Bitch Blogs

Race Card: Maybelline’s “Asian Eyes” Faux Pas

Nadra Kareem — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 11:00:00 -0500

Makeup giant Maybelline has a newsletter of sorts in which consumers answer a few questions and get tips on choosing products most suitable for their look. An Asian-Canadian blogger who uses the moniker Rasilla was happy enough to answer Maybelline’s questions about her appearance. But after choosing “brown” for eye-color, Rasilla was asked to select the shape of her eyes. Her options? Close set, wide set, hooded, Asian, almond, down-turned, deep-set, prominent and centered. Let’s backtrack for a moment. One of the options was Asian. That’s right, Asian. Rasilla wasn’t too pleased about this.

“No. 1,” she explains in a YouTube video, “Asian people don’t have just one type of eye-shape, okay.”

Rasilla became even more irritated after reading Maybelline’s description of “Asian eyes.” The company characterized them as having “a distinctive lift at the outer corner and very little lid.”

Rasilla objected to this because she knows “a lot of girls who don’t have this so-called ‘Asian eyes’… I know girls who have naturally double eye-lids, who have big eyes…without having any work done,” she explained.

Not only do Asians have different eye-shapes—a fact that should be obvious—their eyes can fall into Maybelline’s other categories for eye-shape—wide set, centered, close set, etc. So, which box would an Asian woman with wide-set eyes check for Maybelline’s newsletter? Does her Asianness supersede the fact that her eyes are far apart, or vice versa?

Fortunately, Rasilla didn’t just rant about Maybelline’s racial generalization, she tweeted the company about her concerns with their “Asian Eyes” category. A Maybelline Canada representative apologized for the faux pas, and the company has since renamed its “Asian Eyes” category “almond eyes with no visible crease.” Rasilla described the victory as not “the greatest,” but at least she contributed to the company’s decision to refrain from openly racially stereotyping.

Thanks to Angry Asian Man for the tip.

White Washed: Black Women in Rock

Annalee Schafranek — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 04:30:08 -0500

While my love for female-based rock music is well-documented and longstanding, even a fangirl like me can easily admit that riot grrrl and the punk scene more generally have long been a largely homogeneous affair, with a lack of racial diversity and inclusion among its iconic musicians and those who loved them. Partially inspired by Black History Month and partially by Beyonce's rendition of Alanis Morissette's classic at the most recent Grammy's (skip to 3:10 in the video), I wanted to showcase some women who defied narrow expectations and produced amazing music.

Grace Jones

Of those included in this post, Grace Jones is possibly the most recognizable and iconic. Recording since 1977, Grace Jones has released ten studio albums and racked up Saturn Award, MTV Music Video Award, and Grammy nominations along the way. She moved from disco to New Wave to dub reggae to dance, all while collaborating with musicians from as many backgrounds as the genres she sampled. Her lengthy multi-media career is far more detailed and complicated than I can quickly describe here, but the least I can do is put her at the top of the list.

Poly Styrene

Poly Styrene is known best for making orthodontia punk rock in the mid- to late-70's as she sang lead for X-Ray Spex. Their song "Oh Bondage Up Yours" has been retrospectively interpreted as a proto-riot grrrl anthem, but the band and their music on a whole focused more on anti-consumerist and anti-racist messages. Poly Styrene's vocal style was as unique to the punk scene at the time as her hair bows and Day-Glo ensembles, lending to X-Ray Spex's overall reputation as one of the more inventive bands of the punk era.

Kimya Dawson

Kimya Dawson, a one-time Moldy Peaches member and a sometimes Bitch Benefit performer, has been charming fans for the last ten years. Already a seasoned performer, her contributions to the Juno soundtrack broadened the reach of her frequently silly but always touching songs. While dealing with topics like self-esteem, disenfranchisement, and a nomadic lifestyle, Kimya Dawson's music is now rightfully reaching the ears of many due to the film's popularity.

Adee Roberson & Osa Atoe (of New Bloods)

Since 2006, Adee and Osa have constituted two-thirds of the Portland-based queer post-punk band New Bloods (along with Cassia Gammill). With their use of the violin and call-and-respond vocals, they remind me of The Slits and The Raincoats in the best possible way. When not playing the drums, the violin, and the bass guitar, all the band members rotate singing duties, creating a sound that's hard to believe is only coming from three people.

Fefe Dobson

While more commercial than some of the previous musicians, Fefe Dobson nonetheless combated the same kind of racial bias when she broke out into the pop punk world previously dominated by female acts like Avril Lavigne. During the height of her popularity, Dobson was stereotyped as a contemporary R&B singer because of her race, despite her clear interest in rock music. Her self-titled album (2003) earned her two Juno nominations, as well as a hit single ("Take Me Away").

