Right on, Bea
Elizabeth Schulte looks back at the life of actress Beatrice Arthur and her most famous role--as the "women's libber" Maude.
April 30, 2009
Bea Arthur as the title character in Maude
WHEN YOU hear five-foot-nine, 47-year-old woman with a deep, husky voice, one of the last things most people think of today is a prime-time television star. But go back to 1972, when the women's liberation movement was in full swing, and the choice was obvious.
The sitcom Maude, which ran from a 1972 to 1978, starred Beatrice Arthur as the liberal feminist head of her Westchester, N.Y., household. Bea Arthur died on April 25 at the age of 86 of lung cancer. Arthur's depiction of Maude--oftentimes abrasive, sometimes sensitive and always funny--made a mark forever on television comedy history.
Before television, Arthur had a long career on the stage in musical theater. In 1947, Arthur moved to New York City to study theater at New School for Social Research. Her classmates included Marlon Brando, Walter Matthau and Tony Curtis.
In 1954, she got a part in the off-Broadway premier of the English version of Kurt Weill and Bertolt Brecht's Three Penny Opera, alongside Lotte Lenya. With her big voice and big stage presence, she dominated in later roles as Vera Charles in Mame and Yente the Matchmaker in Fiddler on the Roof.
She said in an interview several years ago that she always dreamed of playing the big female leads, of being the actress "wearing the white dress," but it never happened for her on the stage. Arthur said that something actress and movie magazine beauty Tallulah Bankhead said to her stuck with her: "It's all about bone structure."
Despite what Bankhead said, Arthur's imposing presence and bass-baritone voice didn't stop her from becoming an unforgettable comedic talent and stage presences. As late as 2002, she returned to Broadway to star in show that incorporated stories and songs about her life and career.
Arthur managed to span several decades of television era, from the George Gobel Show in the 1950s to The Golden Girls--the only sitcom where all the lead characters were all older women (and they all have sex lives) in the 1980s. In her later years, she made several cameos, including the voice of the "Femputer" that ruled the giant Amazonian women on an episode of the animated TV comedy Futurama.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BUT MORE than anything else, Bea Arthur will be remembered for her role in Maude. In 1972, television writer Norman Lear called with an offer for Arthur to take on the part of Maude Findlay, the "women's libber" cousin of Edith Bunker on All in the Family. Liberal to a fault, Maude was supposed to be the antithesis of Edith's husband Archie.
Maude's theme song gives you the picture:
Lady Godiva was a freedom rider
She didn't care if the whole world looked.
Joan of Arc with the Lord to guide her
She was a sister who really cooked.
Isadora was the first bra burner
And you're glad she showed up. (Oh yeah)
And when the country was falling apart
Betsy Ross got it all sewed up.
And then there's Maude...
That old compromisin', enterprisin', anything but tranquilizing,
Right on Maude.
Like the characters on All in the Family, Maude was an exaggeration of the idea of the middle-class liberal. She was loud and opinionated, but at the same time, Maude wasn't always completely sure what doing the right thing meant.
Oftentimes, Lear was poking fun at this middle-class person with a conscience whose guilt sometimes got in the way of her common sense. For instance, in one episode, Maude insists on her new Black maid walking through the front door, because of the way it will look to the neighbors--even though the woman really wants to go through the back door, since it's easier for her to do her work.
Maude was like no other woman on television until that time--she was divorced (four times), she was outspoken, she was brash and she was pushing 50. And while her character may not have always been right, Maude grappled with themes and issues in ways that are unheard-of today.
Maude dealt with racism, sexual equality, divorce, menopause, mental illness, alcoholism--the list goes on. In one episode, Maude points out the hypocrisy of drug laws, where poor people get arrested for a tiny bit of marijuana while middle-class people pop handfuls of prescription drugs with their cocktails.
"We tackled everything except hemorrhoids," Bea Arthur said in a 2001 interview with the Archive of American Television. And while not everyone will agree with everything it said, the show embraced the debates and discussions of the time--managing to be irreverent, but also take things seriously. The war in Vietnam, the women's movement, the Black Power movement--they were all topics.
Reflecting the political climate of 1970s, Maude usually took the right side, and Maude usually won. Whether it was words of warning to her husband, Walter--"God will get you for that, Walter"--or a jab at her Republican neighbor's support for Richard Nixon, Maude usually won the fight.
The best controversial episodes, however, were those about Maude's unplanned pregnancy and decision to seek an abortion. Not only had no other TV show ever talked about abortion before, no show has talked about it in the same way since.
The two-part episode was broadcast in November 1972, just two months after abortion became legal in New York state. It was not until January 1973 that the Supreme Court made their ruling on Roe v. Wade, making women's right to abortion the law of the land.
Two CBS affiliates canceled the episodes, called "Maude's Dilemma," and 32 affiliates were pressured not to rerun the segments in the summer of 1973 by abortion opponents. But some 65 million people tuned into the second airing of the program.
The episodes are available online and well worth watching. It's immensely liberating to see people in a sitcom talk frankly about a woman's right to control her own body. And while there are also any number of vasectomy and morning sickness jokes to go around, these episodes are dead serious.
As Maude's grown daughter Carol (played by Adrienne Barbeau) assures her:
Mother, we are free, we finally have the right to decide what we can do with our own bodies...You're just scared, and it's as simple as going to the dentist...Listen to me, it's a simple operation now. But when you were growing up, it was illegal, and it was dangerous, and it was sinister, and you've never gotten over that...it's not your fault, when you were young, abortion was a dirty word. It's not anymore. You think about that.
Maude responds by embracing her daughter.
The resolution Maude eventually reaches with her husband is just as satisfying. Over a game of gin in bed, Walter admits that he never wanted to have children and has always felt guilty about feeling that way (another conversation that never happens between a couple on TV.) When it's clear that Maude has decided on the abortion, Walter says:
For you, Maude, for me, in the privacy of our own lives, you are doing the right thing.
Here's to hoping a new generation of struggles will shake things up and bring us the kind of television that reflects actual people's concerns and hopes. That's reality TV that I can't wait for.
