Jul 31, 2010 at 09:30 am by Sarah Arboleda

A recent article from the CBC argues that Obama’s appearance on The View this past week may have hurt his credibility. Why? Because Obama is the first sitting President to appear on a daytime talk show, and many pundits and journalists believe it portrays a desire to staunch bleeding poll numbers by wooing the show’s audience of middle-aged housewives. To which I respond: UGH.

Look, I’m no big fan of The View, but why exactly are middle-aged, working-class women somehow a lower class of voters? If Obama goes to a BBQ joint to talk to average-Joe Americans, people don’t worry that he’s losing his credibility with New York intellectuals, do they? So why is it that trying to appeal to women makes Obama’s politickin’ less serious and potentially damaging?

A current poll on the CBC website shows that 69% of respondents believe that the appearance did hurt his credibility, however keep in mind that CBC is a Canadian news source and most likely a …

(more…)

Jul 31, 2010 at 05:30 am by Sarah Arboleda

In a recent interview, veteran actress and comedian Bette Midler bemoaned the current lack of funny women in film. Although Midler admitted that there were plenty of fantastic female comedians on the small screen — she mentions Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, Judy Gold, Joy Behar, Whoopi Goldberg and Debra Messing as being some of her favorites — she notes that, for the most part, women are still confined to more traditional roles in comedies, letting the men take the driver’s seat:

“There are a lot of funny women out there but they’re not in the movies because there are not that many funny women in movies any more – they’re mostly carrying coffee for the iron man,” she laughed.

Bette might have a point. Take last summer’s blockbuster comedy, The Hangover. Women were alternately portrayed as sweet and hot or mean and hot, but they were usually the butt of the jokes and rarely the ones making them. Even the Tina Fey/Steve Carrel …

(more…)

Jul 24, 2010 at 01:26 pm by Katie Loud

When Katie Couric was tapped to anchor CBS Evening News, many considered it an attempt to “reinvigorate” television news.  It’s fairly evident that it wasn’t successful in the way it was perhaps intended to be (both ABC and NBC are ahead of CBS in terms of nightly news viewers).  However, Couric’s future remains bright as she has both a solid journalistic history (who could forget the infamous Tina Fey Palin interview?) and has tapped into new directions such as her webshow @katiecouric. Yup, perhaps the time for “anchorwomen” truly has come.

From New York Magazine:

This past spring, CBS News president Sean McManus and executive vice-president Paul Friedman discussed whether to try to bring an end to what may be the last great experiment in network news: Katie Couric, anchorwoman. Though her reported $15 million annual contract is not up until next June, one idea that was floated was for CBS to buy out the remainder of Couric’s contract this September and put in someone new this fall, according to people familiar with the conversation. Executives were perhaps also concerned about the bad publicity that might result from a long contract negotiation with Couric, especially if she ended up leaving. McManus didn’t want to make an early move, and CBS CEO Leslie Moonves was also against moving so quickly. “Leslie is incredibly supportive,” one person familiar with Moonves’s thinking explained. “Moonves and Katie have an excellent relationship.”

One thing that I can’t help considering is who they would put in as a new anchor should Couric get the golden handshake.  It’s going to be interesting in terms of feminism no matter what; if they replace Couric with a man (and correspondent Scott Pelley is the name most often thrown around at the moment), the message is going to be that, as a woman, she couldn’t hack it.  If they put another female into the anchor chair, it’s possible that outcries of “She only got the job because …

(more…)

Jul 18, 2010 at 01:40 pm by Paige Feldman

Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work discusses a variety of themes — ageism, sexism, comedy, New York, Hollywood, and show business — with the hilarious, spunky, and provocative comedienne as the vehicle. The filmed documentary opens with Rivers today, performing at hole in the wall in New York City and then follows a year in the life of a “semi-legend.” From her original plays to Celebrity Apprentice to Comedy Central’s Roast to stand-ups across the country, the seventy-five year old woman, Rivers,  possesses energy, drive, and a genuine love for performance.

