Finally. The second installment of our Skidmore recap! We already went on (and on and on) about all of the great workshops we took during our week at Skidmore for the IWWG conference. You might be expecting a long, detailed play-by-play account of our trip, like we did after WAM!, but the truth is we're way too busy reading Guild member's books and trying to tackle the massive to-do list that we've suddenly acquired.
"You can just text me when you need to get down."Of course, I quickly dismissed the idea of sleeping in the top bunk for fear of crashing to my death. While up there I noticed that the bunk beds were broken. Yep. I could see only two possible scenarios: crashing to my death or sleeping on the bottom and being crushed to death. Fun! So we called maintenance to fix it:
"But... you'll be in the next bed. Couldn't I just tell you? Or just hit you with my pillow?"
"I just felt like the situation called for a more complicated plan."
"Our bunkbeds are broken..."Two guys came and took the beds apart. (They were just going to fix the bed, until we started hearing them say stuff like "wow, that piece is totally missing" and "who the hell put this bed together?" No way either of us was sleeping on the top or bottom after that.) We thanked them for saving our lives and then we debated pushing the beds together to make a Queen, in case we felt like cuddling.
"Broken?"
"Yes, the headboards are separating... and... and... the... what are those things called... the dowels... you know what I mean... the dowels are sticking out... and... and... it's going to fall apart... and... crush me... and... I FEAR FOR MY LIFE!"
"You'll like my book. It's about geishas. Okay, they're prostitutes. But high class. High class. But really, you should read it. It's about evil sluts!"
"Oh! I knew that I knew you! You killed your husband!""Many times."
"What does your shirt say!? Rush Limbaugh what!?"
"Rush Limbaugh Can Suck It"
"Oh thank god. I saw something about Rush Limbaugh and got upset. This is much better."
"I know that I'm cool because I know that the things that I like are cool. Even if nobody else knows they're cool, I know they're cool, so I know that I must be cool." (Don't worry, he thought that we were cool too.)He also expressed some reservations about the name of our blog, because he explained to us that feminism shouldn't be about anger, and "the only successful feminism will come from love", and also that it's important to protect women's modesty. So we've decided to change our name to The Happy Loving Modest Clique. But not really.
"So you know who Kathleen Hanna is, right?"One day, Dollface came to have lunch with us, so she was able to meet our new friend too. She also got to hear a long monologue from him about Sarah Conner from Terminator and how awesome and cool and strong and badass she is (which turned out to be his way of telling me that he liked my boots. Yeah, we don't know either.) We told him that Dollface was a blogger too.
"Yes."
"And you know that she used to..."
"Yes, I know."
"And there are pictures of her where she..."
"Yeah, I've seen them."
"That's awesome, you get a high five for that." (I got a high five for that.)
"Oh, what's yours called, the Angry Vagina Blog or something?"
"Yes! It's angryvaginablog.com, I can't believe you guessed it right on the first try!"
"That's not supposed to happen. That's really not okay"."I agree with you completely on that one."
That's what you might think if you turned on MSNBC right after his press conference this afternoon without knowing what the topic was. The anchor at the time was some random guy that I didn't recognize, and of course he had on a parade of pundits and analysts to dissect Sanford's statements. I had to start making notes because I couldn't really believe what I was hearing.
Here's a sampling. (For what it's worth, in the segment that I watched only one woman was asked to comment - all the rest of the talking was done by men.) Some of this is paraphrased cause I couldn't write fast enough while also yelling back at the TV.
~Over and over, people kept saying that Sanford deserved 'points for his candor' and 'credit for being honest'.
~There were multiple references to the moments when the governor got emotional, with one commentator describing Sanford as a "wounded man". An NBC News correspondent described the press conference as "a painful truth told by a tearful man".
~A few people remarked on Sanford's bravery in coming forward, with one person saying that "he showed a lot of courage today", and another commenting on how difficult it must have been for Sanford to look into the camera and face everyone and tell the truth.
~Someone floated the idea that by holding a press conference and admitting the truth, Sanford had "taken responsibility" for his actions.
~The cherry on top of this lovefest came from South Carolina State Senator Jake Knotts, who said of Sanford, "I admire him. It took a man to stand up there and admit that." [Much as I hate to give Fox News credit for anything, I was watching when Knotts tried this line during an appearance on Fox not too long after I first heard him say it on MSNBC, and Shepard Smith immediately came at him with a tough question about everything Sanford has done wrong in this situation, which is more than I can say for Random MSNBC Guy.]
