#the feminist crowd doesn’t seem to understand what they are asking for by demanding they be put in charge

[banana-with-a-bow-tie]

It didn’t matter that Eve sinned first. It didn’t matter that she was the main player of the two in the temptation scene in Eden. Adam was held primarily responsible. Adam was the head of the home and he abdicated his responsibility to protect his wife from the attack of the enemy, to provide a corrective word for her when she was getting God’s Word wrong and to direct her back to the truth and away from sin. He dumped out and remained passive. She led him, the serpent led her and both rebelled against God. Nevertheless, God calls Adam to account first.

—Owen Strachan & Gavin Peacock, The Grand Design, pgs. 47

[karazetian]

What’s happening is that Disney is not doing its job.

I ended up doing an essay lol. I obviously appreciate someone reading it but given that is really lengthy, I don’t expect anyone to do so. I’m also not Asian so, there’s that. And my English leaves a lot to be desired (I corrected the orthography but I’m prone to grammar errors). 

I do recommend checking out the sources I linked, especially 1 (youtube video made by a Chinese person), 2 and 3 (the descriptions are below).

I talk about what Disney is doing is not out of naive idleness. Idleness yes, but naivety no. 

I keep thinking, where the hell did this movie go wrong? Because yes, this is not the first time nor the last time Disney is going to deliver a less than mediocre live-action remake, but, despite all of their track record, I still had hope for this one. 

Because, while the other movies are classics, they had certain aspects that didn’t age perfectly, which it is understandable. Beauty and the Beast, although arguably the best Disney animated movie, had these “Stockholm Syndrome” connotations* (bear with me) and we also had to consider how much of Beast’s personality could stay in the remake (since he could have been read really wrong if he lashed out on Belle too much, not only because of his appearance but for the power dynamics of him being the one in calling the shots of Belle’s wellbeing, hope that made sense). 

Cinderella could have made some* audiences criticize her for her apparent submissiveness, Aladdin is a whole can of worms in the subject of orientalism (which they kept in the remake, anyway), etc., etc.

*This is not the post to discuss whether or not Belle suffered Stockholm Syndrome during her movie, nor to discuss whether or not Cinderella was actually submissive in the original. Many people have already done that, my point in bringing that up is, Disney used that as an excuse to change scenes and plot in the remakes. 

But Mulan, aside from minor problems that come from an American company writing an eastern story (and the values and trends present when the movie was made), had a very strong plot that still holds up to this day (I say that like the movie was made in the 30s lol). 

Not only it is a “feminist” movie but also, the story is very well written and made, in my opinion. There was not a lot that you needed to change. The main character had already a well-rounded personality (unlike, for example, my girl Aurora), the story was already very rich, etc. The removal of Mushu (and the whole dragon symbolism), although sad, it’s understandable how it was necessary.

However, is not just the removal of important and nostalgic characters like Mushu or grandma Fa, but the removal of the soul of the movie.

Mulan 2020 is a soulless movie. 

This is not unique to this remake, as this is not even unique to remakes, imo. But it is one of the most painful ones, because this movie meant a lot to a lot of women (and people) and the beauty of it all was that you didn’t need to be Chinese, or a woman, to appreciate it (that’s a good thing in the sense that is good when you can relate to a story, even if you don’t share some of the traits with the main character. Not that it’s good despite being the story of a Chinese woman, is that clear? Sorry if it’s not).

And it’s also painful because it could have been so easy to... not do that. Other people have already talk about this (and in a much briefer, better way) but yes, what made Mulan so great in the original was that she was your average girl, even worse because she lived in a very conservative society yet she managed to become a badass while, not only discovering who she was in the process, but also staying true to that. That was the reason she was great. She had flaws, she couldn’t adapt, she was the underdog but she, through her unwillingness to give up, her tenacity, wits and compassion, overcame that, eventually becoming a hero. 

It was not because of her qì. Again, I’m not going to do a deep dive in that because others have already talked about how they made her a Chosen One. What I want to discuss is how sad it is that they went for that route and my confusion as to why they did it. 

And I think it was more than laziness. It’s definitely a lack of motivation but, when you dwelve on it, I don’t think that laziness goes hand in hand with carelessness. But first, with the laziness, a google search would have made them see what progressive crowds now deem as feminist values. Both eastern and western crowds. 

