I Hope They Serve Karma in Hell

I have been meaning to blog about Tucker Max and I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell for quite awhile but every time I try to put pen to paper I am too overwhelmed and horrified to continue. What can I say about someone whose hatred of women and disabled people is so acute and obvious? All I can do is shake my head and mutter about how this proves the need for feminist activism.

After contemplating some quasi-legal anti-IHTSBIH actions, I decided to start a Facebook page with lots of links and information for people who are unfamiliar with the film. I hope we can educate without having to ever pay money to see this film or encouraging anyone else to do so. This film should come with a serious trigger warning. Since it does not, I offer my own for all of the links and videos on my Facebook page and here.

The Facebook page is currently by invite only so feel free to request an invitation if you would like to be a part of this small feminist action.

Here is a link to the trailer from Shakesville.
Here is the Gawker movie review.
There has been some controversy about the I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell ads on CTA buses with slogans like "Deaf girls can't hear you coming" and "Blind girls can't see you coming."
And here is a little culture jamming because we are not without agency here.


So you don't have to subject yourself to the book, blog or movie, here are some of the most telling quotes from Max
On women:
- “She may be a vacuous slut with no taste, but at least she’s not a stripper.”
- “I’d rather mainline Drano than listen to another minute of your whore prattle.”
- “Your gender is hardwired for whoredom.”
- “I don’t like her because she’s a negative fucking bitch, not because she has tits.”
- “Fat girls aren’t real people.”
- “Cum dumpsters.”

On fun:
- “Ready to get shit-faced and grab some titty!?”
- “We can’t all go after the girl with low self-esteem.”

On what women are good for, beyond fucking:
- “I will gut you and grind you into pig fodder.”
- “Get away from me or I’m going to carve a fuck hole in your torso.”
- “I want to shoot every one of these bitches.”
- “The only way I can cut you deep is with a battle axe and a running start.”
- “Rape’s not funny, but murder can be.”

The Problematic Gender Politics of Katy Perry

Because I find most of it nauseating, I tend not to listen to pop music. When I was in grade school, I used to have a little radio that I would secretly plug my headphones into to hear to Top 40 on Sunday nights. My mother did not approve of pop music and it was a major battle between us during my adolescence. I don’t listen to the radio anymore mostly because I don’t drive and because I listen to music on my iPod and/or on my computer. Also, I really like industrial/EBM/synthpop, etc. which they do not play on the radio. Last week I got a ride to Brussels with my cousin and his twelve-year-old daughter. Like I did when I was her age, she really wanted to listen to pop music on the radio. This is when I came across the song “I Kissed a Girl” by Katy Perry.



When I first realized what Perry was saying, I thought ‘how progressive… a lesbian on pop radio and here is my little cousin singing along.’ That is until I listened closer and heard these lyrics:

"This was never the way I planned
Not my intention
I got so brave, drink in hand
Lost my discretion
It's not what, I'm used to
Just wanna try you on
I'm curious for you
Caught my attention

I kissed a girl and I liked it
The taste of her cherry Chapstick
I kissed a girl just to try it
I hope my boyfriend don't mind it
It felt so wrong
It felt so right
Don't mean I'm in love tonight
I kissed a girl and I liked it
I liked it

No, I don't even know your name
It doesn't matter
Your my experimental game
Just human nature
It's not what, good girls do
Not how they should behave
My head gets so confused
Hard to obey

Us girls we are so magical
Soft skin, red lips, so kissable
Hard to resist so touchable
Too good to deny it
Ain't no big deal, it's innocent."

This is one of those backlashy situations where we make a small step forward while simultaneously taking several steps backward. While Perry does say that she enjoyed kissing a 'girl' she says it within the context of a safe heteronormative relationship which is reminiscent of all those drunk college girls who make out with their girlfriends to impress the boys (or was it just my friends...). "I kissed a girl just to try it/I hope my boyfriend don't mind it."
There is no greater capitulation to the patriarchal powers that be than feigning lesbianism for male approval. Perry's song, from the album One of the Boys, was obviously written with a male gaze in mind. Perry sings, "I don't even know your name/It doesn't matter." In her attempt to be "one of the boys" Perry too must objectify the women around her.