The non-linear narrative and rather recent footage from Rivers life does not offer the brute statistics on her life — we don’t learn the specifics of her childhood. Rather, the film focuses on her career: “the career,” an endless performance that Rivers is putting on for the world. Rivers always wanted to be an actress — a dream that was always slightly out of reach. In her youth, Rivers was not well-received on Broadway but recently had tried out a new play in Edinborough and London.  When that play, too, received lukewarm reviews, Rivers refused to bring the play to New York. It took a lot of sweat and energy, but alas, Rivers bounces back, doesn’t focus too long on what some may consider a “failure,” and is on to the next thing.

I think that her perseverance is one of Rivers’ most salient qualities — especially in the sexist world of comedy (remember when even Christopher Hitchens was all like,”Girls aren’t funny”?). She considers …

(more…)

Jul 15, 2010 at 10:05 am by Katie Loud

Director Gigi Gaston has put together a documentary alleging that there was some funny business at the polls in the last presidential election. Specifically, Gaston’s clear message is that Hillary Clinton should have been the Democrat’s candidate. Oh, and that Obama totally stole the election.

From Mediate:

Amidst recent charges that the New Black Panther Party intimidated voters outside a Philadelphia polling place in 2008, a new documentary called We Will Not Be Silenced charges that this was not an isolated incident. The film’s director Gigi Gaston appeared on Fox and Friends this weekend and was introduced by host Alyson Camerota who claimed that “the 2008 primary race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton was rife with stories of voter intimidation and voting violations.”

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that this all came out on the infamously conservative Fox News Channel. They are ridiculously anti-Obama (which is, of course, their prerogative … and I do realize that he’s given perhaps more benefit of the doubt on other news networks than another candidate would), but it seems to me that this might cross a line into propaganda when you put Camerota’s clearly biased introduction into the mix.

But Obama must be really bad if the anti-Clinton Fox is on Hillary’s side about anything.

(more…)

Jul 01, 2010 at 02:25 pm by Amy Allen

gorgeous picture of oprah winfrey, at the top of forbes list for 2010 again

Forbes magazine this week published its annual ‘Celebrity 100’ list, ranking celebrities by their ability to successfully make money, generate headlines and beef up internet traffic on search engines and social networking sites.

This year, for the first time, women dominate the top ten of the list, holding six of the top ten slots. Oprah Winfrey, who earned an estimated £209m [$315m] in the last twelve months alone, was named as the world’s most influential personality. Beyonce Knowles, Lady Gaga, Sandra Bullock, Madonna and Miley Cyrus also all feature in the top twenty of this year’s list.

Taking a cursory glance at this year’s list, it would perhaps appear that women hold more sway than their male counterparts in the entertainment business. It could also be said that the list suggests that women may at last be starting to gain the levels of influence (and indeed wealth) that they deserve in this industry.

Many opinion pieces have of course emerged following the publication of this year’s Celebrity 100 and many, such as Guy Adams’ piece in today’s Independent, focus (not unreasonably) on whether the Forbes Celebrity 100 list really signals success for women.

(more…)

Jun 19, 2010 at 06:02 am by Katie Loud

photo of thin skinny model on catwalk

Julien Macdonald has really put his foot in it.  The Welsh fashion designer and Britain’s Next Top Model judge has totally slammed plus-size models, referring to aspiring models in a size larger than an eight “a joke.”

I can remember when I was a teenager in the ‘90s hearing tales about modeling being a career that went hand in hand with eating disorders.  I survived Kate Moss and the whole “waif” thing.  What I don’t remember is ever seeing a plus-size model in a magazine (beyond Lane Bryant circulars or something).  This is not the case today, where some plus-size models are actually almost-sort-of household names, where you can see curvier women in an increasing number of magazines and billboards.

Am I just remembering things wrong, or are Julien Macdonald and I just looking at the same world differently?  (And, to be fair — and unfortunate —  it is far more his world than mine).