Because yeah, sure, I doubt the Chinese government is well versed in intersectional feminism. Yet, there are movies both the Chinese government and its people have liked and appreciated. Weren’t they the ones that, upon watching Kung Fu Panda said something like “how did we not come up with that?” 

I saw this video made my Chinese youtuber Accented Cinema (links below: 1, I highly recommend watching it) and he even mentioned his school taking his class to watch the original movie in theaters. So, yeah, believe it or not, you can make a feminist movie set in a third world country (I also come from a third world country, sorry if this sounds like I’m being mean to Chinese people). 

So, why did you not do your homework, Disney? Again, I understand they couldn’t have made the most leftist movie, not only because it’s Disney, but because they wanted to appeal to both governments, however, you could have made the remake be satisfying enough for that audience and the rest of the world. But they didn’t even satisfy the Chinese audience, with a lot of them saying how the movie reinforces ideologies the Chinese themselves have already moved on from (the “devotion to family” inscription in the sword has received a lot of criticisms: 2).

This means that they failed to do even the only thing they seemed to compromise on. You could have had still appealed to the government. That is to say, I don’t expect Disney to be the wokest of them all and go full anarchist on their movies because that’s not even what Disney wants anyway.

They could have still done some things that wouldn’t have anything to do with western or eastern values. For example, they could have given Mulan’s sister a personality. Giving your character one is not a western/Americanized value, it’s part of what means to make a well written story.

Without that, her character seems completely pointless. Seriously, I keep thinking what was the point of her character, besides being a disappointing replacement of the grandma. I’d like to think that she was the movie’s way to represent how more conservative values are still valid, if the woman chooses so. Her wanting to get married and have a traditional family doesn’t diminish her value as a person. They could have made a scene with the two sisters still being able to bond with each other, even if they had very different views of the world.

But since we never find out about her motivations or desires, it is left unknown whether this is what she chose for herself or if she is just another victim of her circumstances. And I ask myself why, since it could have been so easily to do that. You could have replaced the scene where kid Mulan is combing her sister’s hair (which, for what I can remember, only serves to further stablish the sister’s fear of spiders… which they make clear in other two scenes) if the movie’s duration was a problem.

Being left with no logical answers, I can only conclude that it was out of laziness. But it doesn’t end there, does it? Because I think “ok, so they were lazy, then they could have done what every lazy student does when they don’t have any motivation left and copy-pasted the original. Didn’t they do that with the Lion King already?”

And I get that it didn’t work with that one, but that’s because you shouldn’t somber up a movie that has anthropomorphic animals, that also heavily relied on being an animated movie. Mulan doesn’t rely on that; Mulan was inspired by a legend. Live-action Mulan had already been made with good results, so what couldn’t they have just copy pasted their own original? If they didn’t have the energy to give it a proper, well-made twist (i.e., Maleficent), the least they could have done is respect its predecessor.

But they took away all the things that made Mulan great in the first place, to made her what every writer will tell you not to do. Making her being born with extraordinary skills, which then results in her not having to work for her merits, is something even I, a nobody, knows not to do. I’m not even going to address how taking agency away from her sends the wrong message to the little girls that are going to see this sad excuse of a movie.

What I’m trying to say, it may not be comparable to a lazy student copying the homework of one of the most accomplished students, but it is as if they based their work on that, just butchering all the parts that made the accomplished student’s work good. And, unlike with the lazy student whose reasons might be justifiable, Disney had no excuse to do so, because it is their job.

It is their job to deliver a well written story or, if that’s too demanding, to at least make a movie with a happy-go feeling (is that grammatically correct?) that sends a well-meaning message. Instead, the message this movie (I would say, purposefully) delivers is that you can only accomplish great things if you’re born special.

Us, regular folks, especially regular women, especially regular women born in less than ideal circumstances, are doomed. And that’s what’s sad.

 Links to sources used:

1.    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZccG-wtt5FA&ab_channel=AccentedCinema

2.    https://twitter.com/tony_zy/status/1302743527240142849

Why “boycott” Mulan 2020 (not only because of what the lead actress said):

3.    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/07/why-disneys-new-mulan-is-scandal/

4.    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/whats-happening-in-xinjiang-is-genocide/2020/07/06/cde3f9da-bfaa-11ea-9fdd-b7ac6b051dc8_story.html

5.    What the actress did say: https://time.com/5653973/mulan-boycott-liu-yifei/

[cursedcomics]

Captain Ms. Marvel

I am saddened by the amount of bile directed at Brie Larson because she happens to be a strong and vocal feminist.

