TNA Knockout Women become Divas afterall

OK, so, we all have guilty pleasures, don't we?

This one has been one of mine for a while now. Though since the recent changes I'm starting to feel cheated.

When I started watching, there were female wrestlers such as Awesome Kong and ODB, who seemed talented, physical and SUBVERSIVE. There was an ironic group called 'The Beautiful People' who seemed to be taking a swipe at those 'other' female wrestlers, and I loved the joke.

Now though, the joke has turned reality. The 'joke' group now have mud wrestling sessions, strip poker games and (seemingly) the most airtime of any of the female wrestlers. One of them challeged a former member to a 'leather and lace' match. You can imagine what that involves, I'm sure.

The worst part, for me, however, was the 'locked box' match between 8 wrestlers a few weeks ago. The concept was 8 women wrestling for 4 mystery keys to boxes containing: an open contract for any match, a pet spider, the women's title belt, and.... a striptease.

Yes, the person getting the unlucky key would have to strip in the middle of the ring.

Surprise, surprise, the 'winner' of the striptease was the crazy gothic Daffney who didn't seem best pleased, but went on to start an ironic striptease in the ring, only to be interrupted by one of 'The Beautiful People' running on and stripping off herself. Obviously, the Beautiful Person was tall, blonde and busty.

Question: what would have been wrong with Daffney challenging the box results, beating the s**t out of everyone there, then going to smack Hulk Hogan in the head for letting such blatant sexist bulls**t invade something that was actually becoming good and progressive? No, they had to bring on a blonde bimbo character to further their sh***y quest for the penis vote.

I suppose it's too much to ask for a feminist wrestler?

But, the ratings speak for themselves: the locked box results was the most viewed part of the show. So it looks like we're in for more sell-out sexist bulls**t from TNA, all in the quest of ratings over skill.

BBC 4 Women: Activists

NOTE: For my other writing about the BBC4 Women series see:
Libbers 1
Libbers 2
Mothers

Activists
I admit, the reason I'm so disenchanted by this series is because I'm not represented.

In my quiet little corner of the internet I found blogs such as Fertile Feminism, Blue Milk, and Mothers for Women's Lib, to name a few. Oh yes, I read the big feminist websites too, but those few women who were both feminists and mothers were the ones who were really saying things that meant something to me. Alongside those blogs, I would say that my developing feminist identity has been shaped by: my university work, my interest in gender, rather than Feminism, and my role as a parent.

I give you this information because I believe it heavily contributes to my analysis. Whether it is because of these factors or not, I've found it difficult to find anything I can relate to in the 2nd and 3rd episodes of this series.

The "Libbers" episode was actually great, it spoke to me and I could relate to the women involved (I know that sounds different to my original views but upon reflection I realised it was a great contextualisation, if a little dry and limited for novice viewers). I found the "Mothers" episode weak because there ARE women out there who are not constantly reinforcing the gender binary, but the documentary didn't represent them.

Now, the Activists episode? How about a few words from the notes I made during my viewing tonight:

limited causes, narrow definition, alienation.

I'm not intending to personally attack anyone, I simply felt that the representation made by this episode painted a very specific picture of Feminism today, that isn't entirely accurate or inspiring. I felt that the women who were interviewed were poorly prepared for the questions they were given (example - the question to the woman with the nail varnish? I imagine she's kicking herself now for not having prepared a solid reply).

Aside from Reclaim the Night, the causes that were being demonstrated against also seemed poorly prepared - I agree with Germaine Greer from the Libbers Episode: march (or, in this case, demonstrate) if there are lots of you, but if there aren't, don't! It seems pointless to me to try to fight the status quo when there are only a few people protesting - it makes the protest seem powerless and irrelevant. Why not wait until the opportune moment, with a large amount of radicalised people? Then the protest may be taken seriously and a powerful statement might prompt the average passer-by to question their own thoughts.

Anyway, something that did seem powerful was the interview with the woman talking about a rape case. This involved an 18 year old girl who was gang raped, but was cautioned by the police for 'lying' about it because a few seconds of mobile phone footage showed some kind of acquiescence on her part.

That is something that most women can identify with - the fear, the weakness in face of strength and, when it comes down to it, the complete lack of choice to say 'no' that the girl in question must have felt. That is something people can get behind and get angry about, surely that is the kind of injustice that will bring people to the movement?

However, the power of that section was buried underneath the mundane preparations for putting on a conference, please, tell me, what relevance is there in making salads?

I'm also really frustrated about the interviews with the parents of these young activists, I found this to be completely undermining of the young women's politics and passions. By not commenting on it personally, Engle seems to be mocking the activists. Filming the women worrying about salad, asking their parents 'how did she get like this'? and then refraining from challenging the parents narrow views, it feels like the women are represented as little girls playing at Feminism, when this is obviously not the case - they have worked hard to do what they do, but all this is completely undermined by a number of parents in the film, and Engle's lack of comment.