From Socialist Worker
Fabulously Feminist Search Engine
Custom Search
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Monday, February 9, 2009
Fabulously Feminist News
UN Human Rights Council Urges Saudi Arabia to Give Women Rights
At a meeting late last week, members of the United Nations Human Rights Council urged Saudi Arabia to actively work to end pervasive human rights violations in the country, particularly those against women and children. According to Reuters, Britain, Switzerland, Canada, and Israel spoke against Saudi Arabia's current practices. Israel's delegation reportedly accused Saudi Arabia of "severe discrimination against women and minorities, corporal punishment, torture, forced labor, and the sexual exploitation of children."
Women's rights in Saudi Arabia are currently limited on a number of fronts including marriage rights, freedom to travel, property ownership, education, and work. According to Human Rights Watch, although some human rights laws have been introduced in Saudi Arabia, little implementation or enforcement of these laws has occurred.
Prior to the UN Human Rights Council review, Human Rights Watch's Middle East Director Sarah Leah Whitson, said that "The international community should ensure that its review of Saudi Arabia does not just produce more promises, leaving the Saudi people empty-handed….The Saudi reply to inquiries about rights violations or legal developments is typically total silence."
*************************************************
Defense of Marriage Act Questioned by Judge's Ruling
Last week a federal judge in the 9th Circuit Court ruled that the gay spouse of a federal employee is entitled to the same spousal health benefits that any heterosexual spouse would receive. Judge Stephen Reinhardt ruled that the denial of spousal benefits "cannot be justified simply by a distaste for or disapproval of same-sex marriage or…to discourage exercising a legal right afforded them by the state,' reported the Los Angeles Times. This ruling is in direct contradiction to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which states that the federal government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriage.
According to MSNBC, in July 2008, Tony Sears had been denied health benefits after he married Brad Levenson, a deputy federal public defender for the 9th Circuit Court. Levenson appealed to the 9th Circuit's Standing Committee on Federal Public Defenders, chaired by Judge Reinhardt.
In a separate case last month, the 9th Circuit's chief justice, Alex Kozinski, also granted same-sex benefits to the same-sex spouse of 9th Circuit lawyer Karen Golinski. Kozinski considered the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act "vague" about the use of benefits for non-family members and thus ruled that Golinski's spouse should be covered.
Both cases were considered internal employee grievances and have no legal merit outside of the court’s executive office, but the rulings seriously question the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. Sears and Levenson told the Los Angeles Times that they see this as "a step along the road to equality."
**************************************************
Senator Boxer to Chair Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Global Women's Issues
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) will chair the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Human Rights, Democracy, and Global Women's Issues. This is the first time in history where women's issues will be a specific focus of a foreign relations subcommittee.
During Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's confirmation hearing, Senator Boxer presented photographs of women who had been burned in acid attacks and injured in gender-based violence worldwide. In reaction to the pictures, Senator Clinton promised to persuade leaders and governments internationally "that we cannot have a free, prosperous, peaceful progressive world if women are treated in such a discriminatory and violent way," according to the New York Times.
In a press release Senator Boxer said, "I am very grateful to our new Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator John Kerry, for allowing me to focus part of my efforts on the worldwide status of women….This new subcommittee assignment offers a tremendous opportunity to shine the light of day on a very overlooked issue. Too often, we turn our eyes away as women are persecuted, abused and treated as second-class citizens. But even the most conservative historians have noted that when women are given the freedom to live up to their full potential, society as a whole flourishes. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress and with Secretary Clinton to stamp out violence against women in the world."
***From Our Friends at the Feminist Majority Foundation
At a meeting late last week, members of the United Nations Human Rights Council urged Saudi Arabia to actively work to end pervasive human rights violations in the country, particularly those against women and children. According to Reuters, Britain, Switzerland, Canada, and Israel spoke against Saudi Arabia's current practices. Israel's delegation reportedly accused Saudi Arabia of "severe discrimination against women and minorities, corporal punishment, torture, forced labor, and the sexual exploitation of children."
Women's rights in Saudi Arabia are currently limited on a number of fronts including marriage rights, freedom to travel, property ownership, education, and work. According to Human Rights Watch, although some human rights laws have been introduced in Saudi Arabia, little implementation or enforcement of these laws has occurred.
Prior to the UN Human Rights Council review, Human Rights Watch's Middle East Director Sarah Leah Whitson, said that "The international community should ensure that its review of Saudi Arabia does not just produce more promises, leaving the Saudi people empty-handed….The Saudi reply to inquiries about rights violations or legal developments is typically total silence."
*************************************************
Defense of Marriage Act Questioned by Judge's Ruling
Last week a federal judge in the 9th Circuit Court ruled that the gay spouse of a federal employee is entitled to the same spousal health benefits that any heterosexual spouse would receive. Judge Stephen Reinhardt ruled that the denial of spousal benefits "cannot be justified simply by a distaste for or disapproval of same-sex marriage or…to discourage exercising a legal right afforded them by the state,' reported the Los Angeles Times. This ruling is in direct contradiction to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which states that the federal government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriage.
According to MSNBC, in July 2008, Tony Sears had been denied health benefits after he married Brad Levenson, a deputy federal public defender for the 9th Circuit Court. Levenson appealed to the 9th Circuit's Standing Committee on Federal Public Defenders, chaired by Judge Reinhardt.
In a separate case last month, the 9th Circuit's chief justice, Alex Kozinski, also granted same-sex benefits to the same-sex spouse of 9th Circuit lawyer Karen Golinski. Kozinski considered the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act "vague" about the use of benefits for non-family members and thus ruled that Golinski's spouse should be covered.
Both cases were considered internal employee grievances and have no legal merit outside of the court’s executive office, but the rulings seriously question the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. Sears and Levenson told the Los Angeles Times that they see this as "a step along the road to equality."
**************************************************
Senator Boxer to Chair Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Global Women's Issues
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) will chair the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Human Rights, Democracy, and Global Women's Issues. This is the first time in history where women's issues will be a specific focus of a foreign relations subcommittee.
During Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's confirmation hearing, Senator Boxer presented photographs of women who had been burned in acid attacks and injured in gender-based violence worldwide. In reaction to the pictures, Senator Clinton promised to persuade leaders and governments internationally "that we cannot have a free, prosperous, peaceful progressive world if women are treated in such a discriminatory and violent way," according to the New York Times.
In a press release Senator Boxer said, "I am very grateful to our new Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator John Kerry, for allowing me to focus part of my efforts on the worldwide status of women….This new subcommittee assignment offers a tremendous opportunity to shine the light of day on a very overlooked issue. Too often, we turn our eyes away as women are persecuted, abused and treated as second-class citizens. But even the most conservative historians have noted that when women are given the freedom to live up to their full potential, society as a whole flourishes. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress and with Secretary Clinton to stamp out violence against women in the world."
***From Our Friends at the Feminist Majority Foundation
From our Friends at Amnesty International
Armed groups and government forces continue to abuse women and children in North Kivu
Armed groups are still recruiting child soldiers to fight in the ongoing conflict in the province of North Kivu, eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
Those child soldiers who attempt to escape have been killed or tortured, sometimes in front of other children, to discourage further escapes. Children who are taken captive by the DRC army on suspicion of being armed group fighters, have faced ill-treatment and torture in military detention.
There is also continuing physical and sexual abuse of women and children in the conflict, according to the new Amnesty International report, North Kivu: No end to the war against women and children.
The report is based on research and eye witness testimony collected by an Amnesty International fact-finding mission in North Kivu in February and March 2008. It says that members of armed groups and government security forces continue to rape and sexually abuse women and girls and, in a smaller number of cases, men and boys. Infant children and elderly women are among the victims, many of whom have suffered gang rape or have been raped more than once.
These abuses are happening despite government and armed group commitments to immediately end these atrocities in a 23 January 2008 "Act of Engagement".
According to the Amnesty International report, of the former child soldiers who had been reunited with their families in North Kivu through a national demobilization programme, as many as half may since have been re-recruited by armed groups.
Beaten to death
One former child soldier told Amnesty International how two youths were beaten to death in front of him and other child recruits "as a lesson to all of us not to try to escape":
"[The boys] were brought out of a pit in the ground and presented to us during a training session. [An armed group senior commander] then gave the order to beat them. Two soldiers and a captain pushed them down into the mud. When they tired of kicking them?they beat them with wooden sticks. The punishment lasted 90 minutes, until they died."
Rape has been committed in public and in front of family members, including children. Some women have been abducted and held as sexual slaves. In many cases, sexual abuse and rape appear to be ethnically motivated and/or aimed at terrorizing and demoralizing communities suspected of supporting enemy groups.
One 16-year-old rape survivor described how she had been abducted by two junior army officers and held captive in an army camp in North Kivu for several days before she was released. In the camp, she was raped nightly by one of the officers.
"The other officers and soldiers in the camp didn't seem to care or be willing to take responsibility", she told Amnesty International. She now suffers flashbacks and persistent headaches.
In its report, Amnesty International issued comprehensive recommendations to the armed groups, DRC government and the international community aimed at stopping human rights abuses. The recommendations include a call on armed groups to immediately release all children associated with their forces, and measures to end to the horror of sexual violence.
Background to the conflict
Despite a peace accord signed in January 2008, armed conflict has persisted in North Kivu. The fighting involves the regular Congolese army (FARDC) and the CNDP armed group under the command of a renegade general Laurent Nkuna, as well as a number of local mayi-mayi militia and the Rwandan FDLR armed group. Civilians have borne the brunt of the violence.
More than 100,000 people have been displaced by renewed fighting in North Kivu since 28 August 2008, adding to more than 1 million people displaced by earlier violence in the region.
Armed groups are still recruiting child soldiers to fight in the ongoing conflict in the province of North Kivu, eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
Those child soldiers who attempt to escape have been killed or tortured, sometimes in front of other children, to discourage further escapes. Children who are taken captive by the DRC army on suspicion of being armed group fighters, have faced ill-treatment and torture in military detention.
There is also continuing physical and sexual abuse of women and children in the conflict, according to the new Amnesty International report, North Kivu: No end to the war against women and children.
The report is based on research and eye witness testimony collected by an Amnesty International fact-finding mission in North Kivu in February and March 2008. It says that members of armed groups and government security forces continue to rape and sexually abuse women and girls and, in a smaller number of cases, men and boys. Infant children and elderly women are among the victims, many of whom have suffered gang rape or have been raped more than once.
These abuses are happening despite government and armed group commitments to immediately end these atrocities in a 23 January 2008 "Act of Engagement".
According to the Amnesty International report, of the former child soldiers who had been reunited with their families in North Kivu through a national demobilization programme, as many as half may since have been re-recruited by armed groups.
Beaten to death
One former child soldier told Amnesty International how two youths were beaten to death in front of him and other child recruits "as a lesson to all of us not to try to escape":
"[The boys] were brought out of a pit in the ground and presented to us during a training session. [An armed group senior commander] then gave the order to beat them. Two soldiers and a captain pushed them down into the mud. When they tired of kicking them?they beat them with wooden sticks. The punishment lasted 90 minutes, until they died."
Rape has been committed in public and in front of family members, including children. Some women have been abducted and held as sexual slaves. In many cases, sexual abuse and rape appear to be ethnically motivated and/or aimed at terrorizing and demoralizing communities suspected of supporting enemy groups.
One 16-year-old rape survivor described how she had been abducted by two junior army officers and held captive in an army camp in North Kivu for several days before she was released. In the camp, she was raped nightly by one of the officers.
"The other officers and soldiers in the camp didn't seem to care or be willing to take responsibility", she told Amnesty International. She now suffers flashbacks and persistent headaches.
In its report, Amnesty International issued comprehensive recommendations to the armed groups, DRC government and the international community aimed at stopping human rights abuses. The recommendations include a call on armed groups to immediately release all children associated with their forces, and measures to end to the horror of sexual violence.