I have ALSO thought, “maybe she doesn’t need to weigh in on EVERY issue” and that maybe some of her unpopularity with the predominantly male Marvel comic reading crowd is self-inflicted.

But as a male longtime Marvel comic reader, I’ve come around on that point.

Why?

I think it goes back to the very beginnings of the character. We’re going to go there with a brief stop along the way at her first on-going title Ms. Marvel #1 in the 1970′s.

Take a look right above the headshot. 

“This female fights back!”

The 70′s were the heyday of Ms. Magazine and the feminist movement.  This book was published January 1st, 1977.

On November 7, 1975, the pilot for the Wonder Woman TV show starring Lynda Carter was released and instantly connected with women everywhere.

Women were a tough to reach demographic for the comic industry by this point and marvel looked around for a character that they hoped would allow them to attract more female readers.

Over the next 5 years Marvel would launch other books with female leads- Red Sonja, She-Hulk (feb 1980), & Spider woman (april 1978), but unlike the latter two other characters who were designed to protect other  marvel from another company creating a character that sponged off their successful male variants, Ms. Marvel was an established character.

While the Wonder Woman TV show empowered women and encouraged them to strive to be their best selves,  the Ms. Marvel effort was all about the feminist movement, encouraging the male world to recognize that females wer just as accomplished and encouraging females to expect and feel safe demanding that recognition. 

The source material and the day demanded it. Carol Danvers was not just a former soldier, she was an officer.  A  leader of men and women in an age where women were starting to actively politically complain about the glass ceiling. 

Her new book had her leaving the comfortable regimented chain of command structure of the military and heading into the private sector.  She was publishing a magazine and taking no crap from none other than J. Jonah Jameson.

Ms. Marvel #1 was a book designed for the feminist movement.

With that in mind, re-evaluate Brie Larson’s actions and words off the set through the lens of taking on the role of a feminist icon. 

ANY actress playing Ms. Marvel is going to get asked questions about  issues important to feminists and will probably be invited to events for feminist causes.  She isn’t being radical for going or agreeing with that stuff. If you ask most women they either agree or at least “understand her perspective”, so your “moderate” female friends might sound just as “radical” if quoted in the papers.

Brie Larson has kind of an unfortunate lot.  She is really too short to play the Carol Danvers from the comics.  She wasn’t  viewed as going to come off as convincing going toe to toe with male actors in a physical fight scene (although to her credit she did well in the movie).  She was hired because she is a kick ass actress with the ability to steal a show with a tiny bit of screen time (see her work in Community).  She is a fantastic actress with a range far, far beyond what we will ever likely see utilized in the Captain Marvel character.

With this in mind, as well as her being powered up over the recent years in the comics, it isn’t surprising that they wanted to present her powers and flying and energy blasts in the movies for the most part.  From that perspective it makes sense for Marvel movie folks to utter the cringe worthy proclamation that she is “the strongest avenger” on an Avengers team with Thor and the Hulk. 

Plus there IS some basis to that in the changes they’ve made to the character in the comics over the last decade.  

It isn’t just obnoxious pandering as it may have seemed the first time we heard that....and more to the point it isn’t Brie Larson’s fault.

Brie Larson is stepping into a role that is loaded with expectations and frankly responsibilities, just like Chadwick Boseman did with Black Panther. I think in that regard, more power to her for standing up for “feminist beliefs”.

And finally, if nothing else I told you was compelling, let the bile go for the good of Marvel movies. 

Robert Downey Jr. is gone.  

Chris Evans is also “retired”.  

Marvel needs an actor or actress they can have roll movie to movie to give it a bump.  Maybe Larson isn’t that character, but the  presentation of Nick Fury in space suggests they are going that direction and it would be easier for them to get there without longtime Marvel Zombies chomping at the bit to tear it down.

So cut her a break, OK?

[judedoyle]

While the Strike is Hot

It’s an odd position to be in, being vehemently and angrily agreed with by your colleagues. Still, in the weeks since I published my essay on the upcoming Women’s Strike, I’ve become aware that a few women and feminists see me as the voice of “anti-strike” thinking. I was puzzled by this, at first, simply because I think it requires a backbreaking amount of work to read that piece as anti-strike; I explicitly endorse the strike, and say how cool I think it is, at many points throughout the piece. When I’ve seen critiques of my work that I’ve agreed with, I’ve passed them around, in the name of keeping the conversation open. Yet the bad feeling bubbles on -- most recently, in a piece by Dayna Tortorici of n+1, where I am the sole “anti-strike” feminist cited in over 2,000 words. 

