skip to main |
skip to sidebar
So I know we're on issue two of TIME magazine's new redesign, but since I hadn't paused to take note of it when it hit the stands two weeks ago, I thought I'd stop now to point out something I've noticed about the new layout--which, generally speaking, I love. But here's a funny thing that's caught my eye: as part of this redesign, TIME's decided to run cute black and white images of their columnists and staff writers next to their articles. This is great, because, gosh, I always wondered what Lev Grossman looks like. The thing about having all these photos up there, though, is that it makes something pretty damn clear: TIME's got a woman problem.
In this week's issue, I spot one and only one picture of a woman writer (staff writer Lisa Takeuchi Cullen). And if you leaf through the magazine you will note that only an embarrassingly small number of bylined articles overall are written by women. This is no shocker--it's a trend that's happening all over the media. Folks at TIME know they have a problem: a few years ago I had lunch with an editor at the magazine who acknowledged as much without any prompting. But given how stark the disparity is between the numbers of male and female writers at the magazine, one can't help but wonder why the powers that be would choose to underline--no, broadcast--that disparity visually. Did they think no one would notice?
Umm, actually, that's probably exactly what they thought. Because, by my guess, the powers that be didn't notice it themselves. I'm betting that when John Huey, James Kelly and Richard Stengel looked at those shining photographs of their writers, they didn't think, "Hey, they all look pretty much like us--and that's a problem." (I'm not even going to start on the lack of racial diversity here.) They probably thought about a million other things having to do with circulation, ad sales, and maintaining the magazine's esteem in a competitive marketplace--but these issues of who is actually writing the content of the magazine, that group's lack of diversity, and what displaying that lack quite prominently might say to a diverse world audience... well, apparently that part didn't quite catch them as being a big deal. To me, it is.
That said, I'm not sorry they've done it. My hope is that enough people we see the faces behind the bylines and begin to wonder why they don't look more like their own. And then maybe they will start blogging about it, and writing letters, and making phone calls--until one day we'll all be able to say of the faces peering out of the magazine, "Hey, they look a lot like us, too."
Couldn't really call myself much of a feminist if I didn't report to you that the ERA (that's the Equal Rights Amendment, folks) has been reintroduced in both the House and Senate--this time under a new, feistier name: the Women's Equality Amendment. Democrats are hoping that the changing winds in congress will finally allow for passage of the bill, which, we learn via Women's eNews, "was first unveiled in Seneca Falls, N.Y., in 1923 at the 75th anniversary of the 1848 Women's Rights Convention." The bill passed Congress (as some of you may remember from your women's studies classes) in 1972--but died after it was unable to achieve ratification by three-quarters of the states a decade later.
It should be pretty interesting to see whether the Dems are right and this year proves to be the one where we get our house in order. I, myself, am not so sure it will happen. I think there may be, among too many young, female constituents, a feeling that this was their mother's bill to win; I worry, too, that it may be very easy for the opposition to cite the many gains that women have racked up over the years and argue that the bill is therefore passe. They may be absolutely deluded, but I fear their counter may be seductive enough to take the wind out of the sails of this one. I really, really hope I'm wrong, though.
I'm posting this not only because I love the cause, but because the invite came to me via GirlieGirl Events with one of the quirkiest subject lines I've yet seen: "What do you get when you cross Russell Simmons with Gloria Steinem?" I don't know, but if the event involves watching Moby pound "gourmet vegan hors d’oeuvres and cocktails" (vegan cocktails???) it might be worth checking out.
The Deets
Farm Sanctuary in the City presents a Benefit for Compassion
Saturday, April 7, 2007
8:00 p.m. ~ midnight
at
Jivamukti Yoga School
841 Broadway, 2nd floor, New York, NY
Chaired by Russell Simmons; hosted by Sharon Gannon and David Life. Special Guests include: Moby, Martina Navratilova, Ally Sheedy, Gloria Steinem
Special Performance by Nellie McKay
Tix start at $100. Visit: www.farmsanctuary.org/join/NYC/ for more info.
Over at CBS.com, viewers are making their voices heard over their displeasure at Katie Couric's interview with John and Elizabeth Edwards on this past Sunday's 60 Minutes. I missed the first airing of the show, so to get myself up to speed I took the time to watch it on the site itself. Granted, I went into my viewing experience knowing, thanks to my Daily News Feed from MediaBistro, that people were already ripping Couric to shreds over her callousness, and so, given that I can be somewhat contrarian, may have been predisposed to rebuttal. But if you've read this blog for any period of time, you know that I'm not exactly what you call a huge fan of Couric's show. So all in, I figured, I was walking into it pretty balanced--if I had come away feeling she was terrible to the poor people I would have been no more surprised than if I took out my earphones and thought, "What a fantastic interview."