Background to the conflict
Despite a peace accord signed in January 2008, armed conflict has persisted in North Kivu. The fighting involves the regular Congolese army (FARDC) and the CNDP armed group under the command of a renegade general Laurent Nkuna, as well as a number of local mayi-mayi militia and the Rwandan FDLR armed group. Civilians have borne the brunt of the violence.
More than 100,000 people have been displaced by renewed fighting in North Kivu since 28 August 2008, adding to more than 1 million people displaced by earlier violence in the region.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Another Gem by Our Freind Mr. Billet....
This may be the make or break year for American Idol. With its eighth season underway, the producers are scrambling for anything they think might inject some fresh blood into the show and pull it out of its three-year slump in viewership. With the economy in crisis and music industry CEOs starting to feel the pinch, the prospect of losing one of their biggest cash-cows is horrifying indeed (at least for them), and they are clearly desperate for anything that can help them bridge the ever-widening gap between profitability and substance.
Look closely enough, and the contradictions have always been there. On one hand, American Idol puts on display the fact that there lies an immense sea of talent and creativity in the masses of ordinary working people. It's precisely why millions of folks tune into the show every week hoping to see a little bit of themselves becoming a star. On the other hand, it's obvious that the AI producers would have no idea what to do with most of the talent out there.
Last season saw the show constantly criticized for being out of touch. Critics grew tired of the same old formula. They took to task the monotonous, stale litany of celebrity guests, each of which only seemed to cement AI's disconnect from current popular tastes (Dolly Parton and ZZ Top? Really?). That America's best-known judges predicted the barely pubescent David Archuleta's deep-fried Disney voice would beat out David Cook--even as the latter's impressive stage presence would gain him the victory by over 12 million votes--further confirms how out of it the show has indeed become.
And so, recent years have seen the show try to "shake things up." First, they allowed contestants to play their own instruments. Then they allowed original material to be sung during auditions. Now they've upped the team of three judges--Simon, Paula and Randy--to four by adding record producer Kara DioGuardi. It's a bit strange to think that DioGuardi, one of the most established figures in the record industry and daughter of former Republican Congressman John DioGuardi, might somehow be more relatable to middle America.
DioGuardi is certainly in good company. Watching Cowell, Jackson and Abdul stretching to bring in people with "originality" is quickly becoming the most entertaining part of the show. That's because no matter how much AI attempts to widen the pool, it still ends up shoving all the contestants into the narrowest of funnels. One has to give show creator Nigel Lythgoe credit; he certainly realizes that every groundbreaking musical act has come from among the masses. What he's completely missed is that none of them--from Billie Holiday to the Beatles to Grand Master Flash--made their name by dumbing themselves down or fitting into a "type."
Despite the show's stabs at genuine populism, its very existence as part of an increasingly out-of-touch music industry means that American Idol will never truly be able to fill the gap between top-down and bottom up. In fact, one could even argue that AI represents not an attempt at opening the gates, but tightening the industry's grip around music itself.
Think about it: other than Carrie Underwood and Kelly Clarkson none of the crowned "Idols" have had a visible recording career lasting more than a few years. Though some have gone on to successful theatre and movie gigs, most have faded from the public view rather quickly. Given that most record companies keep close tabs over artists' first two or three albums, American Idol has definitely given the industry a renewed sense of control over some of their biggest stars.
Veteran rock critic and historian Dave Marsh framed the dynamic quite well in a recent interview:
"You go on American Idol and what's your run? Your run is 18 months to three years... you ain't getting to the third album, you're certainly not getting to the fourth! By the third album the curve is down and they [the record company] are gonna go work on somebody new--which is a new phenomenon... Why is that? The record companies figured out something that is very basic to their economics, which is that if you're going to build a career like Bob Dylan or Bruce Springsteen who makes more than fifty or a hundred albums... [you're going to start] really getting paid for them... So the record companies, I think, made probably a fairly conscious decision at the highest levels not to have long-term stars anymore because it's too expensive."
This is, in essence, what American Idol is. It is a machine built for churning out quick, ready-made stars who can be discarded at will after all the money has been squeezed out. Though the show may drape itself in some vaguely democratic American dream, it's really run by the same short-sighted bottom line as any mortgage company or shadow banker.
Perhaps this is why the ratings for Idol's season premiere have declined for the third year in a row. It's hard to revel in the success of "one of your own" when so many others are losing their homes, jobs and any basic sense of certainty in their lives. And therein lies the crux. Tapping into the massive amounts of talent and creativity among folks out there would require a lot more than a contest. It ultimately means doing away with the system that pits us against one another in the first place.
This article first appeared on SleptOn.com.
Look closely enough, and the contradictions have always been there. On one hand, American Idol puts on display the fact that there lies an immense sea of talent and creativity in the masses of ordinary working people. It's precisely why millions of folks tune into the show every week hoping to see a little bit of themselves becoming a star. On the other hand, it's obvious that the AI producers would have no idea what to do with most of the talent out there.
Last season saw the show constantly criticized for being out of touch. Critics grew tired of the same old formula. They took to task the monotonous, stale litany of celebrity guests, each of which only seemed to cement AI's disconnect from current popular tastes (Dolly Parton and ZZ Top? Really?). That America's best-known judges predicted the barely pubescent David Archuleta's deep-fried Disney voice would beat out David Cook--even as the latter's impressive stage presence would gain him the victory by over 12 million votes--further confirms how out of it the show has indeed become.
And so, recent years have seen the show try to "shake things up." First, they allowed contestants to play their own instruments. Then they allowed original material to be sung during auditions. Now they've upped the team of three judges--Simon, Paula and Randy--to four by adding record producer Kara DioGuardi. It's a bit strange to think that DioGuardi, one of the most established figures in the record industry and daughter of former Republican Congressman John DioGuardi, might somehow be more relatable to middle America.
DioGuardi is certainly in good company. Watching Cowell, Jackson and Abdul stretching to bring in people with "originality" is quickly becoming the most entertaining part of the show. That's because no matter how much AI attempts to widen the pool, it still ends up shoving all the contestants into the narrowest of funnels. One has to give show creator Nigel Lythgoe credit; he certainly realizes that every groundbreaking musical act has come from among the masses. What he's completely missed is that none of them--from Billie Holiday to the Beatles to Grand Master Flash--made their name by dumbing themselves down or fitting into a "type."