For example, one lot of parents paint their daughter as an 'angry teenager' because their discussions end with 'banging doors'. This young woman is in her twenties and is passionate about helping other women, but because 'her life' is charmed, her parents think she shouldn't be worried about those causes? To me this feels individualistic and narrow.

Obviously, there are cultural/generational differences between these women and their parents, the growth of online communities makes it easy for young people to feel connected to other people in the world, and encourages individuals to care about the needs of whole groups, rather than simply caring about themselves. This is blatantly a difference between women in their 20s and their parents. But it scares me. I get so scared seeing these parents so detached from their children's feelings and politics. I never want to be like that with my daughter. It's not like that with my parents, for which I am eternally grateful.

So, overall? I felt the program lacked depth, compared to the "Libbers", these women are just starting on their feminist lives, the same as me, so, obviously, their politics is unrefined and emotional. The interviews and footage, in my mind, only serves to reinforce the weaknesses of the young movement today. I am not an activist. It is difficult to be so when you have a young child and don't live in London. Perhaps if I were in a different situation I may feel some affinity to these women, but their causes are not particularly my causes, and their way of expressing their causes is different to mine.

This is not just a personal thing, there are even two women in the documentary who say they probably wouldn't join that particular group because their personal feelings about issues are different. It is telling to hear a women say 'they wouldn't like that of me' in reference to certain views. Should Sisterhood be that selective?

Unfortunately, I couldn't identify with the women included in the documentary. Whether this is because of how I have approached feminism, because of my academic interests or simply because I'm not from London, who knows? I felt Engle let people dig themselves into holes, and didn't get them a ladder, and I would have liked to see daughters and parents engaging each other in debate, rather than interviewed separately, which mostly served to infantalise the activists (particularly the ones who were interviewed in their bedrooms, rather than the lounge, like their parents!).

I'll leave the final word to Charlotte Cooper and Jess McCabe (of the F word) who are obviously not speaking about me, but their analysis can apply to anyone who would be turned off from feminism by these programs:

" for every woman who has turned away from feminism because they feel they are not welcome, these films will simply act as another erasure of their lives, their existence and their autonomy."

BBC4 Women: upon a second watching...

NOTE: Please read my other posts about BBC4 Women:
First Thoughts on 'Libbers'
Review of 'Mothers'
Review of 'Activists'

Libbers
OK, after watching BBC4 Women - Libbers again, I have a few more opinions.

Firstly, I actually enjoyed the program, I felt an affinity for many of the Libbers and seeing their passion and pain was a good contextualisation of the Women's Movement. Whilst I agree with The F Word that the view given is very white and middle class, I think the program was limited in this way by its target audience.

Which brings me back to my original thoughts, my criticism was mostly that the program was not accessible or inclusive, but obviously we're talking about a program made for BBC4, whose viewer-ship is probably similar to that of BBC Radio 4 - middle class, middle-aged and white. If we were talking about popularising feminism it would have to be placed on a channel that was for more popular viewing! BBC 1 would obviously have a different impact, and a program made for BBC 3 (which seems to be the 'youth' and 'comedy' channel) would probably be approached in a completely different manner.

So, moving on to the program that was actually made; here's my main criticisms:

Upon questioning Marilyn French about being a housewife, the interviewer (I assume Vanessa Engle) asks:

"Did you enjoy all that drudgery?"

[insert my rage face here]


I feel Engle demonstrated in just 6 words one of the problems about the whole "feminists vs housewives" debate. Those words suggest that life as a housewife is all 'drudgery' and assumes that French agrees with that analysis. Luckily French wasn't easily led, I was most impressed by her reply:

"I didn't mind it, what I minded was being limited to it"

Which is the core of the argument really, isn't it? It's not a case of it not being fulfilling or it always being boring, it's a case of being capable of other things, if you so wish to engage in them.

French further prevents a misinterpretation of her work when discussing the reaction to her book, "The Women's Room" which unleashed a "tidal wave of female anguish."
Upon being asked "did you feel proud of that?" French replied:

"no I felt anguished"

powerful stuff, not pride in her achievements, only sadness that so many women could feel the same way.

I like that the questions from the interviewer are challenged by quite a few of the women, highlighting their strong will (or perhaps a naivety of younger women interested in the movement?)

For example, I felt that quite a lot of pushing (on the part of the interviewer) was involved in the matter of sex, orgasms and lesbianism. A number of the women didn't want to speak about it and I think it may have been disrespectful to try to make (what seemed like) a big deal about this section of the program.

Another thing that struck a strong chord with me was the section about the sit-in against the male editor of Ladies Home Journal. Some of the arguments in the film footage from the time were just as relevant today as they were then, e.g. images of women being used to encourage other women to live vicariously instead of living their own lives to the fullest. I found this a really telling and sad section, those same arguments can still be made 40 years on, but there's such a quiet minority of people making them.

