Women's Views on News |
- WVoN: taking a well-earned break
- Conveying a Soul: The Greatness of Meryl Streep
- Selfie doubts
- Mothers and innovation: worthy of investment
- What can we change on 22 May?
- Marching for the NHS
| WVoN: taking a well-earned break Posted: 16 May 2014 11:06 AM PDT
We will be back on Monday 2nd June.  |
| Conveying a Soul: The Greatness of Meryl Streep Posted: 16 May 2014 10:06 AM PDT
Our regular cross-post from Bitchflicks Author: Cynthia Arrieu-King If you Google "greatest living actor," the first hit is not only Meryl Streep, but also lists with headings like "besides Meryl Streep" and "after Meryl Streep." There are video montages, plural, of people freaking out about how much they love her or respect her work. Her work in the mid-70s to early 80s came across the cultural wires as something freakish: the mercurially reproduced accents, the ethereality and seamlessness and virtuosity. There's not really any way around the boring facts of talent and hard work here. She has always known her lines. She has always been the one who bikes home from the set in the rain instead of taking a cab. She works with the coach until she's not just speaking Polish, but Polish with a German accent (Sophie's Choice). She hides in the closet to practice her singing for Mamma Mia! while her family yells, "We can still hear you." She presents a moonskinned serenity and hearty laughter in her interviews that belies the hours and hours of monomaniacal obsession that is artistry that has no reason to prove it deserves to be here. It just is here. It is incontrovertible. That probably comes from a good family, a very good education, insane work ethic, shockingly keen intuition, intelligence, and a good ear. So many actresses show in their performances why it's hard to be a woman, and the worth of that feels political and rooted in everyday life. Streep knew she could get away with more without putting forth a persona like Jane Fonda. In Streep's work she never seems to be like any particular person, but convinces the viewer of how human that character is. It is easier to see, especially in her earlier work, the places where people exist in themselves purely and react purely rather than emphasizing gestures. They seem like the essence of a person rather than a person, which sounds like a problem in a way. But this subtle light show makes some sense given what she once told James Lipton. She explained on Inside the Actor's Studio that she once thought acting was a stupid way to make a living; it doesn't do anything in the world but now she sees "its worth is in listening to people who maybe don't even exist or who are voices in your past…come through you through your work and you give them to other people. Giving character to characters who have no other voice, that's the great work of what we do…I mean so much of this is vanity (being a celebrity)…But the real thing that makes me feel so good is when I know I've said something for a soul…I've presented a soul." Streep has an ability to embody in an otherworldly fashion so often in historical context. Shirley MacClaine in an American Film Institute tribute to Streep once said, "The mystery of your talent is so otherworldly, it makes me understand that there is more to all of us than meets the eye." So what is she doing? What is she imagining in Sophie's Choice when she tries to tell the truth of her past after "all the lies" she has told? The containment of her pain and love, the softness of her face recalling, weakness, puniness, rage, the effortless clarity of a traumatic recollection: these all move together in her face such that all seem to present themselves, all the layers are visible somehow. A different actor might show determination, grit, resolve, terror. Streep knows memory doesn't quite settle into its original feelings at all. So even while recounting her character's efforts in the Holocaust, you see something that feels from another time, paradoxically immensely present. There's another movie in her oeuvre, Plenty, that shows Streep transcending the class and propriety by being able to do almost literary interior monologue as monologue. It doesn't even come across as something Shakespearean or professed the way Elizabeth Taylor might have done it, or balky the way Hepburn might have, it's just spilling out. It's not entertaining in any popcorn movie sense or even particularly sanguine. This movie trots out in Streep's Susan Trahane the most subtle selfishness, ambivalence, detachment. The narrative elides plot to a large degree, so that you feel you're missing something on first viewing. People slavishly watch this movie over and over. Susan is contaminated with something so guarded behind rage you do have to see it a few times to understand what her character means, and it's the kind of vice that makes you feel bad for her. You actually feel bad for her having this rage. This performance reminds the viewer of the difficulty of true self-awareness, deceit, or self-deceit. The closest thing I've understood to this in art are