Okay, refresh my memory. What was it that Governor Sanford did that was so courageous and responsible and honest and admirable? Oh yeah, he held a press conference to admit that the reason why he disappeared for a week, leaving his staff confused about his whereabouts and unable to contact him in case of emergency, and leaving his sons without a father on Father's Day, was that he had to fly to Argentina to hang out with the woman that he's been cheating on his wife with for a year. How laudable.
Maybe coming out and admitting the truth was a difficult thing for Sanford to do. Maybe his emotional moments during the press conference were genuine. But I don't feel bad for him. I do feel bad for his wife and kids, and you can definitely make a reasonable argument that these private family matters should be kept private. But in this case it was Sanford's misuse of the office of the Governor that forced his private family problems out into the public eye, and Republican notions about "family values" contribute to a culture in which these stories are considered "scandalous" and newsworthy.
I also don't think that he did anything admirable or brave today. I don't really get the idea that we're supposed to give him all kinds of credit for honesty, when he admitted that the affair has been going on for a year, and it's pretty clear that he only came clean because his totally mishandled "vacation" got so much attention and forced his hand. And I'm not going to give him a pat on the back for "taking responsibility" just because he held a press conference. (Resigning as chairman of the Republican Governors' Association was a step in the right direction on the responsibility front, though.)
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that he should resign (from his post at the RGA or as governor of South Carolina) because he had an affair. I do think that the fact that he had an affair makes him a hypocrite, because he opposes same-sex marriage (as a Congressman in the 90s he voted for the Defense of Marriage Act), civil unions, and gay adoptions, and because he was highly critical of Bill Clinton for lying about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, saying at the time that "the bottom line is that he lied under a different oath - the oath to his wife". [Insert cheesy joke here about how if all of the hypocritical politicians had to resign, there would be nobody left to run any government anywhere, ha ha.] If he did resign, it should be because of this:
By leaving the country without formally transferring power, critics said he neglected his gubernatorial authority and put the state at risk. It wasn’t clear how his staff could reach him in an emergency.
This clip from Meghan McCain's appearance on Real Time With Bill Maher has been making its way around the blogosphere this week thanks to the exchange between McCain and Democratic strategist Paul Begala. Let's watch:
McCain: The Obama administration really has to stop completely blaming everything on its predecessor completely. And I really am sick of hearing 'oh well we were handed this, we were handed this'. I know! Everyone knows, but we need to move on.
Maher: You think that's what Obama is doing?
McCain: I do, to a degree.
Begala: Not to enough of a degree. I'm sorry. Not nearly enough. Ronald Reagan blamed Jimmy Carter every day for eight years. In the speech -- in the speech, what President Bush said one of the things he's had to adjust to.
McCain: I wasn't born yet, so I don't know.
Begala: I wasn't born during the French Revolution, but I know about it.
Maher: He's a mean man, Paul Begala.
McCain: You clearly know everything. So, and I'm just the blonde sitting here.
No, Meghan. You're just the person sitting there, and you're in the chair because you're supposed to have some idea of what you're talking about. You know, a compelling argument or two and some evidence to back it up.
Meghan McCain gets so mad (often rightfully so) at people like Laura Ingraham who criticize her appearance or dismiss her because of her age rather than engaging with her actual statements about the issues. But Paul Begala didn't call her fat or tell her that she was too young to remember things so she shouldn't talk about them. Just the opposite - he challenged her based solely on what she was saying. He countered her argument with his own. Was he a little sarcastic about it? Sure, but so was she.
In her response to Laura Ingraham, McCain said that she "expected substantive criticism from conservative pundits for [her] views", so she criticized Ingraham for making fun of her age and weight "instead of intellectually debating our ideological differences". And yet, in this situation, she was the one who chose to defend herself from Begala's criticism of her statements by cracking a joke about her age and then implying that she was being dismissed as just another dumb blonde when nothing of the kind was happening. Even if she totally didn't know what Begala was talking about, or just disagreed with him, she could have responded by saying something like 'well I'm sure you're more familiar with that time period than I am, but even if you're right, that doesn't mean that it's the best strategy for the Obama administration now'. Instead she decided to pull an Ingraham...on herself.
Either Meghan has internalized the common arguments against her so completely that she's now preemptively making them against herself, or she's being a hypocrite on this one.
We recently took a workshop on screenwriting.* Yeah, I know what you're thinking - what was the ESC doing taking a screenwriting class? Is there an ESC movie in the works? No. Definitely not. (At least not until the fantasy future). We actually didn't even realize the class would be strictly screenwriting 101 (the description was somewhat misleading) but we figured movies-books-blogs... the common thread is storytelling and knowing a little more about the subject couldn't hurt.