I like Tortorici’s work, a lot. I have no doubt that she’s a smart and deeply progressive thinker. Yet I’m flat-out bewildered by her reading of my essay. So, because I am an idealistic fool who never learns -- and because the conversation is more important than the handful of sexist douchebags who’ll inevitably respond to it on social media with whooping and hollering about the cool catfight going down -- I’m responding to her response. 

Now: In order to even get into this, we have to address the elephant in the room. Due to the fact that I (a) supported Hillary Clinton, or (b) reported sympathetically on allegations of fairly severe sexist and racist harassment coming from “the left” during the 2016 primaries, there are several people who view me as a kind of bogeywoman; an emblem of the evil, careerist, “identitarian” feminism that nailed Our Messiah, Bernard of Sanders -- and, with him, all hope of American socialism! -- to the cross at the Democratic National Convention. This argument doesn’t much line up with the facts, or my politics -- for example, the fact that I’ve worked at a labor publication since 2011, and have specifically covered class differences and exploitation between women, the dangers of consumerist feminism, cynical pop feminism and femvertising, and misogyny on the left for years. (Until 2016, you see, it was widely held that these critiques were not mutually exclusive.) But it has served to divert attention from my real arguments and to imbue my every move and word with some kind of sinister resonance for certain people -- the sense that, even if what I’m saying sounds perfectly reasonable, I must have some hidden, malevolent reason for saying it.

Most of the people who dislike me this way have skin in the game, often because they were directly implicated in the harassment allegations, or simply because their work has been criticized as sexist. Alternet’s Ben Norton, for example, did not like the Elle article about the strike, and repeatedly told his Twitter followers I was attacking the strike as part of my role as a “relentless Hillary Clinton propagandist” -- but that’s because Ben Norton once angrily e-mailed me, demanding I change an article because it contained a single sentence critiquing a piece he wrote about Joe Biden, until my editor stepped in and told him not to contact me again. I don’t engage with Norton’s arguments because, well, he doesn’t have arguments; what he has is hurt feelings, and his “critique” is just an attempt to breach the “do not contact” rule by other means. But men refusing to honor a woman’s express wish not to hear from them is nothing new, in a bar or on the street or (in this case) at work. You can’t have a good-faith argument with a bad-faith interlocutor, so I don’t. 

However, one of the inevitable side effects of living through a smear campaign designed to paint you as a sinister, scheming character is that otherwise reasonable people will start to find you sinister, for no good reason, simply because they’ve heard the same groundless accusation repeated so many times. (Someone should ask Hillary Clinton about that.) I’d like to think there’s a qualitative difference between someone like Tortorici -- who certainly doesn’t seem like the sort of person who’d knowingly attack a feminist colleague just so that leftist men don’t have to deal with the soul-scorching horror of being called sexist on the Internet sometimes -- and someone like Norton. I feel compelled to engage, if only to test my own assumption that good-faith debate between feminists is still necessary, and still possible. 

Yet I can’t help feeling that my innate evil seems to be the foundation of Tortorici’s critique, which is entirely based on her deep reading of my true feelings, or my hidden intentions, a reading which is not backed up by -- and indeed, at points, is blatantly contradicted by -- the actual text of my piece. 

For one thing, Tortorici concludes that the piece asks women not to strike, when its actual headline -- one which she quotes -- begins “Go Ahead and Strike.” 

Let’s roll tape. 

When we join other women in a general strike, we do not do so on equal terms. Some of us risk more in not working than others, and for some of us the risk is too much. 

Fair; I agree with every word. 

Some see this as an insurmountable obstacle to women’s unity. 

An obstacle, yes; insurmountable, no. It is, however, very tough to surmount, which is exactly why we need intersectionality -- the understanding that “women” are not monolithic, that we have different needs and different amounts of power, that we are capable of harming or exploiting each other, and that blanket calls for solidarity “as women” don’t do much good unless our strategy is tailored to the reality of different women’s different needs and lives. 

I mean, I don’t imagine that Angela freaking Davis is unfamiliar with these principles; I’m just stating them to re-affirm what I imagine are the common grounds of our debate. 

This point was made recently by Sady Doyle in an op-ed on the Women’s Strike for Elle, under the finger-wagging headline “Go Ahead and Strike, but Know That Many of Your Sisters Can’t.”

