, or Baby Vamp, is another character who is being woefully underserved. She became a vampire at the young age of 17 in an incredibly traumatic fashion. We got see a lot of great scenes from her and Bill last season as she learned about being a vampire and how to live in that world. Then they gave her a boyfriend. Now she mopes over her human boyfriend and waitresses at Merlotte’s – because apparently that’s where all female characters go on True Blood to get labotimized.

True Blood has so much potential and started out so strong, but it is quickly losing steam. Don’t get me wrong, I swoon every time Eric comes on screen. But he doen’t make up for the lack of strong women, I need someone to root for and relate to, I can’t take anymore simpering in a corner. Lose the misogyny, writers, it’s bad and dated television. You can only make abuse and despair sexy for so long. And I’m not sure that you can make it sexy at all.

Photo: Mirror.co.uk

Tags: female characters, Feminism, Sookie Stackhouse, strong women, television, True Blood, TV, vampire