Or could it?
We realized about half-way through that this was not the place for us. The teacher was going on about how in every film, the main character must have a clear goal at the beginning, overcome obstacles throughout the film, and then finally achieve the goal at the end. No exceptions. (Now obviously there are exceptions, but for argument's sake let's assume that since none of us are Quentin Tarantino or Steven Spielberg, then her formula is best for your average first-time screenwriter).
She kept using the movie Juno as an example. Warning! Before you read any further: This blog entry contains spoilers about the movie, but if you haven't seen it by now then you deserve to have the ending spoiled because what the hell are you waiting for!?
Anyway, she claimed that Juno's goal throughout the movie was to find a loving family to care for her baby. Her explanation was somewhat problematic for us, so I asked if a character's goal could change as the character changes... because to me, that wasn't really Juno's original goal. At first, she was all ready to have an abortion and then after being talked out of it/scared away from it, she decided on adoption. Once she decided on adoption, then her goal was to find a loving family to adopt the baby.
Of course, the teacher wasn't having any of it. She said "well, we're not going to get into that" and when I persisted, she said that the loving family was always the goal and considering abortion was a just a minor obstacle on the way to achieving the goal. Woah. Obviously that pissed me off. (It's no surprise to any of our frequent readers that we're very pro-choice over here). Abortion wasn't an obstacle that Juno had to overcome in order to do the right thing. It was a valid option, just one that she decided not to choose.
Screenwriter Diablo Cody has made it very clear that Juno is not a "pro-life" movie:
“I think she makes a personal choice. I don't know what I would call it and I don't know if that would be my personal decision. But I think her journey is rich and valid.” [suicidegirls.com]Maybe Juno isn't the best movie to use as an example for this formula, but we think if you had to make it fit... then Juno's goal isn't to find a loving family for her baby, but rather to resolve the issue of being a pregnant teenager. Juno is a pregnant teenager but she doesn't want to be a teenage mom. Period.
"I haven’t been addressed by any pro-lifers but apparently they’re pleased with the movie. I personally could care less about who enjoys the film and who does not. This is not a political movie so to me it’s just an interesting side effect..." [blog.allmovie.com]
"Anybody can embrace the film that wants to embrace the film, but I will say on the record that it's not pro-life propaganda and it's not a political movie."[comingsoon.net]
"I didn't want it to seem as if she left because she suddenly had some moral epiphany. It was more that she left for really human, teenage reasons. She's freaked out." [guardian.co.uk]
If you look at the film with that goal in mind, it makes more sense and is less offensive than the teacher's version. She considers abortion as a potential means of achieving that goal, but then her classmate's talk of fetuses having fingernails - and the generally creepy nature of abortion clinic waiting rooms - freaks her out. The obstacle is that abortion is not the right choice for her, so Juno considers adoption. Now perhaps the fact that she wants her baby adopted into a loving family can be considered a secondary goal or a stipulation of the original goal, but it's not the goal. Adoption is the solution, not the quest."Well... she got one."It took us a second before we realized that she meant one parent (i.e., Vanessa). Of course, as a single mother that irked me a bit. I said, "well one parent is a family." She didn't disagree, but there's just something about the way she said it that kept it repeating in my head "she got one".
So I was talking to someone about how awesome Carren Strock is and about her book Married Women Who Love Women. I mentioned how Jezebel and I had joked about promoting the book by reading it together on the train, my head on her shoulder, saying "Oh this is such a great book".
And then... this happened:
"You're lucky some black girl didn't kick your ass for reading that."
"Wow. It was just a joke, but way to turn it into both homophobia and racism."
"I was just joking too."
"Yeah, but your joke was homophobic and racist."
"Well you were the one who told me that black people are more homophobic than white people."
"Um, when exactly did I tell you that?"
"You told me about how that marriage bill in California passed because all the black people voted for it."
"You mean how racists blamed blacks for passing Prop 8, but it wasn't actually true? Great to know you were listening so well."
"Well... still there are a lot of homophobic people out there."
"Yeah, there are, and a lot of them are white. Also, you can be against homosexuality without feeling the need to beat gay people up. Unless of course you're suggesting that a black homophobe would be more likely to beat us up than a white homophobe because of the racist belief that black people are inherently more violent. You're not suggesting that are you?"
"No... I wasn't... I was just... Oh forget it."
