The premise:

The participants will be brought to a remote, primitive location where the women will have the opportunity to “rule” as they build a newly formed society – one where there is no glass ceiling and no dressing to impress. For the men, their worlds of power and prestige are turned inside-out and upside-down. And for these women, turnabout is fair play!

In order to win, the men must accede to the women’s every demand, 24/7. Here, women command and men obey. Over the series’ duration, the men will be eliminated by the women until one last man is standing.

How will the men react? How will the women treat the men? Can women effectively rule society? Will the men learn what life is like for some women in today’s world? Will this new society be a Utopia or a hell on earth? And in the end, who will be man enough to succeed in the new social order?

As I asked in “The Question of Female Power“: Is there such a thing as ‘female power’? Is power always ‘power’?

Anyway, more on the show from Reality Blurred and a pretty solid take by Echidne of the Snakes. Here’s a taste:

I’m the polite blogger, yanno. Well, I’ve just had my fill about politeness today. Fuck those Fox assholes. Fuck them for making fun of the real injustices and troubles the majority of women have to endure in this world. Fuck them for making it into a game to prop up their own petty feelings of threatened masculinity. Fuck them for their disgusting slimy bias and their silly little commercial brains. Fuck them for having the empathy of a toe cheese.

And most of all, fuck them to the deepest hell for suggesting that the only alternative to the current system is some perverse upside version of more of the same.

Echidne also links to an excellent post by Jennifer Pozner, “Oh, hell no. Fox wonders if women with “axes to grind” can “effectively rule society”

It includes a dictionary of women and reality-speak!

Sigh, between this and Fox’s other big show featuring women, Anchorwoman (see two stories below)…

Well, it’s good to know entertainment in bad faith is equally opportunistic when it comes to race and gender…

Dan DeLuca has a great article in the Philadephia Inquirer, on the dominance of the revenge narrative in pop music by women.

The cultural predominance of the female revenge narrative came up continually in my class on women and pop last semester, and it seems to be a trend that emerges every few years or so– enough that it might be time to think about when the theme makes it big comebacks, over and beyond its status as a trend.

Also, I can’t help but wonder if this fits as a different take on “x like a girl“? And if it relates to the question of feral women, particularly à la girls gone wilding and the men without hair.

I can’t wait to get my hands on “Hey…Shorty.”

For now, here’s a trailer from War Zone. You can check more videos from Northampton’s Media Education Foundation, including Byron Hurt’s fabulous, Hip-Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes, by clicking here.

RELATED POSTS @ $3.60:

RELATED POSTS @ Cypher&Syllable:

Check it out!

I am sure you are well-apprised of what I am going to call “The Michelle Obama feminism challenge.” But just in case, Mirror on America did a very nice post last week, outlining some of the most notable sites of contestation, particularly as they’ve been crystallized in Debra Dickerson’s recent article in Slate, and Maureen Dowd’s syndicated op-ed piece, reproduced here from the San Jose Mercury News. Racialicious also has a great post outlining the Dickerson and Dowd articles (amongst others). It’s redundant to rehearse the Racialicious and Mirror on America points, so check them out!

What I find interesting is the way Dickerson’s and Dowd’s pieces are in fact quite different from each other’s, but nonetheless show a striking similarity in the feelings of irritation each seems to elicit from people of color!

It has been my experience that many women of color find feminism immensely tiresome, tiresome in its disavowed self-interest and in its refusal to be held accountable for other -isms that it is not itself immune to. Reading Dowd and Dickerson, I felt the irritation; I felt the tiredness. And I teach feminism. I actually am a feminist. So what gives?

“Feminism,” as a political movement nascent in the suffrage movement and blossoming in the late sixties and early seventies, has a history of not being attuned to the specific concerns of women who are not white and/or not middle class. Out of this, in the eighties, came the notion of womanism, which seeks broaden the perspective and interests of feminism. (You can find a nice historicization of feminism and womanism here).

But it is important to note that feminists quite often disagree with being characterized as out of touch. To my mind, however, it’s the very insistence that they are in touch that signifies their out-of-touchness (like how I just unintentionally slipped into ‘us’ and ‘they’? I’m going to keep it for a while). The reason we so often think of feminism as ‘white,’ then, isn’t necessarily because all feminists are white, or because feminism necessarily excludes women of color– it’s because feminism just doesn’t know how to listen. How to pay attention to difference and to imagine women’s options accordingly. Historically, ‘not listening’ to others with less privelage translates to ‘being white.’ That is why The HNIC Report’s take on the matter resonates so well: “The White Lady Just Doesn’t Get It.”

This is one of the reasons why woc who might otherwise identify as feminists risk feeling shut out from feminism. And this is also why feminists must also remember that all things do not mean the same things to all people; that feminism might be more of a position than a movement; and that the work of looking out for women’s interests is ultimately ineffective if it misses or consistently misreads other elements that make up our social experiences of the world, like race, class, and religion.

My challenge to you, feminism? Think away from yourself. What I find so immensely irritating about both articles is my nagging sense that neither woman is particularly committed to making a point about Michelle Obama. Simultaneously released with big profiles on M’bama, I am suspicious that each article is simply taking an opportunity to “bring gender” to the table. No one really believes Obama is “giving up her career,” i.e. leaving the workforce. And I just don’t think anyone truly believes Mr. Obama is being henpecked out of the presidency. By claiming M’bama isn’t feminist enough (Dickerson), or that she is too much woman (Dowd), each writer manages to overlook anything specific to Obama, who she is and the kinds of decisions she is responsible for making. Kinda reminiscent of the whole “is Obama black enough” debate, no?