In the actual event, neither of those things were what first came to mind upon shutting down my video window. What came to mind instead was how clear it is that so many of these complaints have everything to do with Katie Couric being a woman--offering but one more irritating example of the lingering gender imbalance that colors our entire world. It's not that I believe that viewers don't have the right to complain about the media--indeed, I wish that happened more. But too much about both the tone and the terms of these particular complaints--which refer to her as "arrogant", "cocky" and "insensitive" to name a few--rings too close to an adage that was repeated to me just the other night by one of the pioneers of the feminist movement: "In order to be considered ruthless a man has to rape and pillage an entire country. All a woman has to do is say no."
Watch the interview for yourself and then let's get real, people, and start acknowledging the truth: Katie Couric did not ask a single, solitary question that any other respectable journalist, male or female, wouldn't also have asked. The questions were utterly predictable: tell us about your cancer, tell us about your kids, tell us about what you told your kids. And then the various versions of "How do you explain why you're staying in the race?" What else should she have--could she have--asked??
John and Elizabeth Edwards are not Joe and Milly Beecroft from Podunk, Michigan, hauled out as sympathetic, unwitting victims to give CBS's rating a boost. Edwards is running, for the second time, to be President of the United States. He has a campaign team that numbers in the hundreds, by my guess, and communications consultants up the wazoo. There is simply no way he and Elizabeth walked into that interview unprepared to face the "hard" questions, and if by some freak chance they did, then it's time for them to invest in better staff. You do the interview, if you are the Edwardses, precisely to answer questions like these, and to give the American people a chance to hear your rationale for staying in the game. Because the questions Couric asked are exactly the same questions we are all asking each other; better to control the flow of information by offering definitive answers than by allowing ordinary people to speculate and, given our too-often twisted media culture, pundits to wag their tongues in the wrong direction.
So why the sustained hew and cry over Couric's line of questioning? Well, without being too simplistic about it, it clearly has lots (too much) to do with both who Katie is (a woman) and what we expect from her because of that. Spend some time reading the rather mean spirited comments on the CBS site (there are currently 94 pages of posts--if you scroll to the bottom of this page, you'll see where the comments begin), and you begin to wonder if people were expecting Katie to wrap Elizabeth and John up in a blanket and rock them (and us) to sleep rather than conduct an interview. Because that's what women are "supposed" to do, you see: take care, coddle, patronize. Watching Couric ask for real answers to important questions about Edwards' candidacy seems to feel to too many people like having their own mother slap them on the hand; somehow, these viewers appear to be taking it as a personal affront that Couric had the chutzpah to actually do her job and demand answers to the questions we don't have the guts, or access, to ask the Edwardses ourselves.
But isn't that what the media are there for, after all? To ask the questions the average viewer would not dare? (Once upon a time, I hear, that was actually the case.) Is it that we've lost our sense overall of what "journalism" actually means, or is it simply that we're still (still!) unable to evaluate a woman's work on its merits alone? Because really: if Dan Rather had asked the same questions, would we even be having this debate?
It's time for the viewing public to realize that women journalists, just like their male counterparts, have every right to ask tough questions of the folks looking to serve in highest office--in fact, it is their responsibility to do so. All these complaints about how much Katie did or didn't smile, why she didn't bring her own personal experiences into the discussion (one poster calls her a "hypocrite" because she worked when her own husband was dying), and on and on, only make it more depressingly evident that women remain "women" first, and that, no matter how much folks talk about a post-feminist age, gendered expectations continue to put real limits on the ways that we are all allowed to behave, and, in this case, the questions we are permitted to ask. In a way I've never quite experienced before, I truly feel for Katie Couric today--probably more than anything because it reminds me of the proscriptions that exist for all of us women, whether we choose to pay attention to them or not. I hope she--and CBS--will remain brave enough to keep weathering these storms. All of our futures depend on it.
Whew! Has anybody else ever noticed how many people's birthdays seem to fall right around this time of year? The 25th alone is the birthday of 3 people I know (Birthday shout outs to Nettie, Jenn and Gloria), and there are more to come in the days immediately ahead. In any case, this birthday barrage meant that this past weekend was filled with candle-laden revelry: one party on Friday night, 2 on Saturday, and then another one on Sunday. Each of them was fun filled in its own right, but each very different from the others; the one thing they all had in common, though, was that each left me filled with a very profound sense of how lucky I am to be surrounded by family and friends whose company I truly enjoy.