In the video for "I Kissed a Girl" there isn't a man in sight. This could be seen as a radical statement of woman-centeredness. However, I see it more as Andrea Dworkin might. Though I don't have the text with me, I am fairly certain that she wrote that girl-on-girl porn does not need a physical man present to be a creation intended for a male gaze. Dismembered female bodies abound in this video. It seems Perry is more concerned with being seen by heterosexual men than about making a radical lesbian political statement. Further, her depiction of femininity consists of fishnet stockings, lacy bustiers, red lipstick and mascara.


Beyond just that one song, lets take a look at Perry's other well-known tune "UR so Gay." Considering the controversy surrounding satire and irony in mainstream media lately, I think it is important to say that the video for this song is obviously a satire. However, the song alone does not immediately come off that way.

"I hope you hang yourself with your H&M scarf
While jacking off listening to Mozart
You bitch and moan about LA
Wishing you were in the rain reading Hemingway
You don’t eat meat
And drive electrical cars
You’re so indie rock it’s almost an art
You need SPF 45 just to stay alive

You’re so gay and you don’t even like boys...

You’re so sad maybe you should buy a happy meal
You’re so skinny you should really Super Size the deal
Secretly you’re so amused
That nobody understands you
I’m so mean cause I cannot get you outta your head
I’m so angry cause you’d rather MySpace instead
I can’t believe I fell in love with someone that wears more makeup than…

You’re so gay and you don’t even like boys...

You walk around like you’re oh so debonair
You pull em' down and there’s really nothing there
I wish you would get a clue that its not all about you

You’re so gay and you don’t even like boys...
No you don’t even like… PENIS"

As far as I can gather, not considering the video, this song does not seem all that ironic. It seems to be about a woman using the term 'gay' to insult her ex-boyfriend who she deemed too effeminate. The themes of homophobia and woman hatred seem to permeate Perry's work. When I consider that many of Perry's listeners are 12-year-olds like my cousin in Freedom, Wisconsin, I am concerned that they aren't in on the 'joke.' And frankly, I am not sure Perry really means it as a joke. Calling someone gay and/or equating him with femininity as an insult AND feigning lesbianism for male sociosexual approval are the furthest thing from progressive.

I Have No Words.....

Dehumanization? Via Gizmodo.

Adventures in Wife Swapping

Another perk of being in Green Bay is that ABC's always enlightening "WifeSwap" airs at 12:30 a.m. so in my insomnia I was able to watch it last night. This week's episode featured an "ultra feminist" and a "pageant princess." I valued the opportunity to learn what the mainstream media considers to be feminism and of course I was not disappointed. Angie the "ultra feminist" was also a preacher/stay at home mother (I assume) who homeschooled her three daughters seemed to consider feminism teaching her daughters about women's history, how to take care of a car, and how to stay away from make up, short skirts and those other trappings of femininity. Nothing wrong with any of that of course, but there is NO WAY that is "ultra feminism." If that is ultra feminism what is Catharine MacKinnon?

A few highlights from the show were when the other wife, the pageant mom Karen, told Angie's husband that learning how to wear make up and pleasing men were "Just things she is learning for the future." Of course in our culture she isn't necessarily wrong but rather than challenge that notion at all, she goes to the other extreme and has the most vacuous, self centered, helpless, and frankly stupid child I have ever seen. (Granting of course that this is television and so spectacle is the whole point.)

The word "feminist" was used 15 times in the show (by my rough count) and it was always used as a descriptive word. They never bothered to explain what they meant or why Angie is a feminist, though she does frequently call herself one.