Shingai Shoniwa (of Noisettes)

In preparing for this post, it was suggested by a friend and Bitch staff member to check out Shingai Shoniwa (along with Cocknbullkid below) and I am glad I did. Shingai fronts the Noisettes, a British band that switches between and blends together post-punk, blues revival, dance and rock. Noisettes have been around since 2003 and recently reached #2 on the UK Singles Chart.

Cocknbullkid

As mentioned befor, Cocknbullkid was another recommendation. As the writer and self-producer of her insanely dancey songs, I feel like I was already predisposed to liking this Londoner based her moxie alone. In addition to creating excellent music, Cocknbullkid (aka Anita Blay) speaks out against media outlets attempting to fit her into a specific category due to her race. Additionally, according to this interview, she shaved half her head and put on weight deliberately to point to the beauty standard bias in the music industry.

Solange Knowles

Seeing as this post started off with Beyonce, it only made sense to end it with her sister. Solange Knowles might seem like an odd choice for a "women in rock" post (based on the R&B/pop sensibilities of her first two records). However, between her recent cover of the Dirty Projectors' "Stillness Is The Move" and her upcoming Of Montreal collaboration, Solange may be attempting to win the hearts of indie rock fans the world over. Let's put her in the "only time will tell" pile and agree that this cover is awesome.

I hope that you enjoyed this round-up (and possibly found some new music to listen to!). This is by NO MEANS a complete list, so please let us know who you think is missing in the comments section below!

The Biotic Woman: A Conversation About Carnism with Melanie Joy (Pt. 1)

Brittany Shoot — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:15:12 -0500

People often think about vegetarianism or veganism as an ethical framework or intentional life choice, but in her new book, Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism, Dr. Melanie Joy posits that eating meat comes from the same type of belief system. The only difference, of course, is that consuming animal products is an invisible belief system continually reinforced by the many Western societies and “carnism”—the nearly unconscious practice of eating meat—is not part of our vocabulary the way “vegetarianism” is. The choice to eat meat is not named in our culture and therefore largely taken for granted and unquestioned. Her book is of particular interest because it explains not just why we shouldn’t eat meat, but why we do it in the first place.

Though Dr. Joy has previously written about animal rights in journals and books like Strategic Action for Animals, this is the first book-length examination of carnism as a belief system. A professor and psychologist who works to promote empowering relationships between humans, animals, and the earth, she recently spoke with me at length, and our talk is split into two parts here this week.

How do you define carnism as different from (or the same as) speciesism?

Speciesism is the ideology in which it’s considered appropriate to value some animals over others (with humans at the top of the hierarchy), while carnism is the ideology in which it’s considered appropriate to eat some of the non-human species on the lower rungs of the speciesist hierarchy. Carnism is a “subideology” of speciesism, just as anti-Semitism, for example, is a subideology of racism; it’s a specific expression of a broader ideology. Speciesism is the ethos, or cultural backdrop, that makes carnism possible.

In many ways, the structure of these two ideologies is similar, but the content—what they’re focused on—differs. In other words, speciesism and carnism (actually, all exploitative “isms”) use similar social and psychological defense mechanisms to maintain themselves. These defenses condition us to numb ourselves, mentally and emotionally, to the experience of nonhuman beings. Yet while speciesism is a broad, sweeping ideology carnism is focused specifically on eating animals.

Some have argued that since eating animals is a speciesist practice, there’s no point in identifying carnism as a distinct ideology, and that focusing on carnism is actually a distraction from the deeper issue of speciesism. But though speciesism informs carnism, these ideologies are not identical. Consider, for instance, how patriarchy informs heterosexism, and yet heterosexism has specific features that make it a unique expression of patriarchy. And since meat consumption causes more animal suffering than all other forms of animal exploitation combined, it only makes sense that we focus on carnism as a separate, yet connected, ideology from speciesism.

One key difference between speciesism and carnism is that carnism is a highly “personal” expression of speciesism; incorporating nonhuman animals into one’s body is often the most intimate and frequent contact humans have with other species. Eating animals, therefore, very much determines how we think of and relate to other beings—how can we even begin to imagine any sort of equality among species if we continue to eat animals simply because we like the way they taste?

There is criticism about equating the suffering of humans (e.g. in slavery, in the Holocaust, in women’s suffrage) with the suffering of animals, even if there are striking comparisons. What are some of the critical similarities, and why is comparing human and non-human animal suffering important?