Another bonus was being introduced to two fabulous new restaurants (new to me, that is) here in NYC. Cafe Noir is where Nettie's 31st birthday bash took place, and between the fried brie and the lamb meatballs I couldn't have been happier. Oh, and they make Mojitos so strong (and delicious) that Jessica was pink in the face and sweaty after about four sips.
The second restaurant, where Gloria had her party last night, is called Candle 79. It's a totally organic, vegan establishment, and despite what you might imagine the food was fabulous. I had seitan picatta--seitan being some form of pure gluten that has a very "meaty" texture and pretty much seems to take on the flavor of whatever sauce you put on it. Because I love picatta sauce (it's a lemon and caper blend, usually) this was a good thing. I'd highly recommend this place to anyone looking for a new food experience on the UES--and frankly, the food's good enough to travel for, too. (Don't forget to try the deserts!)
News on my mind:
Abortion or Adoption? The $500 Question: In Texas, a bill is on the table that would pay women who are considering abortion $500 to carry their babies to term and then give them up for adoption. So now the pro-lifers have turned to outright bribery? I guess we shouldn't be surprised.
Warner Books Warner No Longer: Looks like that big ugly "W" is flying the way of a Republican majority (if only I meant the human one). Warner Books now has both a new owner and a new name: Grand Central Publishing. I don't care what they call it--I'm still not buying books w puffy covers... unless I'm on my way to my yearly beach vaction and can't stand the thought of taxing my brain beyond subject, verb, object.
The Final Four is Set: Because I was busy partying last night, I missed the end of the of the Georgetown/UNC game where, according to Jessica, UNC went stone cold at the end of the game and into overtime, missing 17 of 18 shots from the field. Needless to say, Georgetown found a way to triumph. Jess is heartbroken, but I've had a soft spot for the Hoyas ever since John Thompson, Jr. was at the helm.
You may remember that a while back I told you about how the Episcopal Church is going through a bit of a crisis, and how the group of international bishops that runs the Anglican Communion had basically given the American branch an ultimatum: stop with the gays or else. Well, today, reports are out that the Episcopal Church of the United States has drawn its own line in the sand. The US bishops have rejected the Anglican Communion's call to install a council of international overseers to police the Episcopal branch of the church, and respond to the concerns of more conservative members who want nothing to do with the gays either.
Without being too crass, this is a bit like the Episcopal Church flipping the bird to its non-US brethren--and god bless them for it. How profound is it to see a religious body standing up for the rights of gays and lesbians to be included, rather than shutting the door on them as so many others do? And the Episcopalians had an out: because this move means that there will very likely be a cutting of ties between the Anglican Communion and the Episcopals, they could have very easily ducked out under cover of "The bonds of our community are too important to sacrifice over this issue." But they didn't. They haven't. They're standing up and fighting, saying instead, "Respecting the humanity of all of God's people is too important to sacrifice." What a radical concept. Once they're done fighting this war, it might be worth them having a conversation with some folks at the Vatican.
I try not to do too much gloating over the misfortunes of others, but when justice is served I cannot help but feel glad about it. Today's dose of satisfaction comes by way of the news that Penn State's longtime women's basketball coach, Rene Portland, has decided to step down from her post, with 2 years still left on her contract.
Penn State's saying it was her own decision, but I can't think of too many folks who leave well-paying jobs that they're passionate about without being pushed out the door. And it's about time: the feathers tickling all this into action, of course, are the repeated allegations against Portland regarding her homophobic comments and behavior towards her players. A suit was filed last year by dismissed player Jennifer Harris that sought to take Rene to task for her behavior, and the University's only response (despite Harris' claims having been backed up by numerous alumnae of the program) was to slap Portland on the wrist with sensitivity training and a $10,000 fine. Now that she's posted 2 losing seasons in a row, though, they finally have the cover to clear the decks.
A shame they had to be so cowardly about it, but still glad to see this one sent packing.
So I know we're on issue two of TIME magazine's new redesign, but since I hadn't paused to take note of it when it hit the stands two weeks ago, I thought I'd stop now to point out something I've noticed about the new layout--which, generally speaking, I love. But here's a funny thing that's caught my eye: as part of this redesign, TIME's decided to run cute black and white images of their columnists and staff writers next to their articles. This is great, because, gosh, I always wondered what Lev Grossman looks like. The thing about having all these photos up there, though, is that it makes something pretty damn clear: TIME's got a woman problem.