By far my favorite part of the show was the throw down between Angie and Alicia's (pageant princess) father. He seemed to believe that asking his daughter to cook or to be respectful to waitstaff was degrading. Here is what he told Angie:
"I'd like to see your husband... how can he live with you you feminist pig!"
"You are degrading her you feminist pig."
Ouch. And all because she had the audacity to suggest that his daughter is not a piece of meat.

His wife was scarcely better. She tried to get Angie's daughters to 'sparkle' by which she meant put on make up, short skirts and be in pageants. I was pleased to see that Angie's eldest daughter was not easily swayed but it was horribly unfortunate that her middle child fell for it hook line and sinker. AND that by the end Angie and her husband even seemed to approve of it. Remember, she is ABC's version of a feminist. Here are a few things that Alicia's mother told Angie's daughters:
-That being a feminist meant "being ugly and ruling the world."
-That feminism is squashing the 6-year-old's dream
-That feminism is turning them into boys
-And "its not a crime to be pretty"

The most unfortunate thing about this show is that for folks who are not well acquainted with feminism (and being in Green Bay I can say with some confidence, that is most people) this is going to be their introduction. That is frightening. However, I didn't expect much better from ABC.

I finally saw Waitress.

It has been a week since I last posted so I figured I should get back to it. Considering how I feel this shall be quite the undertaking. Please bear with me, my posts may not be the greatest for a while. So on that note:


I finally saw Waitress. (Spoilers ahead!!) I have wanted to see it since I heard about it long ago, especially since I had been a waitress all through high school. Anyway, Waitress was a tough film for me to stomach. I just got angrier and angrier throughout the film and kept hoping that it would redeem itself. As is crept toward the birth, I thought there would be no redemption but, alas, there was..... kind of.

The film is about a young woman who is married to a terribly emotionally and physically abusive man. While I understood the necessity of making him so horrible, his character was so awful it was actually quite unbelievable almost like a caricature of every abusive husband one could think of.

Jenna, our protagonist, finds herself pregnant after being drugged and raped by her husband. She is less than thrilled about her pregnancy but in some non-existent scene she decides to carry the pregnancy to term. Similar to Knocked-Up, abortion is never mentioned in this film, not even in the ridiculous joking manner attempted in Knocked-Up. It is just as odd in Waitress because Jenna had long been planning to leave her husband which the pregnancy naturally complicated.

So for the entire movie we watch as abusive husband gets more and more abusive as he discovers her pregnancy and her stash of running away money. At one point he even makes her promise not to love the baby more than him! I nearly vomited through a few scenes.

During all of this Jenna begins an odd affair with her married Ob-Gyn. The affair was also totally unbelievable. She just jumped on him out of the blue in front of his office. As the story progressed I became very concerned that the film was going to end with Jenna being "saved" by the kindly (if piggish) Ob-Gyn or that she was going to be trapped with baby and husband. The film did not leave me hopeful for any other outcome.

In the last fifteen minutes, Jenna gives birth to her daughter, tells abusive husband that she never wants to see him again, tells Ob-Gyn that she is not interested in ruining his marriage and causing any unnecessary pain, and falls madly in love with her daughter.

This ending was unexpected and quite relieving. However, I am concerned that the pro-forced pregnancy movement could see this as a great feminist reason to not have an abortion. "See! The baby actually saved her life!" Which, while it was relieving, it was also totally unbelievable. This is just another instance in which Hollywood gives us a taste of feminism, of empowerment, only to snatch it away. Yes she left abusive husband, yes she didn't end up with a man at the end (amazing!), yes she started her own business and lived happily ever after.

BUT

Her new found freedom came from the elderly patriarch who owned the restaurant in which she worked. Upon his death, he left Jenna with a small fortune.

So there it is. Even a somewhat empowering movie still ends with a big old backlashy slap in the face.

"Which Animal is Most Like Having Sex With a Woman?"

My nephew's mother alerted me to the show Manswers on the oh-so-problematic Spike TV. Because I do not have cable I have not had the privilege of actually watching this horrendous show but I have been able to watch some of the clips on their website.