Despite the show's stabs at genuine populism, its very existence as part of an increasingly out-of-touch music industry means that American Idol will never truly be able to fill the gap between top-down and bottom up. In fact, one could even argue that AI represents not an attempt at opening the gates, but tightening the industry's grip around music itself.
Think about it: other than Carrie Underwood and Kelly Clarkson none of the crowned "Idols" have had a visible recording career lasting more than a few years. Though some have gone on to successful theatre and movie gigs, most have faded from the public view rather quickly. Given that most record companies keep close tabs over artists' first two or three albums, American Idol has definitely given the industry a renewed sense of control over some of their biggest stars.
Veteran rock critic and historian Dave Marsh framed the dynamic quite well in a recent interview:
"You go on American Idol and what's your run? Your run is 18 months to three years... you ain't getting to the third album, you're certainly not getting to the fourth! By the third album the curve is down and they [the record company] are gonna go work on somebody new--which is a new phenomenon... Why is that? The record companies figured out something that is very basic to their economics, which is that if you're going to build a career like Bob Dylan or Bruce Springsteen who makes more than fifty or a hundred albums... [you're going to start] really getting paid for them... So the record companies, I think, made probably a fairly conscious decision at the highest levels not to have long-term stars anymore because it's too expensive."
This is, in essence, what American Idol is. It is a machine built for churning out quick, ready-made stars who can be discarded at will after all the money has been squeezed out. Though the show may drape itself in some vaguely democratic American dream, it's really run by the same short-sighted bottom line as any mortgage company or shadow banker.
Perhaps this is why the ratings for Idol's season premiere have declined for the third year in a row. It's hard to revel in the success of "one of your own" when so many others are losing their homes, jobs and any basic sense of certainty in their lives. And therein lies the crux. Tapping into the massive amounts of talent and creativity among folks out there would require a lot more than a contest. It ultimately means doing away with the system that pits us against one another in the first place.
This article first appeared on SleptOn.com.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
From our Friends at Socialist Worker
Nothing to Apologize For
Michele Bollinger takes up the debate about what kind of politics will strengthen the movement for abortion rights in her review of the new book Abortion & Life.
January 23, 2009
THERE IS a great deal to be hopeful about as the 36th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion passed this week.
Finally, George W. Bush is out of office. Alaska Gov. and former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin remains a punch line (at least for now). In the 2008 elections, anti-choice ballot measures were voted down in highly conservative places such as South Dakota. Barack Obama is expected to sign an executive order to reverse the global "gag rule" that bars international family planning groups funded by the U.S. from providing information about abortion.
But questions about the direction of the abortion rights movement are as pressing as ever. The Washington Post reported that 16,000 anti-abortion protesters were in Washington, D.C., for their annual anti-abortion march on January 22. This is smaller than recent years, but stands in stark contrast to the lack of mobilization by pro-choice forces. And while Obama has said he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act if it were passed by Congress, there is no indication that he will advocate for the legislation.
This is a time for the pro-choice movement, like many other struggles, to revisit central questions about how we should organize. And on first glance, Jennifer Baumgarder's Abortion & Life is a welcome addition to the discussion.
The book by the "third wave" feminist and pro-choice activist features at its center the "I Had An Abortion" theme around which Baumgarder, along with journalist and documentarian Gillian Aldrich, crafted their 2005 documentary of the same name.
One of the reasons Baumgardner and Aldrich created the film was to build on the conversation sparked by the overwhelming response to her "I Had An Abortion" T-shirts--Baumgarder herself marched wearing one at the April 2004 March for Women's Lives in Washington, D.C.
For scores of women, this slogan--along with Web sites like I'mnotsorry.net--was an unapologetic, visual affirmation of abortion, and represented a rejection of the silence, stigma and unwarranted shame surrounding abortion in our society.
Abortion & Life replicates the film in its honest and open chronicling of individual women's experiences of abortion. As in the film, 15 women of different ages, races and class backgrounds--including noted feminist Gloria Steinem, reproductive health activist Loretta Ross, writer Barbara Ehrenreich and musician Ani DiFranco--are photographed wearing the shirts as they tell their "abortion stories."
In doing so, the book does its part to break the subject of abortion out of the shame and disparagement that has increasingly surrounded it since the decline of the women's movements of the 1960s and 1970s.
"Abortion without apology" was the clarion call of that time. Today, major pro-choice advocates and Democratic Party politicians alike--from Hillary Clinton to former NARAL head Kate Michelman--regularly maintain that abortion is a "tragedy" or a "sad" choice that we need "fewer" women to be making.
As the ideological discussion about abortion has shifted to the right over the past 30 years, many women internalized this shift, even as some utilized their right to abortion and most remained in favor of abortion rights.
While wearing an "I Had An Abortion" T-shirt isn't something everyone can--or wants--to do, the personal stories of women who sought abortions in our society expose the basic, fundamental reasons why women and only women must have the right to control their own bodies. The real experiences of women contradict the wide variety of myths about abortion perpetuated by the right.
Some stories featured in Abortion & Life confirm the fact that women have always needed and sought abortions, whether it is legal or not:
-- Florence Rice, born 1919: "I went to work in a laundry. My salary was $12.41 a week--it was the 1930s. I worked and I took care of her [Ms. Rice's first child.] Later on, I sort of went with someone else, and found myself pregnant again--but I knew I wasn't going to have any more babies. I was not going to be like my mother. It was just as simple as that."
-- Marion Banzhaf, born 1953: "Kevin wanted to get married, but I wasn't really in love with him. His view was that we would drop out of school, and we would go live with his parents, and he would work at the Owens Corning glass factory, where his father worked. And I would stay home with his mother and take care of the baby. This was his plan, and it sends shudders up my spine still to think of it. So I was getting more and more desperate. I thought about killing myself father than live with Kevin's plan."