Despite the striking similarities among violent ideologies, those who compare the suffering of nonhuman victims with the suffering of human victims have been harshly criticized. Such criticism is in part due to a lack of awareness of the structure of violent ideologies and of the true horrors of animal exploitation. But it is also the result of the speciesist mentality we’ve all inherited. Though we know that all animals, human and nonhuman, are equally capable of feeling pain and have lives that matter to them, we nevertheless proceed as though humans are the only species that possess sentience and self-interest. Moreover, as with all forms of privilege, human privilege is deeply ingrained, largely invisible, and staunchly defended, so there’s a vested interest in maintaining the view of nonhuman beings as inferior “others” whose suffering is fundamentally different from human suffering. Of course, no two groups are ever exploited in precisely the same way, so comparisons must always be made carefully.

We need to see that all forms of exploitation are enabled by the same mechanisms and they therefore reinforce one another. The mentality that puts female humans’ reproductive systems up for legislative grabs and has shaped a “rape culture” where misogynists such as Eminem are celebrated is not terribly different from the mentality that legitimizes confining millions of female pigs in “rape racks” where they’re forcibly impregnated throughout the course of their lives simply so their children can, for instance, provide the topping for a pepperoni pizza.

Reproductive Writes: An Introduction

Holly Grigg-Spall — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:38:33 -0500

Before I started writing about women's reproductive health, I'd pretty much resigned myself to being a film journalist for life. All the free movies, premieres and parties were a lot of fun, but I was beginning to think that my choice to give a film five stars or one star was being unfairly swayed by whether the complimentary pastry was stale or if the air conditioning was turned up too high.

Film reviewing is rather male-dominated, so when I ended a review of The Hottie And The Nottie with the line - 'The scandal surrounding the Hilton sex tape acts as a distraction, convincing us that sex is not a common currency that women must use in Hollywood. Paris only had to have sex with one man to get famous. She's lucky. Perhaps there's the source of the hatred' - I was quickly alerted to my feminist sensibilities. I guess the attitude had long been brewing but I'd previously attributed my views to the fact that I was educated from 11 to 17 at an all-girls school and spent a year at Mount Holyoke. I didn't think I was a feminist, I just thought I'd spent a lot of time with women.

A couple of years back I started taking the birth control pill Yaz, my fourth brand in a decade, and within months I was experiencing severe changes to my mood - anxiety, panic attacks, paranoia, rage and paralyzing brain fog. I thought I was losing my mind. After questioning every aspect of my life, and my sanity, I eventually realized it was not me, but this Pill I was taking. Yaz was then one of the most popularly prescribed oral contraceptives, so I soon found many other women - including friends - were dealing with similar side effects. My research into Yaz expanded in to an investigation of the birth control pill as a whole. My interest in its potential side effects extrapolated in to a concern for how this powerful drug is handed out like candy, and taken with a similar carelessness.

I got in contact with doctors and research scientists and found support for my concern. I put together a feature entitled "What You Should Know About The Pill" and pitched it around. The health editor at Easy Living commissioned me to produce a piece addressing women's worries about the Pill's impact - on mood, libido, fertility.

After the feature was published I began a blog. I wanted women to not suffer unnecessarily, to know that their birth control pill might be causing them to feel depressed and anxious.

Upon starting the blog I decided to come off the Pill forever. What had begun as a project to pool all the information I'd gathered soon snowballed into a social commentary on the place of the Pill in society, in history and in women's lives. As my mind cleared, my mood lifted and my energy returned to healthy 27 year-old level, I started to have some really big ideas. Feel free to take a look:

Sweetening The Pill

And that's how I got from talking Bob Dylan concerts with Colin Firth to here. And here, with this blog "Reproductive Writes", is where I'll be discussing all things related to women's reproductive health - not just the Pill. This week I'll start with infertility scare stories, move into the painless labor of Gisele Bundchen and then take a look at how and why men's spermatozoa are affectionately referred to as 'little swimmers.' Let me know if there's something in particular you'd like me to look into, and feel free to ask me anything - as long as it's not my opinion of Dear John.

So... How 'bout that Tebow ad?

Kelsey Wallace — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:13:48 -0500

If you are among the record numbers of people who tuned in to yesterday's Super Bowl, then you had the chance to see the controversial Focus on the Family ad starring Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam. And if the ad shocked you at all, it was probably due to how tame it turned out to be.

As you can see, though this spot garnered quite a bit of attention from feminist, pro-choice organizations (this one included), the word abortion is never mentioned – it is almost the opposite of controversial. Had the hype not happened, this 32-second snoozefest would have most likely elicited little more than a trip to the kitchen to get more nachos. One has to wonder then, was that the point?