Spike TV is television designed especially for young men. To which I say a resounding HA!! As if ALL television were not designed by and for men. It reminds me of the argument that if there is a BET there should be a WET. Spike TV and its Manswers are just another of many anti-feminist, woman-hating, backlashy shows meant to help hetero white guys get it up.

A few of the clips that I had the pleasure of viewing include: "Are women with fake boobs hornier?" "How to make your pick up a hot lady tub," "Hooker or cop," "Which animal is most like having sex with a woman?" and the oh-so-flattering "Make a stripper your lady?"

A few gems from the show:

"Any time a girl is around another girl there's always a little bit of competition."
"If she gets bigger knockers you get more sex because chicks with fake boobs are hornier."

Shows like this are the reason that we still desperately need feminism. Enough said.

I am so appalled I am nearly speachless.

I just saw what is perhaps the most upsetting thing I have ever seen on TV. Ever.

Dr. Phil had a special episode in which he discussed race and… birth control. Not really sure what the connection there is. I had to fast forward through the race discussion because it was so unbearable. (A giant white man lecturing Master P on his racism!!!)

They moved on to a discussion about the merits of dispensing birth control to middle and high schoolers. So who would you think Dr. Phil would get to help him with this discussion? Perhaps a gynecologist, a Planned Parenthood outreach coordinator, or even a women’s studies professor? Nope. Bishop T.D. Jakes. Another middle aged man. Of course! Because he is qualified to lecture viewers about female sexuality (without any mention of male sexuality other than Dr.Phil's 'joke' that those boys should be kicked in the rear end). Ridiculous.


Let me just say, I do not necessarily disagree with what they were saying. Yes I think parents should be more involved in their children’s lives. Yes I think that many teenagers have sex before they are ready. Yes I believe that our society creates a horrible sense of confusion for young people with messages of sexual liberation along with abstinence only sex ed. (this, of course, they did not discuss). Yes I think that birth control should not be distributed in schools without a very serious and lengthy discussion about the consequences of sexual behavior. However, I am appalled by the overt sexism of having two middle-aged men not only lecture but shame young women into behaving in accordance with some antiquated notion of sexual propriety.

I am so shocked and appalled that I cannot even think of anything else to say about this. This is classic backlash.

Pushing Daisies and Anti-Feminist Backlash

Image Via

Since I started this blog I figured I really ought to start watching more prime time TV shows. As it is way too late for me to get into Grey's Anatomy or Desperate Housewives, I figured I'd pick a new show. All of the billboards on CTA intrigued me to watch Pushing Daisies. A detective with the ability to reawaken the dead seemed like a unique concept to me. And it is. It is like a much jollier version of Law and Order. Well, maybe not. But I like detective dramas so it was worth a shot. Aside from the somewhat cheesy relationship between Ned the pie maker and Charlotte "Chuck," the show is thoroughly enjoyable. However, after watching all five available episodes I noticed something a little upsetting.

Now I know that feminists are often accused of taking things too seriously or seeing sexism where there supposedly is none. And I can already sense that coming here, but I see it and I cannot be the only one so bear with me.

"Chuck" was viciously murdered in the first episode. Ned, being in the business of crime solving, went to revive her just long enough to find out who done it. Upon realizing that she was his long lost childhood sweetheart, he could not bring himself to touch her again and thereby end her life forever. (This is one of many catches to his magical ability. One can only be revived by his touch once, a second touch and dead forever.)

He lets her live and she becomes his new crime solving partner (along with a large, cynical, wise cracking black man...eesh). They go on to seemingly fall in love despite the fact that if Ned ever touches "Chuck" she will be dead forever. Because everyone thinks that "Chuck" is dead she cannot have contact with anyone from her old life lest she reveal Ned's power and ruin his crime solving business.

