The Recession and Housewivery? Um, no.

It's no secret that the recession continues to take its toll on working Americans, with unemployment numbers climbing by the thousands every day. The media have been wild with stories about long lines of people seeking work at career fairs, applicants numbering in the thousands for single janitorial jobs, and major impending layoffs at some of the nation's largest corporations. However, this AP article on layoffs affecting working moms rubbed - no, chaffed - me in absolutely the wrong way. The article carries a subtle stench of discrimination towards working women - and a not so subtle matrix of gender bias which reinforces age old expectations for mother/father family roles:

Lucas and other laid-off women like her are involuntarily experiencing the life of a stay-at-home mom, and they are getting to know a lot more about the details of their children's daily existence. They are also discovering some of the things they have been missing.

Though the mass layoffs of this recession have so far affected mostly men, more than 800,000 women have lost their jobs since the end of 2007. For the mothers among them, it means that, suddenly, Mommy's home, often for the first time in many years.

For many of these women, unemployment has no doubt been terrifying. But for some — particularly those who have the financial resources to ride out the storm — it has been a precious opportunity to get to know their children a little better.

Ummm - excuse me? If the "mass layoffs of this recession have so far affected mostly men," then why don't you do a feature about laid-off fathers who are "discovering some of the things they have been missing"? I can't help but take offence at the tone of this piece and the way it frames once-working moms as "discovering things they've been missing" during a "precious opportunity to get to know their children," without ANY mention of laid-off fathers getting the same so-called "opportunities." So, are we to think that laid-off fathers wouldn't relish at the "opportunity" to get to know their kids better? I'm similarly disgusted with how the writer described newly-jobless mothers' day-to-day routines: "art projects and cooking, baking and yoga class together [with the kids]... taking them to a pizza lunch, listening to all the school gossip and spoiling them with a trip to buy candy." This positively reeks of 1950-era sexism and the once-glorified, stereotypical housewife of that time. To be fair, the article mentions the "anxiety" and "confusion" lay offs are producing for mothers in the unemployment line. But ultimately its message is one that seems to glorify the "opportunity" produced by this recession for mothers to "reconnect" with their kids, and the message speaks only to mothers. Recently laid-off fathers? Of course they're not "reconnecting" with the kids - they've got to worry about finding another job.

Two Problems with this Statement

"But her son has given Ms. Palin, 44, a powerful message. Other candidates kiss strangers’ babies; Ms. Palin has one of her own. [Trig] is tangible proof of Ms. Palin’s anti-abortion convictions, which have rallied social conservatives, and her belief that women can balance family life with ambitious careers." -NYTimes

The first: Raise your hand if you think calling Governor Palin's Down syndrome infant "tangible proof of anti-abortion convictions" is immoral and demeaning... The idea that a living, breathing child is being touted by the conservative right as a proof of ideology doesn't sit well with me. In fact, it makes me want to vomit in my mouth a little. Maybe it's because all this talk of Palin's choice to sanction Trig's existence, despite his disability, makes me think of eugenics in a Brave New World /Gattaca sort of way. Or maybe it's because even I (zealous advocate of reproductive choice) distinguish between an embryo and... oh... a 4 month old child.

The second: I don't know what to make of all the talk about Sarah Palin's "balancing act" between family and career. This issue in general is one on which I am deeply conflicted. On one hand, I am supremely pleased that the media is making average Americans consider the compatibility of motherhood and public power/leadership. Indeed, it warms my heart (at least least in the sense that indigestion warms the heart) that the hillbilly-bigot set is actually able to support a woman candidate, period. [The downside to that? Refer to string of anti-Palin posts below]. On the other hand, I can't help but experience periodic moments of disgust when I think about how much the GOP is exploiting Plain's almost-exploding femininity. Although the McCain campaign has yet to say it outright, the message seems to be: "See, OUR token female candidate is beautiful (a "VILP"), nurturing, soft-spoken, and not a bit like that OTHER female politician and her Sisterhood of Traveling Pantsuits." Has anyone else noticed this? I will return to this topic again soon....

Jesus hates your wrinkly skin-tight dress, Rachel Lampa

As if my normal level of exposure to evangelical drivel isn't bad enough...

Last night I was horrified to bear witness to Christian-pop princess Rachel Lampa's savior-worshiping during CNN's coverage of the Republican National Convention. I guess the GOP wants to set the record straight for any Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, etc who might subscribe to its openly homophobic, anti-women agenda: "Christ loves you! Good Republicans - nay, good Americans - are Christian! Praise the Lord - and wear cute lip gloss and chunky belts while doing it!"

UGGGH. Really, CNN? You couldn't find anything else worthy to cover last night but Republican celebration of the ever-expanding assault on American secularism? Come on!