From Britain’s Daily Mail:

Macdonald, who has an OBE for services to fashion, told Wales on Sunday in an interview: ‘This is a serious show. A catwalk model is a size six to eight.

‘You can’t have a plus size girl winning – it makes it a joke.’

Um … a joke?  You’re, uh, joking, right?

Macdonald, ex-creative director for Givenchy, is unimpressed with the move towards using larger girls in campaigns, claiming the reality of the industry will take its toll on any model over size eight.

He said: ‘It’s not fair on them – you’re setting them up for a fall – I know what would happen to them afterwards,’ he said.

‘They are looked down on, they’re frowned upon.If you’re a size 14 in a room full of size eights – you’re in the wrong room.’

Hmm.  Apparently not joking.  Fortunately, the modeling world seems to be parting company with Macdonald on this issue.

Several designers and high fashion magazines have begun to use curvier models as the size zero debate continues to dominate headlines since the British Fashion Council’s Model Health Enquiry in 2007 was launched in response to concerns about the health of models on the catwalks at London Fashion Week.

High end fashion label Chanel used plus-sized supermodel Crystal Renn in their most recent show alongside Georgia May Jagger and High Street chain Mango featured her in their 2007 campaign.

(more…)

Jun 18, 2010 at 02:25 pm by Amy Allen

photo of biggest loser television show logo

Weight & health blog site Body Love Wellness features today an interview with Kai Hibbard, a finalist from season 3 of The Biggest Loser, about her experiences on the show and how she’s felt about her weight and health since season 3 wrapped.

The interview basically focuses on Kai’s experiences as one of the contestants on the show but, sadly, she also makes some pretty shocking claims about the health & wellbeing of the contestants whilst they were featured on the show, and claims that her participation left her with an eating disorder.

Though we don’t have The Biggest Loser in the UK, we have shows of a very similar format, like Fat Club. From my research into The Biggest Loser, it is clear that the show is massively popular in the USA, with millions of viewers tuning in to watch each new season and spin-off shows in the works for the show’s trainers. Today’s interview with Kai, therefore, should prove interesting to a lot of people.

In the interview, Kai claims that:

‘… the dehumanization process started [early in the audition process], where they start teaching you that because you are overweight you are sub-human and you just start to believe it. Through the whole process, they just keep telling you, over and over, how lucky you are to be there. You’re being yelled at by people [whose] job is basically to keep the ‘fat people’ in line and you start to believe it… So I heard for three months [on the ranch] how lucky I was to be there and, let me tell you, my feet were bleeding, I was covered in bruises, I was beat up, but boy, I kept hearing about how lucky I was to be there.’
(more…)

Jun 15, 2010 at 05:41 am by Katie Loud

photo of two little girls putting on makeup and wearing jewelry

In a recent piece printed in the New York Times, Peggy Orenstein, author of the memoir Waiting for Daisy (and also one of my grad school texts, Schoolgirls, which really resonated with me), takes the infamous video of the very talented but very young girls bumping and grinding to Beyonce (who is much more appropriately clothed in her video) to a whole new level. Orenstein argues that sudden blips of excessive sexuality on a young girl’s radar screen can cause permanent damage to the young girl herself, who may never have any sort of normal feelings about what sexuality should be.

Moral panics about pornified girls bubble up regularly these days: should the self-proclaimed role model Miley Cyrus have stripped for Vanity Fair (or given a lap dance to a 44-year-old film producer or pole-danced on an ice cream cart at the Teen Choice Awards)? Is the neckline too low on the new Barbie Basics’ Model 10 doll — nicknamed, seemingly redundantly, Busty Barbie? The next freakout, mark my words, will explode this summer when Mattel rolls out its Monster High franchise — dolls, apparel, interactive Web site, Halloween costumes, Webisodes and, eventually, television shows and a movie — which will be the biggest product introduction in the company’s history and its first original line since Hot Wheels in 1968 (back when “hot,” at least to children, had a different connotation). Monster High’s racy student body is made up of the children of “legendary monsters,” including Clawdeen, a 15-year-old werewolf who resembles an undead street walker, only less demure. But no worries, parents, Clawdeen is not without her wholesome side: although she is a “fierce fashionista” who is “gorgeous” and “intimidating” and hates gym “because they won’t let me participate in my platform heels,” her Web bio assures us that she is “absolutely loyal to my friends.” Well, that’s a relief.