... It was?

Also, while I do regret that Tortorici doesn’t like the headline, as someone who works in media, she’s probably well aware that writers don’t choose their own headlines. That said, what’s underneath the headline is an admittedly wide-ranging article that tries to do several things in a fairly small space. 

First, it tries to educate an audience on what a “general strike” means and what a “women’s strike” means. (Elle is a general-readership publication, not an explicitly left-politics publication like n+1 or In These Times; you can’t just assume your audience has read Rosa Luxemburg.) Second, it sketches a brief history of women’s strikes, including the famous 1970 women’s strike that catalyzed the second wave as we know it, in order to show how powerful and cool these things can be when they work. (Why do I want readers to think strikes are cool? Well, I want those readers to strike, something Tortorici seems to miss.)

Third (and this is what Tortorici objects to) the piece interrogates the potential problems and complications of such a strike. It suggests that we can’t just import the framework of the great ‘70s strikes into 2017, given how much gender roles have changed; it also points out ways in which women could betray or exploit each other during the strike, specifically how rich women can betray or exploit poor women. Finally, it calls for feminists to keep these complications in mind, and work together to create a clear, specific, creative vision of what “women’s work” means in the present day, and how we want it to change through our protesting and striking.

The fact that the article is so crowded may lend to its being easily misread. So some good-faith misreadings are genuinely my fault. But it is odd to take the one faintly critical portion of the piece -- which amounts to nothing more than a call for intersectional class consciousness -- and characterize that as “finger-wagging.” As I say in the piece, “these questions aren't meant to undermine the women's strikes, which are (again) exciting for their promise to unify feminist theory and revolutionary practice.” Yet asking questions is being framed as undermining. 

To be blunt, it seems more than a little like I’m being called a nag or a buzzkill. I suspect Tortorici and I agree on rich women’s ability to be exploitative -- it’s just that I’m not supposed to bring it up, for some reason. 

Here, as far as I can tell, is the reason: 

The implication seemed to be that privileged women should feel guilty for striking, and therefore abstain... The alternative course of not striking—preserving one’s daily status quo, espousing instead “a kind of guilty, stagnant solidarity of intention,” as Magally Miranda Alcazar and Kate D. Griffiths write in the Nation—helps no one. Instead, it places some women’s fear of hypocrisy over the needs of those they might join[.]

Here, I have to say, is where Tortorici’s argument really starts spinning out into the ether. She can’t point to a place where I say privileged women shouldn’t strike, for the very obvious reason that I never say it. She’s even conceded that “Doyle endorses the strike,” which I do. 

So she’s arguing that somehow, behind the text of the piece that encourages women to strike, I have subliminally asked women not to strike -- or, at least, that I have felt that women should not strike, without ever actually saying so -- and is left analyzing the implications of the implications of the thing she imagines I wanted to say while saying the thing I said. At this point, any actual analysis of my article is far behind us, and we are dealing exclusively with Dayna Tortorici’s psychic insight into the hidden workings of my soul. 

She does object to one real line: “Without a specific, labor-related point, after all, a ‘strike’ is just a particularly righteous personal day.” Here, for fuller context, is how I expand on that sentiment in the piece:  

A woman with a comfortable office job may be able to ‘strike’ simply by taking paid time off and feel confident that her job will be there when the strike is over. But for women in lower-wage positions with few or no protections, leaving for even a day might mean going without necessary wages, or incurring the wrath of an abusive boss, or even losing her job entirely... [A women’s strike] might [also] mean that a female CEO has to do without her nanny and her secretary, putting her in the position of being the potentially vindictive boss. 

Now, there is one “solution” for this, which is for women with office jobs not to strike. Tortorici and I agree that this would be a comically bad fix for the problem. 

But there is a worse solution, which I point to in the piece: Privileged women can “strike” while still exploiting less privileged women. The nice liberal white woman who runs the cafe can take the day off because she’s so angry at Trump, but tell her female kitchen workers and waitresses (many of them immigrants, or economically vulnerable women working for far less than a living wage) that there’s really no way she can let them off work. The upper-middle-class stay-at-home mother might decide that she’s going on a strike for emotional labor and childcare -- because she assumes she can pass the kids along to a nanny or a day-care center anyway. She might then fire the nanny when she doesn’t show up for work. The college student might strike, and decide to celebrate with a little “self-care” -- like going out for a manicure, unaware that the largely female staffers at the parlor are unable to walk away from their jobs due to the abusive working conditions. (Yes, there’s a call to only support women-owned businesses, but let’s be honest -- how many of us could name the women-owned businesses in our communities off hand? And what guarantee is there that your local manicure parlor isn’t owned by an exploitative woman, rather than a man?)