Both Dowd and Dickerson dropped the ball on Michelle Obama. And if I were reading this more fully in terms of race, I would even go so far as to say that to serve their own interests, as feminist and Democrat, they are actually bouncing said ball off M. Obama’s back. (Ouch! I think it nicked me.)

Sometimes it seems like America works on some kooky law of conservation, powered by a difference engine, adding and subtracting, adding and subtracting. In this instance, it seems that we might want to elevate a black man to the presidency, but we might be willing to use Michelle’s back to get him there.

And oh, by the way, Michelle Obama would likely never call herself a feminist. See, now I’m feeling all feministy again… My challenge to lady Obama? You can leave the word, but don’t leave the game.

Six minutes, Six minutes, Six minutes and Obama you’re on…

I am not much of a recapper (I don’t even like pageants!). But I’m in this thing and must fulfill my duties until the end! So here is what you officially need to know about the 2007 Miss Universe pageant:

Miss USA fell, and then got booed. (Trump blames Mexico’s anger over American immigration policy. I blame Elvis.) Whatever, she’s a trooper, smiling through the jeers: “Buenas Noches, Mexico.” Ouch! →

← Miss Japan won, and Miss Mexico didn’t make it into the finals.

¤

What I’m interested in, though, is Reuters‘ description of this year’s pageant as troubled. And they don’t mean “troubled” as in “we should be troubled it still exists,” a la Sweden, but troubled by its many controversies. Now, again, not big on the pageants. At worst they are just too tightly tethered to processes of female oppression through objectification; and at best they simply propogate the modern sense that all women must be “perfect,” e.g. smart, beautiful, and talented in completely mainstream, high capitalist ways.

But let us put that aside from now, for I am interested to see what counts as troubling in the Miss universe. According to Reuters:

A raven-haired Miss Japan, Riyo Mori, was crowned Miss Universe 2007 on Monday in a contest marked by protests, a banned dress and the withdrawal of one beauty queen on the ground the pageant degrades women.

I find these events far from troubling, and even think we should assume them to be par for the course– although I am also willing to admit that Reuters might simply be trying to wring some spicy story out of this monumental, hugely watched, non-event! But protests are good, especially when they are trying to bring attention to violence against women during an event that screens us from such violence (more on the protests later). And of course there was a banned dress. The Miss Universe costume is the pinnacle of nationalist couture; I’d be more worried if there were never controversy over what a contestant is wearing. Unless of course you’re Balkan or a European non-aligned state. And yay Sweden, “giving in” to the feminists. Or can we say, “responding to women’s concerns”?

But then the Reuters report takes a turn for the worse, letting too many things slip into, categorically, “troubled.” Let’s watch the progression of these three paragraphs. Beginning with the protests, the story moves from that which is a sign of trouble, to that which is “quirky,” to a reference to winner Zuleyka Rivera’s incipient eating disorder in last year’s conference:

This year, [the contest] attracted protesters wearing white dresses splashed with fake blood and sashes proclaiming “Miss Juarez,” ”Miss Atenco” and “Miss Michoacan” in reference to places in Mexico made infamous by killings or sexual abuse of women.In another quirk for 2007, the long, twisted dreadlocks of Miss Jamaica, the contest’s first ever Rastafarian participant, and the close-shaved head of Miss Tanzania stood out from the lacquered manes of the other contestants.Last year’s Miss Universe event in Los Angeles also made its mark when winner Rivera caused gasps by slumping to the ground in a faint during a post-pageant news conference.

In another post, I found myself unexpectedly reading Miss Tanzania and Miss Jamaica as beacons of light in an event that otherwise signals a kind of dreary global vision. According to Reuters, it turns out I am just totally into pathology– feminism, diversity, and political action…

And, oh, why do I care about a random Reuters story? It’s because no one seems to care so much about the Miss Universe pageant this year. That is quite fine with me, but it means that across the world (checked on the world this morning!), the Reuters story is the story– cited, misquoted, and plagiarized unto infinity in blogs, magazines, and newspapers. More stories will emerge, but the “trouble” might give this one just enough spice to keep it afloat in a sea of follow-ups.

And to quote my three year-old son: I don’t like this “trouble.” Or to paraphrase Objectify This, to the tune of Big Pun:

“I’m not a troublehater ’cause I dream a lot.”

I actually don’t have so much to say, because I haven’t read the book yet! I do want to say, however, that reading her interview made me think about how, after a semester of watching y’all emerge as public intellectuals, that there is something really beautiful in the search for finding one’s voice, and something exemplary in using it.

The post discusses a recent article by Zoe Williams at the Guardian, which you will also find in my del.icio.us links on the left.

You might also want to check out some of the other articles in the Guardian’s “Special Report: Gender Issues,” where there are some pretty interesting articles relevant to your own work.

People interested in men’s issues might find this Lucy Ward article particularly interesting (and, oh!, by the way a simpatico blog at The Valley Advocate: hi Hayley!).

Women and War and others so inclined might find this Mary Riddell article of interest, as well as this post women in the miltary over at the f word blog.

And… here’s a Jacky Fleming post for you, Drawing Women!

Whew! That’s enough UK for the day!