the characters in Alice Munro's short stories who often seem fairly normal and well-adjusted until you start seeing what price they are paying for some subtle flaw escaping their own attention. This is the small heroism for all of us: to know ourselves, to know what we cannot bear and to say something about it. From the feminist angle, Streep's mold-breaking of the representation of women and her mark on scripts probably adds to her greatness in a way we can never completely measure because we can't track it. One particular example worth mentioning is that the script for Kramer vs. Kramer did not originally explain why Joanna Kramer wants to leave Ted (Dustin Hoffman) and she fought the director Robert Benton on the script until the character is allowed to say why herself. The effect turned Joanna from a villain of misunderstood women's liberation–as the script was written–into a person I think it would be hard for any woman living in/having lived in a male-bread-winning-female-stay-at-home family not to witness without blazing recognition. This is a fierce resolution about the representation of women that has spanned her career and for which Streep has more recently got into some hot water over with the Disney people. Many of her lines in Kramer vs. Kramer were written by her, particularly the courtroom scene, and the final scene where she changes her mind about custody of her son. It's not uncommon to hear in interviews how she spoke her mind about some scene change or tried to hold back from speaking her mind "for a change." One can look back on this era of Streep's work and see that she did not pick the Jane Fonda roles, or the roles of abrasive people on the outside of establishment. She seemed to pick roles or be given roles of a woman always struggling against the constraints of her place, but within something: a marriage, a company, an historical moment. She said on being cast in The Deer Hunter: "They needed a girlfriend, so that was me." And so she took roles, got acclaim, was always thought to be overpaid when the male actors were getting far more than she. Then something happened when she turned 40. She did not get the same kind of roles. She noticed. She wanted to be in something funny, so eventually she was cast in several comedies, sometimes as a witch, always sending up the Hollywood machine as in Death Becomes Her. She didn't care if she was not the pretty one. She didn't think that was what she had been getting cast for anyway, in the pre-40 days. Having said that, what has happened since that turning point that makes Streep the go-to actress everyone wants for any role for a woman over 60? As Tina Fey quipped at the 2014 Golden Globes, "Streep proves there are still roles for Meryl Streeps over 60." Tracey Ullman said it so we understand the score even more: "You're (Meryl's) the only one working: The rest of us have to show our tits." She's taking all the roles: Margaret Thatcher, Julia Child, a composite of Anna Wintour. This is after a career that started with her domination at Yale, her acceptance then moving into funnier parts. She decided, at some point, "(I)t's easier to project yourself into what you were, not what you are. Movies are a young person's playground." And a little more tellingly: "As there begins to be less time ahead of you, you want to be exactly who you are, without making it easier for everyone else." Ergo, dominating her field. Ergo, not questioning where her territory begins and ends. As Goldie Hawn says, "Meryl is a freak. She has no limitations. Well, she's a martian." That must be her unsaid lesson to us on greatness. You can't really learn it, and you never let opportunity get past you. Part of me wonders what would happen if she did some little off-the-map film or what it would mean for her to have a late breaking McConnaissance (with less crazy self-regard). Maybe more of a ReConnaissance, a re-knowing? Would that amount to "making it easier for everyone else"? She has nothing to prove, and part of her potency as an artist comes from the fact that she never gave off one vibration of having to prove herself, actor-wise. But something might replenish what have become somewhat recognizable mannerisms in her impersonation-like roles these last years: The head wag of delight. More importantly what are we losing in our depictions of people getting older by having, seemingly, the mythos that only she and three other people play these parts? Something about class probably, race, and ethnicity definitely. Having gotten momentum in the last few years to gravitate toward fun (Mamma Mia!) and over the top (August: Osage County), she's thinking nevertheless about history, history as made by women (The Iron Lady). She's literally supporting the museum of women's history. Her artistic wishes seem to revolve around wanting women's history to prevail. For the roles to become more numerous. For film to show the lives of women in proportion to their importance in the real world, as she's always worked for. Bit by bit, how can it happen? And today, do actresses need