By publicizing in advance that this ad was going to air during one of the most watched events of the year, and waiting for pro-choice advocates to go bonkers about it, Focus on the Family has painted themselves as the reasonable ones in this picture. They very well might be hanging out in their offices this morning, laughing about how they got everyone worked up over a cutesy ad that is so vague it could be for anything. "What's the big deal?" (One could also ask why they chose to spend three million dollars to send a message that was so diluted, but if it made progressive groups look radical then it was probably mission accomplished.)

Of course, this commercial, cute and innocuous as it may be, was paid for by Focus on the Family, and their website is decidedly less neutral. As Latoya points out over at Jezebel this morning, the extended video doesn't mince words when it comes to abortion the way the CBS version did. Pam Tebow tells women that they have "a choice": to keep their babies. And Bob Tebow (Tim's father) is even more straightforward: "God loves you and your baby. There are lots of people that will help you. Don't kill your baby."

Making the abortion debate about tiny cute babies is a tired tactic that completely misses the point. If a woman chooses to carry her fetus to term she is making a choice that will affect her and those around her long after that baby grows up – and that choice is hers to make. Not Focus on the Family's, not Planned Parenthood's, not even the Tebow family's, no matter how happy and friendly they act.

The content of the Focus on the Family website is no real surprise, attempting to frighten women and men out of having abortions at just about every opportunity. They have never pretended to be a neutral (or even rational) organization, and as they are privately funded they have every right not to be. Of course, prior to this year, issues-based groups were not allowed to advertise during the Super Bowl, which is one of the reasons their ad was given so much media attention before it even aired.

What is a surprise (although in hindsight it shouldn't have been) is how tame the Super Bowl spot actually turned out to be. It really could have been for just about anything wholesome – soup, hot cocoa, fuzzy socks – with very little editing. Was this an attempt to make pro-choice groups look hypersensitive and somewhat ridiculous? Was it successful? If it was, then it has only really succeeded in clouding the issue.

Race Card: Ishmael Reed on “Precious”

Nadra Kareem — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 16:21:38 -0500

If you’ve yet to read Ishamel Reed’s editorial “Fade to White” in the New York Times about Precious, get to it post-haste! In the piece, Reed makes excellent points about portrayals of black men in popular culture and why the film has received such a favorable reception from whites but been met with resistance in the black community.

“The blacks who are enraged by Precious have probably figured out that this film wasn’t meant for them,” Reed writes. “It was the enthusiastic response from white audiences and critics that culminated in the film being nominated for six Oscars by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, an outfit whose 43 governors are all white…

Reed also points out that Barbara Bush is among those extolling the film’s virtues. He quotes her remarking in Newsweek that youths like Precious are everywhere. Oprah made similar comments, further popularizing the film among white viewers.

“Are Mrs. Bush and Ms. Winfrey suggesting, on the basis of a fictional film, that incest is widespread among black families?” Reed asks. “Statistics tell us that it’s certainly no more prevalent among blacks than whites. …[But] given the news media’s tendency to use scandals involving black men, both fictional and real, to create ‘teaching tools’ about the treatment of women, it was inevitable that a black male character associated with incest would be used to begin some national discussion about the state of black families.”

I couldn’t agree more with Reed here. The transgressions of black men are often used to explore the thorniest issues in the underbelly of American society. Because topics such as domestic abuse and incest still make people uncomfortable, it’s easier to explore these issues by presenting them as “black” problems. That’s, in part, why there was much more media focus on O.J. Simpson’s murder trial than, say, Phil Spector’s or Robert Blake’s; why Tiger Woods’ infidelity generated the public interest it did; and why, as I recently blogged about, Chris Brown has seemingly taken more heat for assaulting Rihanna than Charlie Sheen has for his reported attack on Brooke Mueller and other women in the past.

But Precious isn’t just problematic because it links black men with incest but because it fails to indict institutional racism and capitalism for the plight of those in America’s inner cities. One of the reasons whites received Precious so well is because the film doesn’t hold them accountable in any way, Reed posits.

“In guilt-free bits of merchandise like Precious, white characters are always portrayed as caring. There to help. Never shown as contributing to the oppression of African-Americans,” Reed writes. “Problems that members of the black underclass encounter are a result of their culture, their lack of personal responsibility.”

Given this underlying message, is it surprising that a conservative like Barbara Bush would embrace the film?

The Biotic Woman: Is Temple Grandin an activist?