Which brings me to my conclusion: the program was good, but so sad. I was interested to hear the words of UK feminists, as most of the material I've had available before has been limited to the American Movement. The way the hope and power of the movements is expressed seems so wonderful, but this is contrasted harshly with the tinge of disappointment and sadness that seems to permeate through the interviews. French in particular seemed so sad: "we thought we were changing the world...but it ended."

Yet, besides the sadness, the program was good for the audience it was trying to reach, but, in my eyes, the audience feminism NEEDS is younger women, and those who have little-to-no connection with feminism. Surely this is the main way that the movement can be re-invigorated on a grand scale?

I'm sure there's much more I could add to this review, and I do have another post lined up about Susan Brownmiller and rape, but I'll save that for another time.

And to end, here's my favourite quote (no, it's not the cat one):

"I don't know what I am"
"Do you call yourself a lesbian?"
"No, I call myself a poet"
Robin Morgan

BBC4 Women

NEW 23-3-2010
I notice this one has been read a lot, but my follow-up post hasn't, so for a more in-depth analysis see:

my follow up post: here
2nd episode review: Mothers
3rd episode review: Activists


Original Post:
I watched the first episode of the new BBC 4 series 'Women' last night, a 3-part documentary about feminism and its impact on women. When I've watched it again I'll write a little more, but first, here's just a few comments:

Was this really the best way to start a series about feminism? Fine, the ideas and people of the second wave are important for contextualising the image and concerns of feminism today, but personally, my household found it to be pretty much Vanessa Engle fawning over "feminists of old", asking them questions that either made them slightly uncomfortable, or put them on the verge of tears.

I don't have a problem with second wave feminists, and I found the program interesting, for ME. But I'm also very concerned with inclusivity, demystification and opening feminism up to women who aren't so interested in it. What's the use of a program about feminism that doesn't inspire new women to get involved? Perhaps Engle will cover this in the following episodes about mothers and activists. I think, though, that the first part of a series needs a hook, and the only people who will have been hooked by this first part will be those who would have watched it any way, who do not need convincing about feminism.

There's also a review over at The F-Word, for anyone interested.

Seems I'm not the only one...

And following from my previous rant, imagine how I felt to find this in the news yesterday.
I suppose in some ways it covers my undercurrent feelings about the whole issue of bringing up children.

I believe that all children deserve to have the love and commitment that only family can provide and that children can really achieve their full potential in that kind of environment. This is not to say that I disparage working mothers, my own mother worked full time as I was growing up, (and still does!) yet I have a close relationship with her and relate to my parents much better than many of my friends and acquaintances. However, when I was a child, neither of my grandmothers worked, and thus I always had family around to look after me. The same goes for my partner, though the child of a single working mother, he was cared for by his grandmother. But now, our parents are in their late 40s/early 50s and still working. They'll probably be working until retirement, they don't have any other option. So what can our generation do, if they have to work, but put the children in childcare?

Nevertheless, it feels terrible to me that some children are being brought up full time in nurseries, where the ratio for child to carer ranges from 3:1 for children under 2, to 8:1 for children 3 to 8. Even with all the facilities and activities they will have available, what sort of loving, nurturing environment can the children be experiencing? What terrible habits will they be learning behind the busy carer's back?! (I really don't know!)

However even with my dislike of childcare and desire to keep my daughter at home, I don't accept the stance on 'working mothers' suggested by this report, take a couple of quotes for example:

'It also suggests that having many more working mothers has contributed to the damage done to children.

"Most women now work and their new economic independence contributes to levels of family break-up which are higher in the UK than in any other Western European country."'

Firstly, what is this damage? The article directly quotes:

"Children with separate, single or step parents are 50% more likely to fail at school, have low esteem, be unpopular with other children and have behavioural difficulties, anxiety or depression,"

OK, so the original report states that broken families cause the 'damage' and that the working mother 'contributes' to the break-ups. The BBC has decided to restate this as as assumption that it is working mothers that cause damage to children, not broken families.

There is no mention of men bringing up children, it completely side steps this issue in favour of a sly attack on career women, a strategy which manages to subtly reinforce the theme in society that it is wrong for men to stay at home and wrong for women to work. Way to go with progress.

And how about this quote for some lovely 'old fashioned values:'

"Most women now work and their new economic independence contributes to levels of family break-up"

So, how exactly does female economic independence contribute to family break-ups? What is the correlation here? What about cheating partners? What about irreconcilable differences? What about 'we just don't love one another any more'? Is it the case that in the past women were trapped in the family situation because of having no money of their own? IS THIS MORE DESIRABLE?!?!

I am completely in agreement that parents should take more personal responsibility for raising children, and also agree with some of the measures suggested: free parenting classes available around the time of birth, free psychological and family support if relationships struggle and rules making it easier for parents to stay at home to rear their children. However, what I can't stand is the pervasive sexism inherent in the argument, the ideology is so entrenched that you can't even see it if you're not looking for it.