to thank her for her breaking the glass ceiling in acting as much as they did in the last decades? Probably not. Maybe we'll get to a moment when actresses will have the luxury of not having to recall that ceiling. Hopefully long before we forget about Streep. Streep's daughter once said of her role as Miranda Priestly in The Devil Wears Prada: "Now they know the real you." But whatever monomaniacal and feminist politics she's wielding, Streep's still conveying the soul. At a tribute to her acting she said, "I wish I were her, I really do," and this remark on her celebrity doubles as a remark on the people she's portrayed. She's given us this love through 35 years of work to date, and she's going to keep pushing for the unheard to be heard. In this scene from Silkwood, she gives a look. Friendship, pity, love, helplessness, resolve, seeing the mortal body, a whole idea supported by the shot of the wig and the glasses. It's a good microcosm of what Streep does–the listening to a spirit, and making sure to truly witness and to speak up for that person's essence. ____________ Cynthia Arrieu-King is an associate professor of creative writing at Stockton College in New Jersey where she teaches about literature and plagiarism, so beware lazy magazine sites. Her previous Bitch Flicks articles include one on True Grit and one with Stephanie Cawley on Twin Peaks. cynthiaarrieuking.blogspot.com.  |
| Posted: 16 May 2014 08:46 AM PDT
It is has recently been reported that more young people than ever are having cosmetic surgery. TheBritish Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (BAAPS) said its surgeons carried out 50,122 cosmetic procedures during 2013, an 18 per cent increase on 2012. There is, apparently, no breakdown of ages, however the president elect, Michael Cadier, said they are seeing more and more young people. Many of the young people interviewed by BBC Radio 1 recently were young women and the main cosmetic surgery involved was no surprise, breast enlargement. This came with quotes from parents about how happy they were with their daughters 'new-found confidence' and also quotes from girls who blamed their small breasts for their lack of confidence. From the age of eleven. Blaming the media for this isn't new, however it is impossible to ignore the profound negative stereotyping, predominantly of women, that still is seen everywhere we look, particularly in newspapers and magazines. No More Page3 are making fantastic waves and I believe we will eventually see the end of mostly naked women appearing in a daily newspaper, but the subtle and also not so subtle advertising and articles are a long way from being banned or even watered down. Some magazines are making small steps, for example by promising not to air brush photos that they take while continuing to publish airbrushed and photo-shopped elongated and pinched in at the waist celebrities. They also take great pleasure in zooming in on any perceived imperfect glitch that they can explore with their cameras. Are the glossy magazines blamed unnecessarily? Are we being unfair? To test this theory I took to digging out a magazine at work and randomly selecting five articles by literally opening a page and pointing at it with my eyes shut (I promise!). Here we go. Finger at the ready. 1. Miley's Image U-turn. The magazine reports on a picture of Miley Cyrus with 'normal hair' that turned out to be a wig. In the photograph Miley has shaken off her pop star look and appeared with an innocent demure pose . The article goes on to say that upon seeing this new look the staff had breathed 'a sigh of relief as Miley looked more like her ‘old self again', because they thought she was going to be 'calming down'. The article then berated the star for later attending a party wearing an outfit with a diamante nipple sticker covering one breast. Yet they printed the picture. 2. Would you dare to go barefaced? The article cites a charitable event and celebrities who have decided not to wear make up for one day. The photographs look alarmingly touched up. Either that, or all six celebrities featured have skin without a flaw or wrinkle. The article goes on to describe the celebrities as 'brave and beautiful' and how to many women the thought going out without make-up 'filled us with dread'. 3. Would you have an eyebrow transplant? This article debates eyebrow transplant surgery, and to be fair it does have a yes and no argument. The yes has Kate Middleton as being at fault, because 'the beauty sported a statement brow while trotting down the aisle'. The no argues why would anyone want to make them bigger as she had been 'keeping her brows beautifully groomed since she was 14'. 4. Is Katie morphing into Taylor? In this article, which suggests Katie Perry is copying Taylor Swift, both women are compared. Taylor is described as having 'girl next door looks and bouncing blonde curls' while Katie is described as 'cartoonish looking with piercing blue eyes'. The article provides photographs of both women slightly open mouthed, barely dressed, staring at the camera intently. 