Orenstein makes an interesting point with the fleeting outrage over these issues. There is a huge outcry, then time passes (not even that much time … I wrote about the gyrating gradeschoolers on May 15th), and the outrage has pretty much disappeared, leaving instead a somewhat apathetic feeling of, “Wow, that was bad.”

And the beat goes on!

Orenstein continues:

I might give the phenomenon a pass if it turned out that, once they were older, little girls who play-acted at sexy were more comfortable in their skins or more confident in their sexual relationships, if they asked more of their partners or enjoyed greater pleasure. But evidence is to the contrary. In his book, “The Triple Bind: Saving Our Teenage Girls From Today’s Pressures,” Stephen Hinshaw, chairman of the psychology department at the University of California, Berkeley, explains that sexualizing little girls — whether through images, music or play — actually undermines healthy sexuality rather than promoting it. Those bootylicious grade-schoolers in the dance troupe presumably don’t understand the meaning of their motions (and thank goodness for it), but, precisely because of that, they don’t connect — and may never learn to connect — sexy attitude to erotic feelings.

And I think that disconnect is what so many of us find indefinable — and yucky. The girls do not understand the sexual nature of a pelvic thrust. When the opportunity for some real life pelvic action comes up, it will likely seem quite insignificant to them. Those girls have been, on some level, desensitized to sex, and that is really kind of a crime against them, in a manner of speaking.
(more…)

Jun 14, 2010 at 08:07 am by Katie Loud

black and white photo of former alaskan governor sarah palin

In a recent interview with Fox News’ Greta van Susteren, Sarah Palin discusses everything from the BP oil spill to the hoopla over her boobs.  But mostly about the oil spill.  Yeah, it never would have happened had she been at the helm.  Really.  That, and Obama should have called her.  Like, stat.

Palin told van Susteren:

I have some ideas, and I think a lot of other Americans have some ideas, especially those who have some experience working with these oil companies and knowing that there is such a need to verify the information that oil execs would be giving a public official because the oil executive’s perception of reality, really, is different than a public official’s would be.

In the case of this spill, to see now that we’re on day 54 and the Obama administration is just now deciding that they will meet with BP is a pretty atrocious thing to have to realize because, Greta, what this has resulted in is an industry player like BP has been put in the position, this player with astronomical liability exposure, gets to define the facts of the spill, instead of from day one, working together, CEO to CEO level, the president and Hayward and board members of BP working together to define what the facts are in this situation.

It’s like one of those New England Telephone ads that was on when I was a kid.  A family loads into their station wagon,  all excited about going to the aquarium to see the penguins.  They arrive only to find that the aquarium has closed, and a voiceover comes on with, “You should have called.”  Yup, my interpretation of Sarah Palin’s words here is that Obama should have gotten right on the phone with BP (because I’m sure he didn’t) and worked it out man to man CEO to CEO because, uh, that’s the way things work best.  Yup.

VAN SUSTEREN: OK, walk me through this. Suppose that you were in the position as President Obama is, and you’ve invited the CEO and other executives of BP. They walk into the room. Do you ask the questions? Do you issue the orders? Do they ask the questions? What are you going to do?

PALIN: Well, you know, even before walking in the room with BP, some orders need to be issued. For one, there needs to be a waving of the Jones Act so that we could have had many, many days ago, weeks ago, some help with skimmers from elsewhere, besides just U.S. flagships, come over and help in this tragedy. And that order needs to be given to Admiral Allen right now. It’s amazing to me and to so many others that though President Bush had been able to waive Jones Act provisions for Katrina, President Obama hasn’t thought to do that yet? And yet surely, that has been suggested by those experts around him.