-- Jenny Egan, born 1980: "I'm one of five children in a Mormon family. My father is a Marine, Republican, Mormon lawyer. I was raised in a church where abortion was a horror and something that was not acceptable...I was sixteen when I got pregnant. It was with my boyfriend. The first time we had sex, it wasn't completely consensual. He would sort of accuse me of being a lesbian and--though it turned out he was onto something--in my high school world at the time, it was easier to have sex I didn't want than to be called a lesbian...God, the panic of picturing my life!"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ABORTION & Life also includes Baumgardner's analysis of major issues surrounding the pro-choice movement today, including counter-arguments to challenge the right-wing bigotry and moments of irreverence that are in keeping with a more uncompromising view of abortion rights.
But much of that gets lost in the overriding argument of her analysis, which, in keeping with much of "third wave" feminism, casts aside the political militancy of the 1960s generation of feminism, while trying to maintain a glossy, liberal critique of anti-abortion forces--in other words, treading a middle ground that takes us nowhere. This makes for a very disappointing book.
Baumgardner's role, in her words, has "moved from winning support for pro-choice legislation to examining how this generation's experience of abortion is shifting." This includes pushing aside a political orientation on winning back the ground taken by the right, and replacing it with a "pro-voice" orientation.
By "pro-voice," Baumgardner joins in what has been a right-wing critique of the mainstream pro-choice movement for "neglecting" the emotional experiences some women have after an abortion--feelings of sadness or depression, for example. She holds up the work of nonprofit organizations and counseling groups that have helped what Baumgardner deems to be a rightful "shift in the national conversation from 'keep your laws off my body' to 'let's talk about feelings and whether fetal life has value.'"
While the growth of organizations that promote counseling, and reproductive and mental health resources for women is arguably needed, Baumgardner wrongly conflates this work with a political strategy that can lead the way forward for the women's rights movement as a whole.
To Baumgardner, being "pro-voice" also means accepting language that the pro-choice movement used to reject wholesale--including the term "pro-life" (which Baumgardner herself uses throughout the book), "baby" (as opposed to "fetus' or "zygote"), "killing" and so on--for fear of alienating the scores of women who use these terms.
But in making this argument, Baumgardner confuses what may be sound advice for counselors running a clinic with what is necessary for a growing pro-choice movement. And she does so by taking pot shots at activists who try to fight for choice on a strong, politically confident basis:
Emily Barcklow...had an abortion when she was 19 and attending Evergreen State College. "It was not an easy decision," she recalls. "I struggled with feelings of deviance, selfishness and loss afterwards." Four years, lots of counseling and an "amazing ritual process" helped her feel resolved.
But at a NARAL event on the University of Washington campus in 2001, Barcklow spent hours preparing a presentation about her experience and closure ritual: "I arrived at the speak-out and was disappointed with the lack of depth in the other presentations--all recycled coat hangers, and we'll never go back signs. I would cite this experience as my first real disconnect from the mainstream abortion rights movement."
It's not much of a surprise, then, that in her chapter on "Can you be a feminist and pro-life?" Baumgarder answers, "The answer is a resounding yes"--while pointing out some apparently redeeming qualities in groups like Democrats for Life and Feminists for Life.
While it might seem as though she has gone off the deep end, Baumgardner is simply trying to reconcile a contradiction that just can't be reconciled--you cannot "value women" and at the same time deny women the fundamental right to control what happens to their own bodies.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IT IS true that because of years of attacks on the right to choose, some women identify themselves as being "personally opposed" to abortion, but "politically pro-choice"--and vice versa.
But instead of fighting to remain relentless on questions of principle--such as why a fetus isn't a baby, and how it came to be incorrectly referred to as such--Baumgardner maintains that we need to move past the "pro-choice/pro-life dichotomy." This is a mistake that is grounded in a perception that people's views are static and unchanging.
The fact is that people find a clear, confident and unapologetic case for abortion rights to be politically compelling. At its core, our society remains pro-choice and supportive of Roe v. Wade because women need to have control over when and under what circumstances they have children.
Every year, about half of the pregnancies in the U.S. are unplanned, and half of those are terminated--about 1.3 million a year; over one-third of women have an abortion by age 45. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 75 percent of women say they cannot afford to have a child, and that having a child would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; 50 percent say they don't want to be a single parent or are having problems with their partner.
For these reasons, there are activists in our communities and on campuses who want to organize to fight for access to abortion, emergency contraception and so on. This is the basis on which a new movement can be built. It is possible to push back against the attacks by the right and gain ground in terms of reproductive freedom in the coming era.
The stories told in Abortion & Life illustrate how imperative it is that we fight for these rights. But the politics articulated by Baumgardner amount to a political concession to the right, put forth by a central figure of the younger generation of feminists who is supposed to be leading the pro-choice movement forward.
We will need to do much better if we are to take advantage of the possibilities in the future.
Michele Bollinger takes up the debate about what kind of politics will strengthen the movement for abortion rights in her review of the new book Abortion & Life.
January 23, 2009
THERE IS a great deal to be hopeful about as the 36th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion passed this week.
Finally, George W. Bush is out of office. Alaska Gov. and former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin remains a punch line (at least for now). In the 2008 elections, anti-choice ballot measures were voted down in highly conservative places such as South Dakota. Barack Obama is expected to sign an executive order to reverse the global "gag rule" that bars international family planning groups funded by the U.S. from providing information about abortion.
But questions about the direction of the abortion rights movement are as pressing as ever. The Washington Post reported that 16,000 anti-abortion protesters were in Washington, D.C., for their annual anti-abortion march on January 22. This is smaller than recent years, but stands in stark contrast to the lack of mobilization by pro-choice forces. And while Obama has said he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act if it were passed by Congress, there is no indication that he will advocate for the legislation.
This is a time for the pro-choice movement, like many other struggles, to revisit central questions about how we should organize. And on first glance, Jennifer Baumgarder's Abortion & Life is a welcome addition to the discussion.
The book by the "third wave" feminist and pro-choice activist features at its center the "I Had An Abortion" theme around which Baumgarder, along with journalist and documentarian Gillian Aldrich, crafted their 2005 documentary of the same name.