By calling attention to the inequalities between women, I am not calling on those privileged women not to strike. I am calling on them to strike mindfully, to show solidarity with something other than a red t-shirt or a self-care day. I say this pretty clearly in the piece, something else Tortorici blows past while, somehow, quoting: 

This argument, as Doyle herself concedes (“True, part of the point of a strike is for middle- and upper-class women to stand in solidarity with working-class and poor ones”), is based on false premises... The Women’s Strike isn’t undermined by the fact of difference. 

I think writing that Sady Doyle doesn’t want women to strike, in an article that contains the sentence “Doyle endorses the strike,” is also a pretty interesting example of an argument based on false premises.

The full line is “part of the point of a strike is for middle- and upper-class women to stand in solidarity with working-class and poor ones, protecting them from reprisal by joining in the action.” It may be true that the Women’s Strike isn’t undermined by difference or inequality between women -- or, at least, it can be true. But it can only be true if that solidarity actually holds; if middle-class and upper-class women are well-versed enough in what it means, and clear enough on the power they hold, that they don’t wind up sabotaging less privileged women’s efforts inadvertently. You cannot simply assume this will happen, in the same way that you can’t simply assume everyone knows what the phrase “general strike” means; these ideas are not all that mainstream, even in 2017, and as the Women’s March demonstrated, under all those pussy hats were people with widely varied levels of activist experience. 

The article’s notes about complication are aimed toward getting us all onto the same page. I am calling on (my fellow) privileged women to recognize that they are not just oppressed, but also, potentially, oppressors -- and to make striking possible for all the women in their lives, not just to take the strike as a special day for themselves. In one of the piece’s more controversial lines, I say “protest can be a privilege,” not because it is inherently privileged, because it can be -- and will be until we make protest accessible by supporting each other.  

Now: You can fault me for not making this call clearly or explicitly enough. But I think the organizers of the march and I are probably on the same page when it comes to making it. And I think they’ve done exceptional work on this front. 

Thankfully, much of my Elle article is now out of date; since I first faulted the International Women’s Strike for non-specificity, and for not making plans available for women who could not get the day off, they’ve rolled out detailed plans, with multiple ways to strike, including strike actions for women who can’t get away from work. In response to my original article, two of the organizers also wrote a detailed and thoughtful response in The Nation. I admire their response, because it contains lots of the historical and contemporary analogues and labor analysis I asked for, because it is stringently fair -- it sticks entirely to the text on the page, and even admits at some points that a passage may admit of multiple readings -- and because the fact that it exists shows that the organizers are committed to transparency and responsiveness.

I wish I felt the same about Tortorici’s. As is, I feel like I’m awkwardly wedged in to her (much larger and more all-encompassing) essay because the piece needed a villain -- and that need may have overwhelmed any commitment to an accurate reading of what I wrote. This is particularly frustrating because, as I say, I admire Tortorici’s work -- and because we so clearly agree with each other. 

By withdrawing my work, I show my place in the larger economy; when we all do (or don’t), we invite one another to see how our work is interdependent, see the ways we are compelled to exploit one another. And when we see it, we may be able to say with confidence—as the benefiting and exploited members of this system, speaking together—that this is not the system we want.

What an excellent vision! If I may, I’d like to respond with a quote from another feminist’s endorsement of the strike: 

It may be that, just as all the old revolutionaries promised us, we will discover our power through the very act of striking; we'll see what "women's work" looks like when women stop doing it.

We are at a moment of unexpected possibility. If we're able to seriously discuss a general strike, then any number of previously unthinkable options are within reach. These movements are being formed out of resistance to unacceptable conditions, and yet it might also behoove us to get more creative, and more specific, when we envision the world we want. We may be able to ask for more than we think.

Tortorici and I are not just agreeing with each other -- we are sometimes nearly word-for-word mirrors of each other. We may ferociously, sarcastically, angrily mirror each other at times -- about half of all feminist or progressive activism is just that -- but I don’t think we have to. And even if we have to, it’s not the end of the world. People only fight over what matters to them, and if we’re fighting over the strike, then at least it matters to us both. 