Brittany Shoot — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 16:15:17 -0500

Claire Danes, who no doubt many of us have loved since My So-Called Life (which I’m still watching on DVD for anyone who’s wondering), is starring in a new HBO movie premiering tonight based on the life’s work of animal scientist, livestock consultant, inventor, and writer Dr. Temple Grandin. Grandin, who is a highly functioning autistic woman, is also noted for her advocacy work on behalf of others like herself. Though she invented the hug machine, a soothing pressurized device that helps calm people prone to hypersensitivity, she is best known for her work in designing new systems of leading cattle to slaughter en masse. She has also written about how to provide the best life for companion animals, and as someone who shares my home with a cat and who has lived with various groupings of animals in the past, I find her work in this area to be quite interesting and informative.

This year, I read Grandin’s Animals Make Us Human and was surprised by her statement that she began working in the slaughter industry when conditions were markedly better than they are today. I wondered why Grandin, understanding how out of control factory farming has gotten in the last forty years (thanks in part to her own work?), has continued her work in the same field without reevaluating present conditions. Coming from such an intelligent person, her striking lack of analysis troubled me.

I also tend to be confused by Grandin’s stated bond with cattle when her actions seem to imply the opposite. As someone who also has deeply empathic bonds with animals—and also has a photographic memory—I’m genuinely bewildered by her ability to create systems that enable further slaughter while stating that she feels connected to animals. If you feel connected—and when your mind can replay life events as vividly as mine can—I truly don’t understand how you can live with that knowledge, with those mental images, of murder by your own hands. Maybe I misunderstand autism, despite having worked with autistic adults in the past. Maybe I also misunderstand myself. Anything is possible, but I remain troubled nonetheless.

In the past, I’ve said that Grandin’s work might bring people closer to understanding animals as sentient beings, deserving of our compassion and protection. But maybe I was wrong, and I’m definitely unsettled by HBO’s description of her as an “activist.” Grandin’s work may shine a much-needed light on autism—particularly adults living with autism, who remain largely misunderstood in society—but must that come at the expense of other lives? Jim Sinclair, an animal rights activist who is also autistic, has responded to Grandin’s work in slaughterhouse design with a beautifully simplistic statement: “If you love something, you don’t kill it.” Sinclair isn’t alone; many in various animal rights communities have taken issue with Grandin’s work and principles for years.

I’m pretty ambivalent about the film, and I won’t be able to watch it this evening to figure out how I ultimately feel about Danes’ portrayal of Grandin. Mostly, I wonder if the movie will actually bring up any debate beyond the animal rights circles that already love to dissect her work. Will ordinary folks think twice about the theory that “human slaughter” is an oxymoron or that Grandin believes quality of life is somehow more important that preserving the life itself? Can her work actually shift perspective, or does it simply make allowances for the continued use and needless killing of animals?

Temple Grandin airs tonight on HBO.

BitchTapes: B-Sides Roundup

Sara Reihani — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 22:36:47 -0500

Here's a sampling of tracks from most of the bands we've mentioned on the B-Sides blog in the past couple of weeks, plus some more new songs!

1. Hatari - tUnE-yArDs
My favorite thing about this song (besides the crazy yodeling) is that because of the lo-fi quality, you can hear how her voice is echoing slightly, confined by the room.

2. Soldier of Love - Sadé
Sadé is making the rounds on talk shows promoting her new album, Soldier of Love. I'm looking forward to seeing her on The Ellen Degeneres Show on the 15th - I predict there will be dancing.

3. Paper (Hot Sax Version) - Explode Into Colors
If you like Explode Into Colors, check out related acts Hornet Leg, Japanther and Kickball.

4. I Tried To Call You - The Carrots
The Carrots's MySpace background is pretty hilarious.

5. Holding Pattern - Deradoorian
This track is from Mind Raft, the first solo EP from Dirty Projectors vocalist Angel Deradoorian. It's trippy as hell. A good pairing with Beach House!

6. 10 Mile Stereo - Beach House
Have you been wondering if the new Beach House record is any good? Just to put your mind at ease: it is.

7. Transmission Lost - Talk Normal
New wave? No wave.

8. Dear God, I Hate Myself - Xiu Xiu
The blog entries on the Xiu Xiu website are written in a kind of spacey free verse, which makes them a lot more interesting than they would be otherwise.

9. To Where - Grass Widow
In an interview with Vice magazine, Grass Widow listed their five biggest influences as: The Move, The Kinks, Neo Boys, Liliput and... Black Sabbath.