One of the reasons Baumgardner and Aldrich created the film was to build on the conversation sparked by the overwhelming response to her "I Had An Abortion" T-shirts--Baumgarder herself marched wearing one at the April 2004 March for Women's Lives in Washington, D.C.
For scores of women, this slogan--along with Web sites like I'mnotsorry.net--was an unapologetic, visual affirmation of abortion, and represented a rejection of the silence, stigma and unwarranted shame surrounding abortion in our society.
Abortion & Life replicates the film in its honest and open chronicling of individual women's experiences of abortion. As in the film, 15 women of different ages, races and class backgrounds--including noted feminist Gloria Steinem, reproductive health activist Loretta Ross, writer Barbara Ehrenreich and musician Ani DiFranco--are photographed wearing the shirts as they tell their "abortion stories."
In doing so, the book does its part to break the subject of abortion out of the shame and disparagement that has increasingly surrounded it since the decline of the women's movements of the 1960s and 1970s.
"Abortion without apology" was the clarion call of that time. Today, major pro-choice advocates and Democratic Party politicians alike--from Hillary Clinton to former NARAL head Kate Michelman--regularly maintain that abortion is a "tragedy" or a "sad" choice that we need "fewer" women to be making.
As the ideological discussion about abortion has shifted to the right over the past 30 years, many women internalized this shift, even as some utilized their right to abortion and most remained in favor of abortion rights.
While wearing an "I Had An Abortion" T-shirt isn't something everyone can--or wants--to do, the personal stories of women who sought abortions in our society expose the basic, fundamental reasons why women and only women must have the right to control their own bodies. The real experiences of women contradict the wide variety of myths about abortion perpetuated by the right.
Some stories featured in Abortion & Life confirm the fact that women have always needed and sought abortions, whether it is legal or not:
-- Florence Rice, born 1919: "I went to work in a laundry. My salary was $12.41 a week--it was the 1930s. I worked and I took care of her [Ms. Rice's first child.] Later on, I sort of went with someone else, and found myself pregnant again--but I knew I wasn't going to have any more babies. I was not going to be like my mother. It was just as simple as that."
-- Marion Banzhaf, born 1953: "Kevin wanted to get married, but I wasn't really in love with him. His view was that we would drop out of school, and we would go live with his parents, and he would work at the Owens Corning glass factory, where his father worked. And I would stay home with his mother and take care of the baby. This was his plan, and it sends shudders up my spine still to think of it. So I was getting more and more desperate. I thought about killing myself father than live with Kevin's plan."
-- Jenny Egan, born 1980: "I'm one of five children in a Mormon family. My father is a Marine, Republican, Mormon lawyer. I was raised in a church where abortion was a horror and something that was not acceptable...I was sixteen when I got pregnant. It was with my boyfriend. The first time we had sex, it wasn't completely consensual. He would sort of accuse me of being a lesbian and--though it turned out he was onto something--in my high school world at the time, it was easier to have sex I didn't want than to be called a lesbian...God, the panic of picturing my life!"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ABORTION & Life also includes Baumgardner's analysis of major issues surrounding the pro-choice movement today, including counter-arguments to challenge the right-wing bigotry and moments of irreverence that are in keeping with a more uncompromising view of abortion rights.
But much of that gets lost in the overriding argument of her analysis, which, in keeping with much of "third wave" feminism, casts aside the political militancy of the 1960s generation of feminism, while trying to maintain a glossy, liberal critique of anti-abortion forces--in other words, treading a middle ground that takes us nowhere. This makes for a very disappointing book.
Baumgardner's role, in her words, has "moved from winning support for pro-choice legislation to examining how this generation's experience of abortion is shifting." This includes pushing aside a political orientation on winning back the ground taken by the right, and replacing it with a "pro-voice" orientation.
By "pro-voice," Baumgardner joins in what has been a right-wing critique of the mainstream pro-choice movement for "neglecting" the emotional experiences some women have after an abortion--feelings of sadness or depression, for example. She holds up the work of nonprofit organizations and counseling groups that have helped what Baumgardner deems to be a rightful "shift in the national conversation from 'keep your laws off my body' to 'let's talk about feelings and whether fetal life has value.'"
While the growth of organizations that promote counseling, and reproductive and mental health resources for women is arguably needed, Baumgardner wrongly conflates this work with a political strategy that can lead the way forward for the women's rights movement as a whole.
To Baumgardner, being "pro-voice" also means accepting language that the pro-choice movement used to reject wholesale--including the term "pro-life" (which Baumgardner herself uses throughout the book), "baby" (as opposed to "fetus' or "zygote"), "killing" and so on--for fear of alienating the scores of women who use these terms.
But in making this argument, Baumgardner confuses what may be sound advice for counselors running a clinic with what is necessary for a growing pro-choice movement. And she does so by taking pot shots at activists who try to fight for choice on a strong, politically confident basis:
Emily Barcklow...had an abortion when she was 19 and attending Evergreen State College. "It was not an easy decision," she recalls. "I struggled with feelings of deviance, selfishness and loss afterwards." Four years, lots of counseling and an "amazing ritual process" helped her feel resolved.
But at a NARAL event on the University of Washington campus in 2001, Barcklow spent hours preparing a presentation about her experience and closure ritual: "I arrived at the speak-out and was disappointed with the lack of depth in the other presentations--all recycled coat hangers, and we'll never go back signs. I would cite this experience as my first real disconnect from the mainstream abortion rights movement."
It's not much of a surprise, then, that in her chapter on "Can you be a feminist and pro-life?" Baumgarder answers, "The answer is a resounding yes"--while pointing out some apparently redeeming qualities in groups like Democrats for Life and Feminists for Life.
While it might seem as though she has gone off the deep end, Baumgardner is simply trying to reconcile a contradiction that just can't be reconciled--you cannot "value women" and at the same time deny women the fundamental right to control what happens to their own bodies.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IT IS true that because of years of attacks on the right to choose, some women identify themselves as being "personally opposed" to abortion, but "politically pro-choice"--and vice versa.