To avoid that (and to make a good show) "Chuck" moves into Ned's apartment and begins working at his pie shop. She basically plops comfortably (how?) into his life and gives up everything she cared about before. Though it pains her terribly, she cuts off contact with her two beloved eccentric aunts. I am not sure why this is necessary because Ned obviously entrusts several people with his secret and I am not sure why the aunts (who would seemingly be happy to have their niece back at whatever cost) cannot be privy to this.

My conclusion is that this keeps "Chuck" trapped in Ned's life. I am reminded of I Dream of Jeanie. She lives in a bottle to be of use when her "master" needs her. Again I cannot help but sense backlash. Major backlash. Jeanie was a backlashy show. It came out right during the heyday of the 1970's feminist movement in an effort to placate men who were dissatisfied with the rights that women had attained. Put a sexy, subservient woman (and don't even get me started on the orientalization!) in a bottle who can only come out when he needs her to do his bidding. Pushing Daisies, though much more subtle, is not much different. "Chuck" is always at Ned's mercy. She had to give up her entire world for him (and yes I get that she would be dead were it not for him) and now she has to live in a world where a single touch from him would kill her! That is a male fantasy if I ever saw one. He has total control and power AND he has a gorgeous women madly in love with him, tucked safely away in his life.

Image Via

Anyway, I like this show. It is well written and clever. I know that as feminists sometimes we have to take what is available to us or live pretty unhappy lives. I like TV and I like this show. But I recognize some pretty serious problems with the premise that cannot go ignored. This is a classic backlash show. I think a major question for this blog is how does one navigate the world of popular culture while still maintaining a feminist lens?

On Ron Paul's Scary Cross-Over Appeal

I am increasingly concerned about the relative popularity of republican candidate Ron Paul amongst progressive and liberal people. This Saturday I went to a peace rally and marched down the streets of downtown Chicago. Of course, such a rally was bound to be rife with people pushing presidential candidates. The ones that I saw the most of were Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. Hell, Ron Paul's people even had an aerial banner! The general feeling that I got from these pacifists, hippies, liberals, and general anti-war types was support for this anti-war constitutionalist. Dr. Paul is a dangerous candidate precisely because of his growing cross-over support. Here is a some of the scary stuff I found over at his campaign website:

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

I have already discussed my concern with his popularity amongst liberal television personalities. But I should also say that I am concerned with the depoliticization of reproductive rights issues. I did a little bit of research and had a hard time coming up with a position on women's issues and LGBT issues on the part of ALL of the candidates. Why are liberal folks turning their back on Roe v. Wade? I know it is a messy political area but we need protection now more than ever and I have to say, none of these candidates are really sounding very good to me.

Victim-Blaming on The Dr. Phil Show

Image Via

I have already mentioned that I love to watch the Dr. Phil Show. I love it precisely because he so completely embodies the enemy that I am dedicating my life to eradicating.

Anyway, last week I caught an episode about O.J. Simpson’s new book If I Did It. Now, I was only ten years old when most of the murder trial and media storm took place. So, naturally, I didn’t have much of an opinion on the situation when it occurred. However, as a grown-up feminist, I can see, quite plainly that this man was violent and abusive and because of his hyper-masculine, hyper-violent personality, he decided to teach his wife a lesson in male dominance.

And as if beating her throughout their marriage, murdering her and her friend, and facing no consequences were not bad enough, he has now decided to publish a hypothetical book about what he would have done if he had committed the murders. To which I, and probably anyone who witnessed that trial, say a loud and resounding “Ha!”

Of course he did it. That is really a moot point now because he cannot be tried again. However, the ghostwriter of the book, Pablo Fenjves, had some very interesting things to say to Dr. Phil. Fenjves maintains his belief that Simpson is guilty because of the attitude that he displayed when discussing Nicole Brown.

Fenjves told Dr. Phil that O.J.’s attitude was “If I did it, she had it coming.”

To this Dr. Phil said, O.J. is obviously guilty because he was trying to justify murdering Nicole. He then said what a tragedy it was that an innocent man had to die.