10. Walk With The Wizard - Purple Rhinestone Eagle
"Oh daughter of shredders that came before you/Pry out their eyes/...Clutch with the tiniest grip/Filigree laden with riffs"

11. Awake In Sleep - Dark Castle
Hey European metal fans! It's not like you don't have enough great bands to choose from, but in case you want to see Dark Castle, they're playing everywhere from Antwerp to Helsinki throughout April.

A Damn Scribbling Woman: an Interview with Jennifer K. Stuller about Ink-Stained Amazons

Kjerstin Johnson — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:07:48 -0500

Blogging as Ink-Stained Amazon on the Bitch blogs, Jennifer Stuller took on Barbarella, Lois Lane, and Tura Satana with her blog Grrl on Film. With her new book, Ink-Stained Amazons and Cinematic Warriors: Superwomen in Modern Mythology, released a few days ago, you can find even more on kick-ass women in popular culture. Read on for my interview with Jennifer about her new book, the cyclical nature of representation in pop culture, the women behind the superwomen, and future plans.

What made you want to write this book? How long did it take?

I’ve always been passionate about women’s history, feminist thought and activism, popular culture and world mythology. When I returned to college as an adult, I’d originally intended to design my studies to focus on women heroes in classic mythology, but around the same time, I’d finally given in to recommendations to watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer – and fell in love. After co-creating and co-facilitating a credited course using BtVS to explore issues of human nature, I began to think about how classic, or archetypal, themes play out in modern storytelling as well as ways those tropes are subverted. As graduation neared, I considered the possibility of continuing on to graduate school but both a friend and my mentor suggested that I instead write a book that embraced my passions. I’m glad I heeded their advice, because while formal academia has its place, I think it’s really important to make thinking critically about popular culture something that’s both accessible and celebratory. Learning should be fun.

Ink-Stained Amazons and Cinematic Warriors is the culmination of a life-long love of kick-ass women in popular culture, five straight years of research and a year of writing. And even though it’s published, I’m still taking notes!

Your book straddles academia, film criticism, pop culture history, women's studies, and more. Where do you see it on the book shelf?

This is actually a question I’ve thought about myself. I could see Ink-Stained Amazons and Cinematic Warriors in either the Media or Women Studies sections of your local book store, but think it would most appropriately be shelved under Cultural Studies where academia, film criticism, pop culture history, and women studies intersect.

My copies are sitting in my office library among the many books on women and popular culture, and my collection of Bitch magazines.

What is Modern Mythology? Who are ink-stained Amazons?

Mythology refers to a body of stories and to storytelling. Therefore our modern mythology can be found in comics, film, television, and novels. Modern myth serves a function similar to that of ancient myth, namely, telling and hearing stories helps us make sense of our lives. Narratives reflect the world and comment on it as they document events and also imagine them. Stories meditate on human behavior and interrogate the meaning of big ideas: Good and Evil, Morality, Spirituality, Justice, Relationships, Community, Power, and Love. (Buffy the Vampire Slayer is an example of a series that excelled at addressing these complex, yet universal, ideas.) The same basic themes our ancestors contemplated, crafted to be relevant to their particular and specific time, place, and cultures, are continually revisited through the ages, part of humanity’s endless search for meaning.

The phrase “ink-stained Amazons” was coined by Nathaniel Hawthorne, author of The Scarlet Letter, who condemned women writers as “damned scribbling women” and “ink-stained Amazons.” So for me the term is a reclamation (much like the once derogatory, “bitch”). It celebrates women writers, our fingers stained with ink from our quills and our Amazonian strength when faced with those who might seek to silence us. I love the phrase so much that I named my website, Ink-Stained Amazon, and have utilized it as my personal brand.

I also find it evocative of women in comic books – Amazons have so often been used in modern mythology as shorthand for “Strong Women” (see Wonder Woman, Xena, Warrior Princess, etc.) regardless of their purpose in classical Greek storytelling. Also, early comic books were cheap publications that left their mark on one’s fingers, thus making them ink-stained – so readers can be Amazons too.

When we hear "modern" I think we automatically think "progress," but you point out that in the 80s, and even now in the present, there's a huge lack of strong female characters (only one example being superhero movies). Why does our modern age still seem kinda backwards?