Solidarity between women and feminists is possible. I’d like to think that Tortorici and I, along with any given woman who likes or dislikes my piece, will be acting in solidarity by strike day. But solidarity can only work if we work it -- and it should never preclude discussing the things that matter, or asking uncomfortable questions. 

[toriend]

The Shameful “Coverage” of Women in Sports

The struggle for equality all across the board, has been present for over a century now. It’s primarily seen within race, class, and especially gender. Since the beginning of time, males have been the hierarchy and have been rooted as the dominant gender. Whether it be the Bible or the language used to describe the human race as man, and not woman. The fight for women’s rights predates back to 169 years ago in 1848 and the fight for these rights continue to goes on in present day society, specifically within the workforce. An industry that is striving for progress and continues to fight for a change, is the women within the sports industry. Whether it be a women’s sports broadcaster, analyst, or athlete the inequality is relatively present. Female athletes have been shamed and shunned since the they were allowed to compete compared to their male counterparts. Now, Title IX, which was supposed to “solve the problem,” barely made any difference for female competitors at every level, especially professional. This is progress that women should be “satisfied” with and stop being so “greedy” and wanting more when in reality, these athletes have barely scraped the surface with improvement. For years, they have fought for equality and continue to receive very little in return. Now, this fight is louder than ever before as women such as participants from the US Women’s National Team and the National Women’s Soccer Leagues are eager to make moves within their realm of sport. To understand why these women are frustrated and deserve better pay and treatment will be examined through sports televised coverage such as ESPN and how the male patriarchy is still very relevant especially within this industry. The observation of ESPN coverage of female athletes and the strides the NWSL is making with A&E Network, will be seen through the eyes of a theoretical framework that is feminism with input from Michael Messner and Bell Hooks.

ESPN’s Coverage and The Manhood Formula

ESPN is the number one 24 hour sports news station in the world, and yet they refuse to thoroughly cover women’s sports for the reason they are obliviously exploiting, marginalizing, and trivializing them through the male patriarchy. Michael Messner, states this idea called the manhood formula in chapter four of his book titled, Taking the Field and describes it as, “A real man is strong, tough, aggressive, and above all, a winner in what is still a man’s world. To be a winner he has to do what needs to be done. He must be willing to compromise his own long-term health by showing guts in the face of danger, by fighting other men when necessary, and by giving up his body for the team when he’s injured” (Messner, 2002, pg. 106). Deriving from this quote, it makes sense as to why these men choose not to air women sports; due to the fact they are not a “man” and “aren’t as entertaining to watch as men are.” However, 2015 Women’s World Cup drew quite the crowd both in stadiums and viewers at home as “six matches on Fox and Fox Sports 1 that featured the U.S. team averaged 5.3 million viewers, a rise of 121 percent over the 2011 Women’s World Cup” (ESPNW). The US WNT has been making an impact on the movement and realized that speaking up only has so much power, so they are beginning to physically prove themselves by breaking records such as their final game against Japan which “drew the highest metered market rating ever for a soccer game in the U.S. airing on a single network, with a total audience of 20.3 million viewers” (ESPNW). Despite the massive improvement these women are making within their sport, it still, apparently, isn’t enough for the men in power.  

The study that was done as described in the ESPNW article states that, “network affiliates in Los Angeles and ESPN’s SportCenter, a mere 2-3 percent of media coverage was afforded to women’s sports in 2014” (ESPNW). Personally, the surprising part is this article was published on ESPNW’s website, which is affiliated with ESPN. It’s like the strong feminist sister who is fighting to be heard by her male patriarchal brother who refuses to listen to her. Soccer is still the main focus, but to simply give another example of a women’s sport “the women’s College World Series averaged almost 440,000 more viewers than the men’s College World Series; both events aired on ESPN on the same days of the week, three weeks apart. (ESPNW). Although the men’s World Series has been around for about 35 years longer than women’s, it still doesn’t suffice that women receive less media attention compared to men. Furthermore, “when viewers are given an opportunity to actually see women’s sports, the respond with a rather amazing – yet too often ignored – interest, which could be capitalized upon even further through sponsorships, advertising revenue and improved media coverage” (ESPNW). This is the problem; the fact that this gender gap could be narrowed down, and even closed, if women were respected for what they do both on and off the competitive playing field.