5. Nicole’s sexy look. The article comments on Nicole Scherzinger’s style and 'how to get her look'. The advice is to 'think skin-tight leather and dresses slashed to the thigh'. They go on to say how she is willing to take risks. The photographs of Nicole include one of her in a long black dress with the quoted slash to the thigh and a leather basque short mini dress . The article ends by describing her style as being 'no-fuss glamour'. So that was five. Five random articles. Aand although I thought this article might be easy to write, I didn't think it would be that easy. It is not new, I know, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored. The immense pressure from only five random articles in one magazine that pressurises women to look good, to live up to their heroines, to consider surgery, to dare not to wear make up and be scolded for not living up to the girl-next-door image is obviously going to have an adverse effect. Young girls of nine complain of being fat, and girls of eleven have low self esteem because their breasts aren't big enough. The glossy media needs to start taking proper responsibility for their insidious debilitating articles which make many women insecure and struggle to attain an image that doesn't exist, unless they go under the knife.  |
| Mothers and innovation: worthy of investment Posted: 16 May 2014 06:49 AM PDT
Mothers of Innovation is a UK group exploring why it pays to invest in mothers as innovators and how mothers innovate in different and distinctive ways. Innovators is not the first word that springs to mind when we think of mothers. After all, women with children are often only ever referred to as mothers. It's a big job, I'll grant you that, and a very important one. But there is more to women than bearing children and then being simply labelled as a 'mother'. As entrepreneurs, activists and consumers, mothers are innovating in the UK and all over the world. Mothers are changing health care and education systems; care; finance; housing; enterprise; technology; and the very ways in which we work and relate to the economy. I have two young children. When you first hear that wonderful news that you are to give birth to a new life, you can't wait to be called 'mummy'. It's a magical word and for many women, you want that label to belong to you more than anything. But then shortly after the birth, the hazy cloud forms and the confusion over your identity starts. Are you the thirty-something independent woman? Are you the inspirational teacher (or whatever occupation you're now on maternity leave from)? Are you the caring daughter? Or are you new mum to baby number one with baby number two no doubt shortly to follow, once you've recovered from the sleepless nights and managed to regain some semblance of routine and normality again? In reality, you are of course all of those things. But your identity becomes jaded and society sees only the woman who juggles nappy changing with breastfeeding, school runs with grocery shopping, laundry with dinner-making. But women are incredible. Our bodies did after all nurture a foetus for nine months, but we have brains too and let's not forget that. Mothers can be great innovators. We have the power to change the world. Being a mother means we have the ability to see things from a unique perspective. We have unique skills. We can do anything we put our mind to. Take these women for instance: Ayla Goksel, the founder of the Mother Child Education Project (Mocep) in Turkey which has transformed life chances for children living in poverty by mobilising mothers as first educators. Karyn McCluskey, who has reduced gang violence in Glasgow, largely by getting mothers involved. Julia Lalla-Maharajh, founder and CEO of The Orchid Project, working to eliminate female genital cutting. Caroline Tomlinson, who pioneered personal budgets, allowing disabled people and their families to take control of their lives. These women have done amazing and inspirational things. Innovators, each of them. And these are just some of the women who will be speaking at the Mothers of Innovation conference on 19 June in London. The conference will explore and celebrate the power of mothers to change the world. As mothers, we are changing education, health, business and work. We are changing the future for our children. We are worthy of investment. We’re not just mothers. The conference will launch ground-breaking research looking at why it pays to invest in mothers as innovators and how mothers innovate in different and distinctive ways. Geraldine Bedell, co-founder and CEO of the Family Innovation Zone has written the Mothers of Innovation research. She said: ‘Our research – out next month – shows that mothers are a powerful force for change all over the world. ‘When we think about innovation, we tend not to think about mothers; we're much more likely to think about boys in hoodies on Silicon roundabout doing something with tech. ‘We may well think of mothers as safe, nurturing, dull. But many of the skills that are needed for innovation are also the skills of motherhood. ‘Empathy, the ability to build relationships, to get knocked back but carry on…our research shows that mothers are innovating in health, education, as consumers and in our working lives. ‘Invest a pound in mothers, and it's likely to be a pound very well spent.’ Watch this space – I will be attending and can’t wait to report back. It is guaranteed to be a day of insights and inspiration.  |