It's one thing to have to sit through politicians making requisite references to God (e.g., ending a speech with "God bless America" or "God speed," like Hillary did last week at the DNC to my chagrin). Such statements are almost ubiquitously included in every candidates' stump speeches as a standard of practice. Indeed, I am constantly frustrated by the inclusion of such comments by all politicians (especially Republicans!), though I recognize they're not going away any time soon and thus I forge on. (See any of the polls on Americans' willingness to vote for atheists versus other minority groups for insight on another topic for another post.)

What I can't understand is why the evangelical pop-industry's proselytizing should get to monopolize precious airtime on a network that touts itself as being one of the world's leaders in news and information delivery, with its pulse on all the important headlines of the moment. The coverage of Rachel Lampa's performance I watched last night was not quality coverage of the political highlights of a major party's election-year convention... It was barely distinguishable from a Michelle Branch concert. This does not belong on CNN, people.

Yuck.

:(

Catch This Phrase, Trump

I'm sure everyone who reads this blog is just as indifferent as I am to the fact that NBC decided not to renew Donald Trump's once-popular-but-now-tired-out reality show, The Apprentice. But perhaps someone out there in the blogosphere shares my frustration with the media's overly generous assessment of the Trump's contributions to the English language. In MSNBC's article on the now-canceled show:

His announcement appeared to end any lingering doubt that “The Apprentice,” which turned the self-styled tycoon into a television star and popularized the catch phrase, “You’re fired,” would be banished from NBC’s airwaves next season.

Um, please excuse me, but "You're fired" is no catch phrase! Those two little words signaled doom for less-than-stellar employees everywhere long before The Apprentice hit the airwaves; and last time I checked, Trump's attempt to copyright the phrase failed miserably because of its already ubiquitous meaning and common usage. And just to support my critique, Dictionary.com defines a "catchphrase" as thus:

1. a phrase that attracts or is meant to attract attention.
2. a phrase, as a slogan, that comes to be widely and repeatedly used, often with little of the original meaning remaining.

I'm sure I don't need to enthusiastically explain why "You're fired" doesn't live up to either of these definitions, but please - if you have any questions - consult me and I'll do my best. And please, MSNBC, the last thing The Donald needs is another stroke of his - er - pat on his back. Don't encourage him further!

I'd Watch "Celebrity Fit Club" if Shrek Were On It

Ever since the Shrek franchise of films hit the big screen in 2001 I’ve been a big fan of the giant green ogre and his pals. The narratives in both the first and second Shrek films have held undeniably positive messages for both youth and adults – and I’m sure that if I were fifteen years younger the series would not be subject to my mother’s Princess Ban. But even in my adoration and enjoyment of DreamWorks’ most popular character, I am deeply disturbed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ decision to appoint him the official spokesperson for the new childhood obesity prevention campaign.

Why, you ask? How could anyone want to oust America’s favorite swamp beast from a campaign aimed at the impressionable minds who adore him so? I’ll give you two great reasons:

1) With current endorsement deals with McDonalds, Sierra Mist, Cheez-Its, Snickers, M&M’s, Fruit Loops, Frosted Flakes, and Keebler cookies, Shrek is hardly a poster-child (or poster-ogre) for healthy dietary choices. As one Harvard Medical School faculty member puts it, “Surely DHHS can find a better spokesperson for healthy living than a character who is [simultaneously!!!!] a walking advertisement for McDonald’s, sugary cereals, cookies, and candy.” It doesn’t take a brilliant critical mind to determine that Shrek’s very public relationships with some of the unhealthiest brands around are ill-matched with the government’s aim of promoting healthy lifestyles to America’s increasingly plump generation of children.

2) Shrek is overweight. And I don’t mean some-unsightly-love-handles- and-a-badonk-a-donk-butt-but-still-in-the-healthy-body-mass-index- range overweight… The creature is decisively large, and his BMI would undoubtedly be sky high if we could indeed calculate such figures for digitally animated beings. I will be the first to reject the DHSS’s official statement that Shrek is being used to promote exercise (not foods), and that “he doesn’t have a perfect physique… We hope children will understand that being physically fit doesn’t require being a great athlete.” Um, excuse me, but last time I checked, exercising and eating right go hand in hand. And while we should certainly steer clear of the often emaciated media images of models/celebrities that some argue are a major catalyst for eating disorders, it is ludicrous to say that Shrek’s blubber is merely the mark of a “non-athlete” with an otherwise healthy lifestyle. If you ask me, this swamp-man needs to cut back on the “Swamp Rat au Jus, Big Green Slugs, and anything with a face, feet, and hands.” (Yeah, that was from the official website.)

The bottom line – Shrek is truly loveable guy, and the television-campaign-in-question is really quite cute. But the ogre’s dirty marketing deals and his distinctly unhealthy lifestyle choices (and physical manifestations) send the wrong message to youth. Instead, let’s get Shrek on Celebrity Fit Club, or have him start a cooking show with “Healthy Swamp Treats of the Week.” At least then we wouldn’t have to deal with this ideological struggle… And I wouldn’t have to rant about my favorite green man!

Turtle Power!