Because she was not innocent? Her friend was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, but she was a bad wife so she deserved it? That was the attitude of Dr. Phil throughout the show. Now I am not sure if he was just pandering to the family of the deceased man (the one’s who actually had the book published) or if this is actually what he believes. Because of his record on women’s issues in the past, I am inclined to believe the latter.

Almost 15 years after her death and she is still being blamed. Sheesh.

The Chronicles of Jan (Part II)

Image via.

As you already know, I love NBC’s The Office. I love it! So you can imagine how eagerly I awaited the season four premiere last Thursday. The episode did not disappoint. We finally got to see Pam and Jim together! Michael resumed his position as Regional Manager of the Scranton branch and Dwight resumed his positions as Assistant to the Regional Manager.

Perhaps one of the largest changes in the show was that Ryan ‘the temp’ Howard took Jan’s place as Michael’s boss. I mentioned in my last post how upset I was about the drastic and frankly quite unrealistic turn Jan’s character took at the end of the third season. And I was very disappointed to see that the opening of the fourth season offered little hope for Jan.

Before I get into that I should also mention that I listened to the cast commentary on the DVD of the last episode of the third season. I was interested in their interpretation of Jan’s ‘breakdown.’ Melora Hardin is the first one to say how much she loves the way that Jan’s character is ‘developing.’ Most of the cast agrees that they would not have foreseen this in the future for Jan based upon her earlier character. However, no one on the cast challenges why Jan’s character was written this way. In fact, they praise the writers for making her such an interesting and complex character.

Again, I ask: Why do we delight so much in seeing that bitch taken down a notch?

The so-called ‘self-destruction’ of Jan’s character is little more than a culturally condoned backlash against a very strong woman who is no less loveable than say, Donald Trump and we think of him as an icon, a self made man, someone to aspire to.

The absolute woman hatred that is embedded in the writing of Jan’s character goes unchallenged by nearly everyone involved in the show and, indeed, many viewers of the show. We need to ask ourselves why the writers of such a wildly popular show felt the need to destroy the most powerful (if a bit over the top) female voice on the show. The season four opener saw Jan passed out in Michael’s condo (they conveniently omitted the scene where we see that all of the furniture in the condo is Jan’s). She didn’t make another appearance until the “Michael Scott's Dunder Mifflin Scranton Meredith Palmer Memorial Celebrity Rabies Awareness Pro-Am Fun Run For The Cure.” In that scene Jan bitchily and jealously accuses Pam of trying to steal her man. “He’s mine, okay. So HANDS OFF!”

At this point I feel the need to remind viewers of Jan just a few months earlier. She had a very lucrative career, was freshly divorced, was totally in charge in her relationship with Michael whom she openly detests. Why would a woman with so much culturally valued ‘power’ and capital give it all up for a man as loathsome as Michael?

The answer is that she wouldn’t. But backlash climates allow for all sorts of stretches of reality in order to show women where their real priorities should be: wearing stretch pants, living in the boyfriend’s condo, with fresh breast implants, and plenty of jealous rage toward other women.

The Chronicles of Jan

Image of Melora Hardin via.

NBC's version of "The Office" is undoubtedly one of my favorite television shows. It is hilarious and engaging. That is why it is very difficult for me to be critical of it. But there are a few things about this amazing show that make my stomach turn.

Early in the second season there is an entire episode about sexual harassment. Sexual harassment happens on "The Office" a lot but most of it is very satirical. I can dig satire especially since it is somewhat subversive. The harassment is depicted very ludicrously.

I anxiously awaited the third season finale. This episode revealed who got the job at 'corporate' and Pam and Jim finally appear to be hooking up. Yay!

But early in the episode we discover that the corporate job is available because Jan (Michael's boss in NYC) got fired. The level of glee that people felt over seeing that bitch get knocked down a peg is really quite telling. From the very beginning I was impressed that the person with the most power in this show was a woman. She is the boss of the boss. But she has consistently been depicted as an angry, castrating bitch. Only women who reject any shred of stereotypical femininity can make it in the corporate world. Or at least that is the image that we are inundated with.