Lifetime and NWSL

Another problem that arises due to lack of women’s media coverage is the failed professional leagues here in the US, specifically the soccer leagues that consisted of WUSA and Women’s Professional Soccer, also known as WPS. The recent league that still continues to live on is the National Women’s Soccer League or the NWSL for short. Yet, this league receives “financial support from U.S. Soccer, and the Canadian and Mexican soccer federations” (ESPNW). This begs the question, as asked by Washington Post reporter Liz Clarke, “will ‘a women’s pro sports league ever stand on its own?’” (ESPNW). The men’s league, the MLS, currently has been around for 20 years and holds 20 official sponsors whereas the NWSL “has just three sponsors and no national TV contract” and in 2015 and 2016, their games were only scheduled to be broadcast on YouTube. However, that is all about to change.

On February 2, 2017, the NWSL began a historic 3 year contract with A + E Networks who “will become an official sponsor and broadcast partner of the league in a three-year deal, beginning in April” (NWSL). Lifetime is a network that is most known for its scripted series, non-fiction series and movies. Since they’ve launched their Braod Focus initative in 2015, Lifetime has become “a curator of feminist content and conversations, as well as a place where women connect, learn and are entertained” (NWSL). Lifetime has never aired sports of any kind and to cover women’s soccer, is the beginning of something incredible for both A + E Networks as well as the NWSL. This is a massive move for the league and is said to act as the “media and commercial arm of the league, overseeing global broadcast and sponsorship rights” (NWSL). Be on the lookout for the NWSL this upcoming 2017 season and be sure to tune in every Saturday at 4 p.m. ET.

Women in sports, especially women’s soccer, have been making drastic improvement, yet it still seems to not be enough for the male dominance within the sports industry. It seems as if, “for generations, definitions (and practices) of masculinity were equated with what it meant to be an athlete. And as every tomboy knows, any female who participated in sports, especially at elite levels in team sports, risked being stigmatized as not a ‘real’ female” (ESPNW). Since this idea of a female athlete has been surrounded by this masculine interpretation, the ideology of a true female in sport, has built this misconception that continues to live on among female sports today. This negative framework is one of the reasons women in sports receive little to no support from their potential media supporters such as ESPN. If these women continue to be misportrayed through media as well as the male patriarchy, then improvement will not be possible for positive change. Bell Hooks mentions in her book entitled Feminism is for Everybody, “the aspect of feminist emphasis on work which did affect all women was the demand for equal pay for equal work. Women gained more rights in relation to salaries and positions as a result of feminist protest but it has not completely eliminated gender discrimination” (Hooks, 2000, pg. 49). Female athletes such as Ali Krieger, Becky Sauerbrunn, Carli Lloyd, and Hope Solo have stood up and spoken publicly about the gender pay gap between the US Men’s National team in comparison to their WNT which is massive. Hooks states that women such as those stated above continue to make the move in the feminist movement within the sports industry yet, the discrimination between genders continues to show prevalence. Hooks takes on the approach that feminism is not just for females, but is just as important to men as it is for women. In other words, these men need to realize that they are not being targeted as the enemy, instead, they are also involved in the movement and must strive to reduce the male patriarchy in hopes that someday it will be obliterated.  

It’s clear that women in sports have been striving to make improvements within their male dominant industry through the feminist movement by speaking up about the media coverage gap as portrayed through ESPN and the historic partnership with A + E Network. Theoretical frameworks as brought on by Michael Messner, and Bell Hooks through feminism are what will make the positive impact these female soccer figures, along with other women in the sports industry, are searching for. To apply this academic language through present day media channels will place emphasis on the solution to these problems such as eliminating the male patriarchy and male dominant ideology around the sports industry. This will give more attention to the female athletic voice and place them on a higher platform to finally make the change and raise media coverage among all women in sports. In order to do so, we must be open to discussing the situations with others, although we’ve been taught to keep opinions to ourselves. Now is the time for that discussion. So let’s get started.

Reference

Hooks, Bell. (2000). Feminism is for Everybody: Passionate Politics. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

Messner, Michael. (2002). Taking the Field: Women, Men, and Sports Sport and Culture Series. Volume 4. Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press.

NWSL. (2017 Feb. 2). NWSL and A + E Networks Announce Historic Partnership. Retrieved from nwslsoccer.com

Tucker Center for Research on Girls & Women in Sport Scholars. (2015 Jul 7). Even in the wake of a record-setting women’s world cup, myths still surround women’s sports. Retrieved from ESPNW.com