Some conservatives are still campaigning against the hate crimes bill that recently passed the House and is now being considered by the Senate. And they're still using lies and scare tactics to do it. Take Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute, who recently responded to some comments that Attorney General Holder made regarding the connection between the need for this legislation and the recent murders of Dr. George Tiller, a soldier at an Army recruiting station in Arkansas, and a security guard at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum:
"The crimes that took place have absolutely nothing to do with the content of the hate crimes bill, which only really is focusing on the special treatment and special privileges of protection to be granted to people because of their homosexuality or transsexual status," [Dacus] contends.Actually, the hate crimes bill accomplishes nothing remotely close to anything in that statement. Being that it is a hate crimes bill, you would have to commit a crime to be affected by it, and generally "legitimate, peaceful opposition" doesn't qualify. The bill also refers specifically to violent crime - it's not about bias-motivated tax fraud or anti-gay jaywalking - and it specifically excludes any "exercise of constitutionally-protected free speech" so again, any type of genuinely "peaceful opposition" would not be impacted by this bill at all. And last time I checked, committing an act of violence against someone because you have issues with their sexual orientation or gender identity was not remotely legitimate or peaceful.
Dacus adds that "the bill is not about providing equal treatment -- it's providing unequal treatment," which he believes is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.
"The hate crimes bill accomplishes nothing except to intimidate and silence legitimate, peaceful opposition to the never-ending demands of the gay and transsexual activists," he concludes.
As we've mentioned a million times in the past week, we just got back from the IWWG summer conference. We're also headed to Chicago in a few weeks for the BlogHer conference. Whenever we're getting ready to go to on a trip like this, we always have at least one fantasyland discussion about all of the customized products and random stuff that we really really need to get to maximize our shameless promotion potential. Customized pens and pencils, Pokens, custom USB flash drives, mini business cards, oversized business cards, custom post-it notes, shot glasses, and of course our full ESC wardrobe. (Our "Evil Slutopia" and "Rush Limbaugh Can Suck It" shirts were big hits at the IWWG conference.) We'd have to hire an intern just to travel with us and carry all of the crap that we'd want to bring with us if we had unlimited money and time and resources.
Yeah, okay, so we have issues. Here in the real world, we probably don't need Pokens, since we've only ever met one person who owned one. And we're not a big corporation or a band or a music producer (although don't worry, ESC Records is totally in the Ten Year Plan) so the custom USB drives aren't really essential for us either. And we have tons of business cards already. And we have enough trouble packing as it is.
On the other hand, we're experts at justifying this stuff and enabling each other. Like, we've heard that Pokens are popular with the BlogHer crowd, and that's the next thing on our travel schedule! And the USB drives come in different fun colors and styles, so we could color coordinate! And with the mini cards we could recruit so many more members into the ESC. And the shot glasses are obviously an essential business expense.
It's a sickness. And it's no wonder that our Debbie is so big. So maybe for now we'll just stick to our own products and get started on some new stores, because telling deserving people to suck it and promoting evilslutism really falls more into the category of "public service" anyway. And if, for instance, one of our readers was to suggest a product idea to us (hint hint), well then we'd just have to.
...did we mention that we have issues?
We were going to do one big recap blog of our experiences at the IWWG's "Remember the Magic" conference... but we realized there's just way too much to cover! We have books to read and review! We have tons of name-dropping to do. We have ridiculous stories to share (because we spread absurdity wherever we go). So here's part one of our week at Skidmore, focusing on the informative workshops we took this year and the amazing women who taught them.
We recently had the pleasure to spend some time with Dollface of the Rotten Little Girls (a.k.a. "The Jr. ESC"). She's a full 10 years younger than I am (you can guess the math on that one if you like, but I'm not saying). It got me thinking a bit about age. I have many friends younger than me (and well, I also know plenty of children) and many friends 10, 20, 30 years older than me... and even higher. And of course, it's no secret that I've, ahem, dated men of various ages as well.
Not to sound like an episode of I Love the 80s, but I feel totally ancient when I mention any of the classic toys or retro cartoons that I loved as a child. I noticed this with Dollface, who wasn't even alive for most of the 80s and especially with my daughter and her friends, who think I am crazy when I go on one of my nostalgia kicks about the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or reminisce about Twister before it went electronic! (I mean, really, come on!) can tell you.) I owned more than one hypercolor t-shirt. When I think of dolls, I think of Barbie and Cabbage Patch dolls... not Bratz. I remember when Polly Pocket really fit in your pocket. I tell my daughter stories that begin "When I was your age, we had to blow on the video games to make them work..."