Progress is slow, often comes in painfully small steps, and is occasionally met with setbacks. That said, when it comes to how gender, race, sexuality, and sex roles are represented in popular culture there certainly has been progress – even if it’s not as much as many of us hope for. There are female heroes in popular culture, but the few there are generally adhere to stereotypes of American beauty: white, blonde, athletic, heterosexual and able-bodied. Which is a very small step indeed. In the book I propose that our stories (and thus our representations) will continue to evolve as humanity does. Increased acceptance of gay marriage, the first ever campaigns by serious Black and female US presidential candidates, and the presence of more women and other minorities in entertainment industry positions means that we will see an ever-increasing diversity in our heroes. We must, because wish fulfillment, fantasy, identification, and inspiration belong to all of us. There is no one way to be heroic, and there shouldn’t be limited or conformative representations of a “hero.” What we need are heroes and heroisms (like feminists and feminisms): Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, Aboriginal, Middle Eastern, gay, straight, male, female, transgender, fat, skinny, somewhere-in-the-middle, athletic, disabled, with the ability to fly, run faster than a speeding bullet, write, parent, kick-ass, grow, and make the world we live in a better place.

One of the things I discovered while writing the book is that the stories we tell are often influenced by where we are politically. Strangely enough, the results are almost cyclical. During World War II there were strong women in comics and in advertisements – and because men were at war, there were more women working in the comics industry. In the 1950s, media and popular culture focused on the homemaking aspects of women’s lives. But during the second wave of feminism, we see a series of sophisticated, sexy, modern women in modern myth – and we did again during the third wave of feminism.

I think right now, as in the 1980s, we’re dealing with the effects of two wars, a recession, and a conservative administration which is why things feel so backwards right now. (Can you name a female hero on television right now who is headlining her own show?) The good news is, this means the near future promises another wave of superwomen. Get out there, Ladies, and make it happen.

Your book transcends a few mediums: comics, movies, and television. Will Buffy fans and film buffs enjoy reading about the world of comic books and vice versa?

Absolutely! There is a lot for fans of various media to enjoy. Part of the book is a history of women in comics, film, and television, and situates these characters in their particular time and place. There are also chapters devoted to bigger themes: love and compassion, fathers and daughters, women as mentors, and women making myth.

Throughout the focus is on kick-ass female action and super heroes, not necessarily the media they appear in. And there are superwomen galore from Wonder Woman & Lois Lane to Foxy Brown and the Doll Squad to Modesty Blaise, the Bionic Woman, Valeria in Conan the Barbarian, Xena & Gabrielle, Lt. Nyota Uhura, Buffy Summers & the Scoobies, Max Guevara, Sarah Connor and on and on.

I also included an A to Z glossary of superwomen, recommendations, and a lengthy bibliography so readers have resources for further exploration and enjoyment.

Where do female creators (for instance like director Kathryn Bigelow), fit into this picture of mythic superwomen? Does it matter if it's a man or a women behind the character? Camera? Storyboard? (For Jennifer's three-part Feminist Response to Quentin Tarantino see here, here, and here.)

This is a question I explore in a chapter on women making myth. Certainly, many men have created fabulous, even feminist women characters. In comics there’s William Moulton Marston’s Wonder Woman, and the female characters written by Chris Claremont during his run on X-Men, including Ororo Munroe and Kitty Pryde. In movies there is James Cameron and Ellen Ripley, and Quentin Tarantino and The Bride. On television there is Joss Whedon and any number of female characters, but most notably Buffy Summers. (Though when an actress is involved, I think her participation in creating the character becomes an essential part of our interpretation.)

But while men are able to create inspirational and empowering female characters, it should go without saying that women, like Kathryn Bigelow, should be more recognized contributors to media. It’s important to have diversity in the creation of our culture. And though I’ve often heard women (such as Jane Espenson and Gail Simone) claim that they are not writing gendered characters, they are just writing characters, it’s incredibly difficult to escape being gendered. Our experiences as women will inevitably color our work and I think it’s important to look at how the stories told about women may differ as a result of who is telling them.

What was your favorite part of doing research for the book?

The research itself has been my favorite part! It’s a dream to be able to watch television series and films, as well as read comic books featuring strong women as part of my job. That said, it’s also work. I can’t watch anything anymore with thinking critically about it, or taking notes. And it can be a challenge to present big ideas in a thought-provoking way that is still accessible.

So far, the most rewarding part of this project has been meeting people who share a passion for the subject matter, and the best compliments I can get are when someone says I’ve inspired them to think about something in a new way or introduced them to an idea or a superwoman that empowers them.

What are your thoughts on Marvel’s new program “Marvel Women,” and the release of Girl Comics, a three-part anthology of all-women comics creators. There was debate in the blogosphere that this marginalized women in the comics industry rather than promoted them.