| Posted: 16 May 2014 06:10 AM PDT
According to the Fawcett Society just 32 per cent of England's councillors and MEPs, only 13 per cent of elected mayors and just 12 per cent of council leaders are women. The proportion of female councillors has not increased in the last ten years. The figure for council leaders has dropped from 16 per cent in 2004. The situation is even worse in Wales, where only 27 per cent of councillors are women, and in Scotland, where women account for less than a quarter of councillors; 24 per cent. But even this is an better than women's representation in the UK Parliament, which currently stands at 22 per cent. This means the UK was ranked 65 out of 147 in a recent list of women in national parliaments compiled by the Interparliamentary Union. Only Ireland and Italy have a lower number of women in the European Parliament than Britain. On 22 May elections will take place across the UK to elect 73 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). There will also be Local Elections in 162 English local authorities including 32 London boroughs, 36 metropolitan boroughs, 74 shire districts and 20 unitary districts. Mayoral elections will take place in Hackney, Lewisham, Newham, Tower Hamlets and Watford. There are no local elections in Scotland or Wales, but, following a major reorganisation of local government, there will be elections for 11 new shadow councils in Northern Ireland on the same day. So how are women likely to fare? The Hansard Society says the number of UK female MEPs should increase after the election because women have been placed high up on the main party's lists. According to Paola Buonadonna, writing in the Feminist Times 44 per cent of Labour and of Green Party candidates in the forthcoming European elections are women, 26 per cent of the Liberal Democrats’ candidates, 22 per cent of the Conservative party’s candidates and 18 per cent of UKIPs. The European Union has been promoting equality between men and women since its inception, enshrining the goal of equal pay for men and women in the 1957 Treaty of Rome, Buonadonna, who is Media Director for the pro-EU membership campaign British Influence, pointed out. A Directive on Equal Pay, she continued, was finally passed in 1975 to be followed by dozens of other pieces of EU legislation – against discrimination at work or in accessing services, combating violence, sexual harassment and people trafficking, establishing maternity rights and parental leave. The EU funds national campaigns against gender-based violence and, in the last 7 years, has spent some €3.2 billion on Structural Funds to provide childcare and promote women's participation in the labour market in Europe's most economically depressed areas. And, she added, the EU also promotes gender equality all over the wold with its humanitarian actions and through its trade agreements. Regarding the local elections, WVoN contacted all four main political parties and none of them could tell us what proportion of their candidates in the council elections were women, so they are clearly not monitoring and tracking the numbers of women coming through at local level. This is disappointing, because, as the Fawcett Society says, local government wields a lot of power. "Not only is it [local council election] one of the key routes into Westminster, local government spending makes up a quarter of all public spending – over a £100 billion," Fawcett has pointed out. "Ongoing cuts to local government spending are having hugely disproportionate impact on women, undermining access to key services such as childcare, social care and special services for victims of violence against women. "A lack of female voices around local decision-making tables will only exacerbate this situation." Fawcett argues that most councillors do not earn enough to live on from their local authority roles, so they must also have a job, unless they are retired or independently wealthy. But council meetings take place at difficult times, making it hard for those in work or with caring responsibilities to fit them in. Fawcett believes this current system should change, and councillors should have access to more flexible working arrangements. And since the abolition of the Standards Board in 2012, councillors have no independent body to report allegations of sexism to, and so councillors are left to ‘investigate’ themselves. Fawcett is calling on the government to establish an independent body to ensure some moral code for elected officials is upheld. Fawcett is also urging its supporters to vote. To help you find out more about the elections in your locality, Fawcett has set up a link to help you find your local authority website, and see who is standing for election. Fawcett has also put together a list of #vote4equality questions which you can Tweet or email if you want to find out what each candidate, or the candidate you might choose, has to say on issues which include asking for a commitment that they will defend specialist women only services like Rape Crisis centres, and asking them to re-open Surestart Centres that have been closed in recent years.  |