(more…)

Jun 10, 2010 at 12:10 pm by Sarah Arboleda


I love True Blood. I’ve been looking forward to Sunday’s Season 3 premiere all year, dutifully gathering up the breadcrumbs that creator Alan Ball has been dropping over the nine-month hiatus. The show’s gleeful display of bare and bloodied flesh, coupled with its wicked humor, make it my second-favorite show on television (Mad Men retains the top spot so I can continue to feel smug and cultured).

Which leads me to the following question: are we supposed to like Sookie? Ball adapted the show from a series of books that are told from Sookie’s perspective, and yet made True Blood more of an ensemble where the hijinks of Tara, Jason, Jessica, Sam, Lafayette, Eric and Bill are often as important on a weekly basis as whatever Sookie’s mad, sad or horny about. Which is not a complaint – any show that revolves entirely around one character can get tiring. But I also feel as though even though the show began as something of an ensemble, in the past two seasons it has moved increasingly away from having Sookie be its anchoring character. Yet I do feel as though I should, at least, like the female lead of my second-favorite show. At best, I find both the character of Sookie and her storylines entertaining for their sheer ridiculous camp value, but I can’t say that I’ve ever been moved by the character herself – even when she’s tragically wolfing down an entire pecan pie (still one of the show’s weirdest moments, which is saying quite a bit). But, by contrast, I constantly feel sympathy and affection for Sam, the tortured, lovelorn shape-shifter. Or even the unbelievably dim-witted Jason.

(more…)

May 28, 2010 at 08:29 am by Katie Loud

photo of tammy bruce with a microphone and a gun

Tammy Bruce, an “openly gay, pro-choice, gun-owning, pro-death penalty, independent conservative”, has somehow managed to avoid the stigma that political women from Sarah Palin to Ann Coulter to Hillary Clinton seem to carry. She recently laughed off a debate offer from Ryan Sorba, an infamously homophobic member of the American Conservative Union (Sorba was booed offstage at the 2010 CPAC conference for making anti-gay statements).

From The Advocate:

Gay conservative Tammy Bruce laughed at the prospect of a debate with Ryan Sorba, which the antigay activist challenged her and blogger Andrew Sullivan to last week. Bruce said Sorba would be better off debating Ted Haggard, Bob Allen, or George Rekers in order to expose the hypocrisy of homophobia.

Last week, in an e-mail exchange with Washington Post reporter David Weigel, Sorba said that he would publicly challenge Bruce and/or Sullivan to a debate. Bruce is the new advisory board chair for gay conservative group GOProud, which Sorba bashed onstage during the Conservative Political Action Conference this year.

Bruce, also a Fox New commentator, then e-mailed Weigel to shoot down the debate idea from Sorba and suggest some enlightening alternatives.

“I was amused by Ryan Sorba’s declaration that he would be soon calling for a debate between himself and either me or Andrew Sullivan,” said Bruce in part of the message. “I have a better idea — I would suggest Sorba ‘debate’ Ted Haggard, Bob Allen or perhaps even George Alan Rekers. I think that might prove more interesting, and would certainly help shed some light on how hypocritical homophobic bigotry has been masquerading as an element of both Christianity and conservatism for far too long.”

And then Bruce gives the ultimate, “Talk to the hand” statement, because really, what else is there to say?

“Frankly, I do find it rather odd that homosexuality seems to be more on the minds of certain so-called religious conservatives than it is for most of my gay friends.”

Ka-bam! Right on! Latent homosexuality is probably more common than anyone will ever know, and I strongly believe that often the most vocal anti-gay activists are the ones too afraid to look too closely in the mirror. Now who the hell are you, Tammy Bruce, and why have I never heard of you before?
(more…)

Page 1 of 212