Considering that none of [the past attempts by DC and Marvel to appeal specifically to women and girls] have been particularly successful, it’s easy to see why some feminist comics fans think that Marvel’s upcoming year-long program, “Marvel Women” will further marginalize female comics fans, characters and creators. Personally, I feel that in an ideal world, a diverse range of women characters would be featured throughout mainstream comics, the mainstream industry would hire more women writers and artists, and comics would be written to embrace wider audiences. I think the ultimate goal should be for mainstream publishers to create a variety of series: some that appeal to girls, some that are geared toward boys, and some that are for everyone – but that calling out special comics for girls presumes, or rather, reinforces, the idea that all other comics are for boys, and might continue to be when this “very special” series is over. (It also assumes that girls and boys have specific tastes which differ from one another and are determined by their gender – a problematic discussion for another day.)

Regardless, I think that anything that calls attention to female characters AND female writers and artists is a good thing. Whether that translates to more women in the mainstream industry, or more female-friendly comic titles, remains to be seen – and though I’m not holding my breath, cries of “ghettoization” feed into the idea that these comics have no value and won’t be successful before they’ve even hit shelves. Additionally, it’s not very supportive of the women who have been hired to write, pencil, and ink these issues – which in my opinion isn’t very sisterly. (I can just hear Girl Comics contributor Trina Robbins in my head now saying the same thing . . . ) There are some amazing names attached to this project and I’m pretty excited about seeing what they’ve come up with. Shouldn’t we be excited about women finding work - - particularly in a male-dominated industry? I think that would be something to champion, not condemn.

Finally, considering that comics, the mainstream industry, and comic book stores continue to be dominated by men, and that attempts to secure the female market have often disappointed, I find it laudable that Marvel and DC recognize that women DO read comics, that they are active and vocal in both fan and feminist communities regarding comics, and as such these companies are still continuing to reach out with new campaigns. For profit, sure, but nevertheless it could potentially mean good things for women who like superheroes.

Any projects on the horizon?

I’m working on sequel of sorts to Ink-Stained Amazons and Cinematic Warriors that will focus on supervillainous women in modern mythology. I’ll also be speaking at WonderCon in San Francisco, San Diego Comic Con International, and The Slayage Conference on the Whedonverses. And stay tuned for info on an anthology of The Best of Wimmen’s Comix.

You can visit Ink-StainedAmazon.com for Jennifer's blog and the latest on her book. Pick up Ink-Stained Amazons and Cinematic Warriors: Superwomen in Modern Mythology at your local independent bookstore today!

The Art/See Podcast!

Kjerstin Johnson — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:18:29 -0500

The latest Bitch podcast is up, and corresponds to our Art/See issue. You'll hear from Ann Fox and Jessica Cooley, who have curated two art shows addressing disability, an interview with a young artist who sculpts sound, an interview with gay marriage advocate and author Audrey Bilger, an excerpt from our art and activist round-up, and then some! Plus, music by artist Emily Lacy. You can stream the audio below, or subscribe to all of Bitch Radio via iTunes. Extended interviews available at bitchmedia.org/audio.

Transcript available for download

Art/See Podcast Script

- Introduction to podcast

- :44 Junie Latte interview. An interview with Junie Latte, a student at Concordia University whose art project “Women’s Voices/Voix de Femmes” is a sound sculpture made from the collection of women’s voices from around the world. Check out the full interview here, and visit the project's website for more information on the project or how you can submit your voice too.

- 6:17 Subscription promo

-7:34 Vox Populi . We ask Bitch readers if they could own any piece of art what it would be.

-11:20 Bitch intern Sara Reihani reads an excerpt of Anne Elizabeth Moore’s piece “Minimal Impact” from the Art/See issue on an activist’s visit to Marfa Texas, home to the Chinati Foundation by minimalist artist Donald Judd.

-17:00 BitchMart promo

-17:50 Ann Fox and Jessica Cooley Interview. Re/Formations was the first art show exploring intersection of female and disabled identity through sculpture. Now Ann Fox and Jessica Cooley have finished their second disability studies art show STARING, which is based off a new book by Rosemarie Garland-Thomson. For the full interview (recommended!) and more info, click here.

-26:00 Frequent Bitch contributor and professor at Claremont College Audrey Bilger speaks with Seattle show The Menage about her recent Bitch article “Wife Support,” on how gay marriage is changing the term “wife.” Full interview available here, where they discuss more on gender roles, Audrey’s latest book, and the genius of Roseanne Barr.

-Outro by Kjerstin

This podcast features music by Emily Lacy, a folk and electronic musician and artist who works in LA. This podcast featured the songs "3,2,1," "Toddlerswobble Through Space," "Flyin with the Angels," and "Sugar in the Gourd." For more of her work, visit her website.

Thank you once again to Julie Sabatier, host and creator of Destionation DIY, for producing our podcasts!