Everybody please drop everything and get excited... there's a new TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES movie coming out! Cowabungaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My "Hope" for Obama's Campaign 2.0

In the wake of Time’s decision to select You as Person of the Year (as in we the brave warriors against corporate imperialism on the user-ruled internet terrain), it appears that 2008’s presidential candidates are gearing up for guerilla combat in the digital trenches. At least, that’s what Barack Obama’s campaign advisers are counting on.

Already drawing crowds of Facebookers to dazzling speeches about “the audacity of hope” in modern politics, Obama is banking on a “campaign whose support continues to expand even faster than you can put a fence around it” (adviser Robert Gibbs, in today’s WP).

…the challenge for Obama is not just assembling the nuts and bolts of a national campaign on the fly. He must, his advisers believe, do so in a way that reflects the distinct, next-generation message of his candidacy, or at least avoids making him look like every other politician in the race. "I would sooner lose the race than lose having him the way he is," said David Axelrod, his chief media strategist.

Few will argue that Obama possesses a certain je ne sais quoi that has yet to be tainted by the pressures of traditional campaign warfare. But as much as I am drawn to this charisma, I’d like to think that the American public – specifically the Google mailing, instant messaging, YouTube watching variety – can see through the increasing amount of idealistic rhetoric about Obama’s supposedly noble efforts to reach voters through the net. As critics of the Time tribute were quick to note, the “digital democracy” is anything but; corporations increasingly have a hand in shaping or limiting the content of sites like YouTube and MySpace, and the same strategic conniving that goes to shaping every other candidate’s image will go (and has gone) into making Obama the “next-generation” candidate. And while it is certainly early in the game and there is (some) time left to develop a distinctive agenda, I am extremely skeptical of statements like this:

"There are those who don't believe in talking about hope… They say, 'Well, we want specifics, we want details, and we want white papers, and we want plans.' We've had a lot of plans, Democrats. What we've had is a shortage of hope. And over the next year, over the next two years, that will be my call to you."

Well, Mr. Senator, I certainly hope you can give me some specifics, some details – soon. Nevermind that we’ve already had a lot of plans… how about focusing on drafting some plans that actually work for the American people?

He already possesses charisma and an apparent grasp on whatever potential lies in the digital forum. But in order to inspire confidence in his abilities as the leader and decision maker for our nation – and to combat accusations of having all style, no substance – Obama should focus on developing a specific platform with answers for the pressing questions of today.

What Happens in Davos (Does Not Really Stay) in Davos

~Lakshmi Mittal telling everyone in sight to get the dancing started at a Bollywood night cap
~Shaukat Aziz asking his press delegation if it's really necessary that they film him on the way to the bathroom
~The fresh faced co-founder of Facebook opting out of a fancy evening with the world's political and economic elite in exchange for a dinner with the sweaty and exhausted media team
~Steve Forbes asking the media peons if we need him to get us into the Google party
~Bono changing his sunglasses three times in the course of one afternoon (rose to peach and back to rose)

...For the last week I have been huffing and puffing away at a certain "Major Global Conference on Economic Issues" in the Swiss Alps (name withheld for fear that my renegade staff-blogging will be detected by our omniscient media monitoring team... it doesn't take a genius to figure it out). Although I originally intended to keep a running account of my second year of press delegations management at the Forum (oops!), my schedule this year did not allow for such catharsis. Instead I've been chasing around angry government journalists from 21 countries whilst fielding repeated unwanted dinner invitations from a certain 60-year old Pakistani cameraman.

So fear not, oh blogosphere - I will return to my infant digital diary in haste once I find myelf back on American soil (and fortunately many thousands of miles away from said cameraman) tomorrow evening. Until then, ponder the issues that were brought up here and here.

Christian: [to Gina] "You're like herpes. Every time I feel like I'm getting my life back, I have a Gina outbreak”

Season two of the fabulously salacious Nip/Tuck included a particularly gruesome story line in which former McNamara/Troy classmate Merrill Bobolit

is found to be doing cheap, illegal surgeries in the back of a Korean nail salon. Not only is he performing these surgeries in a non-sterile environment, he's addicted to the anesthetic gas. Christian gets him to go to Narcotics Anonymous, even volunteering to be his sponsor. When Christian can't make it to a meeting, Merrill loses his mind and accidentally kills a woman who Sean and Christian refuse to perform unnecessary liposuction on. The salon owner and Merrill then cut the girl into pieces to dispose of her.

This week, life has imitated art.

Don’t get me wrong – I fully understand the often-crunching social pressure to join the Waifs in Wonderbras brigades. In the age of an image-obsessed media and ample, affordable cosmetic surgery options, a little Botox injection here or a saline implant there (and there) doesn’t really sound all that bad! But the obsession has to stop somewhere, and I think it’s safe to say that the red light is here. As cases like these appear with increasing frequency, I pity those who feel so uncomfortable in their own skin that they would resort to such sordid measures.

No corn oil ass-injections for me, thanks.