Sorry, I have to go. I hear a beeping sound coming from one of my dresser drawers and I think it's the Tamagotchi that I've been trying to kill since 1996.
We're back from the IWWG conference! We have a lot to write about: the people we met, the books we will read, the things we learned and even the things we were able to teach.
An increasingly popular TV show titled "The Secret Life of the American Teenager" combines anything and everything a mother tries to protect her children from viewing and rolls it into one soap opera for teens.The One Million Moms also linked to a review from the American Family Association Journal that further elaborated on all the reasons why the show is so bad for kiddies.
ABC Family is responsible for showing such racy content, when instead it should be adhering to its name by airing family-friendly content.
Mothers like us need to be aware of this popular sexualized TV show that won a 2008 Teen Choice Award. According to ABC Family, it's their # 1 original series of all time. The LA Times reports that the series is averaging 3.8 million viewers per episode.
"Secret Life" is brutally honest about teens and sex, so much so that it condones teenage sex, adultery and a host of other sins. The series airs Monday nights at 8:00 p.m. EDT on ABC Family (owned by Disney- ABC Television). This series includes:
* A teenage girl who becomes pregnant after a one night stand
* A "player" who takes advantage of multiple girls because of his sex addiction
* The school "tramp" who basks in her sexual encounters
* A boy who is molested by his father as a child
* Adulterous parents
* A shallow view of Christianity as portrayed through a "ditzy" blonde
* Favorable discussions of gay marriage and gay adoption
This is toxic poison to our children! Ask your children if they are watching this show, and consider making it "off limits" in your home.
I'm generally a fan of New York Magazine, a big fan. But right now I'm a little mad at them. So mad in fact, that I'm thinking of writing a letter over an issue that has really offended and saddened me... their lack of respect for strippers and 80s hair bands. It really makes me think "WWHD?" (What would Heather do?)
Dear New York Mag,What the hell do you have against Rock of Ages? I don't understand.
I know it's not Shakespeare, but it doesn't pretend to be. It's just a fun, silly, guilty pleasure. The cast is amazingly talented and the music ROCKS my nostalgic socks off! It was nominated for five Tony-awards, an Astaire award (for the sexy ensemble dancers) and cast-member Wesley Taylor won a Theater World Award. I've yet to meet anyone who saw the show and disliked it... and that's people of all ages.
So I'm sick of reading all these snide little comments. Stop being such theater snobs. Maybe the 80s wasn't a fun time period for you or maybe you had a really bad experience listening to Poison or something, but you need to get over it already.
Love,
Lilith
Rock of Ages is in on its own joke, which ruins all the fun.
Heavy metal is so intrinsically theatrical that it makes sense to build a musical comedy around it. But can you parody a form that's already a parody of itself? Rock of Ages is a mangled singing, dancing extravaganza set to the hair metal of Whitesnake, Journey, and Bon Jovi, among others. (Def Leppard, proving their members are gentlemen of taste, wouldn't grant the rights to their music.) An aspiring rock star and an actress hopeful (played by Constantine Maroulis, of American Idol fame, and Amy Spanger) pursue their dreams, and love, in late-eighties Los Angeles. By night, they work in a Sunset Strip rock club that an uptight European developer (Paul Schoeffler) hopes to demolish and replace. There's also an emcee (Mitchell Jarvis), who narrates the action like a Greek chorus made up of one desperate Jack Black imitator.I really disagree with them. (And so does the New York Times. And Time Out New York. And Spin. And The Village Voice. And NY1. And TheaterMania.com. And even the generally stuffy New Yorker!) But I respect New York mag's right to have their opinion.
Rock of Ages, which was written by Chris D'Arienzo and directed by Kristin Hanggi, and which played Off Broadway last year, is too full of self-conscious winks, nudges, and wine-cooler jokes to be much fun. There's energy onstage, all right, but it's unfocused and muddled. The dancers—the show's choreography is by Kelly Devine—wriggle about in epaulette-shouldered leather jackets and neon animal-print Spandex, trying to conjure the big-haired ghosts of a lost era. They only end up looking cheap and desperate. This is no way to get your rocks off.
The Tonys snub Carla Gugino and Mercedes Ruehl, yet nominate Rock of Ages for Best Musical.
At Rock of Ages, a show that imprisons you for two hours between a woofer and a tweeter, the cacophony for the first time seemed intentional: a way of obscuring the cheesy story and driving the sale of drinks. The producers would do well to sell earplugs too—but earplugs are no longer enough.