But instead of fighting to remain relentless on questions of principle--such as why a fetus isn't a baby, and how it came to be incorrectly referred to as such--Baumgardner maintains that we need to move past the "pro-choice/pro-life dichotomy." This is a mistake that is grounded in a perception that people's views are static and unchanging.
The fact is that people find a clear, confident and unapologetic case for abortion rights to be politically compelling. At its core, our society remains pro-choice and supportive of Roe v. Wade because women need to have control over when and under what circumstances they have children.
Every year, about half of the pregnancies in the U.S. are unplanned, and half of those are terminated--about 1.3 million a year; over one-third of women have an abortion by age 45. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 75 percent of women say they cannot afford to have a child, and that having a child would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; 50 percent say they don't want to be a single parent or are having problems with their partner.
For these reasons, there are activists in our communities and on campuses who want to organize to fight for access to abortion, emergency contraception and so on. This is the basis on which a new movement can be built. It is possible to push back against the attacks by the right and gain ground in terms of reproductive freedom in the coming era.
The stories told in Abortion & Life illustrate how imperative it is that we fight for these rights. But the politics articulated by Baumgardner amount to a political concession to the right, put forth by a central figure of the younger generation of feminists who is supposed to be leading the pro-choice movement forward.
We will need to do much better if we are to take advantage of the possibilities in the future.
Fabulously Feminist News
Victory for Women! Global Gag Rule Repealed
The Feminist Majority applauds President Barack Obama for issuing an executive order today that repeals the Global Gag Rule. President Obama's expeditious action on behalf of women worldwide will save the lives, health, and suffering of literally millions of women worldwide yearly.
"Barack Obama, with the stroke of a pen, is now saving the lives and health of countless women and girls around the world. President Obama is keeping his pledge to women and I believe this is only the beginning," said Feminist Majority President Eleanor Smeal.
The Global Gag Rule prohibited family planning programs in other nations that receive US aid from using non-US monies for abortion counseling, advocacy, and referrals. The rule was instituted by President Reagan in 1984, was repealed by President Clinton, and was reinstituted by President George W. Bush.
The Global Gag Rule inhibited women worldwide from access to gynecological exams, AIDS prevention and treatment, and contraceptive options. It also halted shipment of condoms and contraceptives to more than 20 countries. In part because of restricted access to reproductive health services, more than 70,000 women annually die from unsafe abortions worldwide.
The Feminist Majority, founded in 1987, works for women's equality and to enhance feminist participation in public policy nationwide and worldwide.
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act Passed Senate, Returns to House
The Senate passed by a strong majority the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (S. 181) last night after defeating a series of Republican hostile amendments. The Senate floor debate for the Act was led by Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Dean of the women Senators, for Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chair Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) after Majority Leader Senator Reid (D-NV) navigated the bill to the floor.
"President Obama and the Democratic Congress are keeping their pledge to women and all workers to reverse the Supreme Court decision that gutted the right of employees to fight wage discrimination," said Eleanor Smeal, President of the Feminist Majority. "We're on a roll to rebuilding women’s rights and civil rights taken away during the Bush era."
The Senate Act, which has already passed the House in a version coupled with the Paycheck Fairness Act, will go back to the House as a single bill. The House is expected to pass the Senate bill on Tuesday. President Obama is expected to sign it into law shortly thereafter. In almost straight party line votes the Senate kept the pledge of President Obama to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act almost immediately after being sworn in.
Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson's killer amendment was defeated 55-40 in a nearly straight party vote with Democrats voting against it – only Republican Olympia (ME) voted with Democrats. Several other debilitating Republican amendments also went down to defeat.
The Ledbetter Act corrects the Roberts Supreme Court decision that gutted the ability of women workers to sue for wage discrimination. The Act passed helps not only women, but all workers who are victims of wage discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age, or disability.
The Feminist Majority applauds President Barack Obama for issuing an executive order today that repeals the Global Gag Rule. President Obama's expeditious action on behalf of women worldwide will save the lives, health, and suffering of literally millions of women worldwide yearly.
"Barack Obama, with the stroke of a pen, is now saving the lives and health of countless women and girls around the world. President Obama is keeping his pledge to women and I believe this is only the beginning," said Feminist Majority President Eleanor Smeal.
The Global Gag Rule prohibited family planning programs in other nations that receive US aid from using non-US monies for abortion counseling, advocacy, and referrals. The rule was instituted by President Reagan in 1984, was repealed by President Clinton, and was reinstituted by President George W. Bush.
The Global Gag Rule inhibited women worldwide from access to gynecological exams, AIDS prevention and treatment, and contraceptive options. It also halted shipment of condoms and contraceptives to more than 20 countries. In part because of restricted access to reproductive health services, more than 70,000 women annually die from unsafe abortions worldwide.
The Feminist Majority, founded in 1987, works for women's equality and to enhance feminist participation in public policy nationwide and worldwide.
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act Passed Senate, Returns to House
The Senate passed by a strong majority the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (S. 181) last night after defeating a series of Republican hostile amendments. The Senate floor debate for the Act was led by Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Dean of the women Senators, for Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chair Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) after Majority Leader Senator Reid (D-NV) navigated the bill to the floor.
"President Obama and the Democratic Congress are keeping their pledge to women and all workers to reverse the Supreme Court decision that gutted the right of employees to fight wage discrimination," said Eleanor Smeal, President of the Feminist Majority. "We're on a roll to rebuilding women’s rights and civil rights taken away during the Bush era."
The Senate Act, which has already passed the House in a version coupled with the Paycheck Fairness Act, will go back to the House as a single bill. The House is expected to pass the Senate bill on Tuesday. President Obama is expected to sign it into law shortly thereafter. In almost straight party line votes the Senate kept the pledge of President Obama to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act almost immediately after being sworn in.
Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson's killer amendment was defeated 55-40 in a nearly straight party vote with Democrats voting against it – only Republican Olympia (ME) voted with Democrats. Several other debilitating Republican amendments also went down to defeat.
The Ledbetter Act corrects the Roberts Supreme Court decision that gutted the ability of women workers to sue for wage discrimination. The Act passed helps not only women, but all workers who are victims of wage discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age, or disability.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