Jan gets divorced early in the second season and while on the rebound she has a relationship with Michael. In this relationship Jan is domineering to the point of cruelty. We get the sense that she is totally in control. As this show got more popular, and Jan got more powerful, the writers and producers of "The Office" appeared to be stripping Jan of her power. The last episode is the epitome of this.

Devastated that Michael broke up with her, Jan gets breast implants and begs him to take her back. This is when she loses her job and basically has a total emotional break down.

This reminds me of the episode of "30 Rock" that I watched in which Tina Fey's character (a very powerful television producer) has a total emotional break down and needs to be literally carried off by her co-worker.

I immediately dubbed that an example of backlash but have been much more reluctant to do the same about a show that is so dear to me. The season three finale of "The Office" demonstrates anti-feminist backlash. The powerful women is fired because she is too emotional (which was NEVER demonstrated prior to this episode).

Also notable, when Jim and Karen witnessed Jan's breakdown Karen was delighted because Jan is "crazy" and self-destructive. I am not sure that any of this exemplifies self-destruction as much as the logical conclusion of male domination. Jan was destined to fail from the very beginning because she was a woman in 'a man's world.'

The very best part of all of this (and this completely proves my point that this was intentional misogyny not just good story writing) is that Ryan, the young temp. worker, gets Jan's job at the end of the episode.

Even in a show with egalitarian writers and characters, even in a show that I adore, misogyny is rampant. Still, I eagerly await the season premier. I will most likely address this issue again at that point.

Why I Do Not Go to Movies

I recently wrote a review of the movie Knocked Up. You can read the review here. What I was unable to say in the review was that the movie itself was not nearly as upsetting as the trailers that preceded it. I really think that they deserve as much, if not more, analysis than the film.

Apparently there is a new Die Hard movie with Bruce Willis. The trailer for this film was an orgy of male violence and of course, the token helpless female who must be saved by the machine-like homicidal manic/hero. Score 1 for the patriarchy.

The next trailer was for some movie about a dude who has the magical ability to help women find their soul mates... by fucking them. So women just throw themselves at him in the hopes that their true loves will propose. Does that not just reek of male fantasy? Desperate, hot women seeking one night stands with some douche-bag so that they can become the sexual maidservants of some other man for the rest of their lives. Score 2 for the patriarchy.

The next trailer was for Ben Stiller's new gem The Heartbreak Kid. This fella is a commitment-phobe who finally takes the plunge with a hot blonde environmentalist, only to find his true love, a hot brunette, on their honeymoon. Beyond the totally ridiculous plot this film just adds to the miasma of male cultural domination.

All of the films advertised were presented from the male perspective, with women as the incidental characters they happen to act upon. The women in all of these films are creations of male fantasy. They are either totally helpless and virginal (ala Bruce Willis's daughter) or they are desperate whores who are willing to do anything for a good fuck so long as they end up being Mrs. maidservants for the rest of their lives. Hollywood is really one of America's most sexist institutions. Broadcast television has made leaps and bounds toward better gender representation compared to the patriarchal wasteland that is Hollywood.

Twisty Faster in her infinite wisdom refers to Hollywood as the patriarchy's communications department. One night at the movies proves it.

Why Do I Watch the News?

This story about increased narcissism in today's youth (aka 'generation me') was prominently featured on NBCs Nightly News program (quite awhile ago now). Not surprisingly NBC willingly blames permissive parenting (read: mothering) that gained momentum in the 1980s (backlash period) for this trend toward narcissism in young people. They blatantly ignore the most obvious reason for this so-called trend: capitalism! Obsession with appearance and insecurity is necessary to encourage consumers to buy more products for self-improvement. Not to mention the fact that self obsession distracts citizens from greater socio-political problems. Blaming narcissism on parenting sounds a little too convenient to me.