| Posted: 16 May 2014 01:06 AM PDT
Following in the footsteps of the Jarrow marchers back in 1936, a group of mums are organising a people’s march for the NHS. It aims to leave Jarrow on 16 August 2014 and arrive in London – and go to the Houses of Parliament – on 6 September 2014. The march will cover approximately 300 miles, with town stops along the way. Click here to see a detailed map of the route. In just over two weeks since the launching of the People’s March over 500 registered to take part. The message from the women is a simple one; that the NHS is owned by and loved by us and every effort will be made to stop it being sold off. The idea of the people’s march is also a simple one, although the task of organising the march is colossal. This has not stopped the group from pulling out all the stops, and this summer could see one of the biggest mobilisations of people across England on behalf of the NHS. Over the course of the past year the mums, who go by the hashtag #darlomums, have already organised a couple of local rallies in Durham and in Darlington. Both rallies attracted a range of local and national, high profile speakers and supporters of the NHS. The social media savvy #darlomums are currently galvanising support for the people’s march for the NHS. Even their 999callfornhs website was fittingly launched on Mother’s Day this year by a generous tweeter. The "999 Call for the NHS" campaign has a clear objective at its heart – to keep the NHS intact and providing everyone with access to high quality healthcare which is free at the point of delivery, both now and for future generations to come. It's a simple goal – but a complex issue. The NHS is a huge, diverse organisation. It’s very size has allowed it to be dismantled subtly, in a piecemeal fashion. Joanna Adams #darlomum said, "We plan to join up with other NHS campaigning groups across the country, both virtually and physically and already we have had key NHS Campaigners such as Dr Jacky Davis, Stafford Campaigners, Lewisham Campaigners, KONP Campaigners, the NHA Party, GMB, Unite, Northern TUC, people assemblies, local NHS groups and many more pledging to support the people’s march for the NHS. "Ordinary folk just like me are wanting to join the People’s March for the NHS and that is why this project is so exciting. "At a time when armchair activism is the norm, emails are flooding in with offers to help organise, and to walk one or more of the legs of the route. "The route is split up into sections of 10-15 miles making it easy for groups to join in. "It may be #darlomums organising the People’s March for the NHS but we want everyone across our communities on board." Rehana Azam, #darlomum, said, "We kept floating the Jarrow to Parliament/London idea in the footsteps of Ellen Wilkinson and the Jarrow Crusade against unemployment in the 1930s. "Once @999callfornhs floated the idea across social media we have genuinely been taken aback with the response. "What appears impossible may just be achievable and the challenge is now to organise across the country securing support on route. "We need the public on board with the NHS, advocating for the amazing NHS workers, and how better than a people’s march for the NHS. "I lead on the GMB NHS Sector and every day I am seeing first hand the devastating effects of government policy on the NHS. "The people’s march for the NHS offers an opportunity to build, strengthen and consolidate the strong community support needed to protect our NHS. "The aim is to pull together all the NHS campaigns and campaigners and unite behind one aim, one issue, our NHS." Mel Wilson of 999CallforNHS organisers and darlomum said, "’I answered the call when learning just how much the NHS is set to change – I fail to see the positives of downgrading of services, mergers and possible hospital closures. "I am a mum of 3 and I have used the NHS often and the NHS is very precious to me and my family. "Without the NHS where would we be? "Preserving the principles the NHS was founded on is crucial if we are to retain the NHS for future generations." Linda Hughes Darlo, mum and councillor, explained, "As a parent and a daughter I want my family to continue to benefit from the NHS. "I don’t want my family’s or my local community’s future health and wellbeing left to whether or not we can afford to pay. "Health is not a commodity to be bought and sold to the highest bidder."  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Women's Views on News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |