via

I’m a little in awe of the fact that Teresa Guidice from Real Housewives New Jersey filed for bankruptcy. Citing something close to $16,500 in money coming in & close to $16,500 going out.  Hey, I am not here to cast stones, given I am living with massive student loans over my own head. And MY decisions aren’t being picked apart so I am NOT going to pick apart hers or her families.  I like her.  BUT  I am wondering how the heck Bravo TV gets away with paying about $3,333 a month to these women?

While the Real Housewives franchise might not be everyone’s cup of tea, although it is one the favorites of Ree Drummond, you know The Pioneer Woman? And she has cows, cows are wholesome so she’s like warm apple pie & that means Real Housewives is totally wholesome (wait was that whole thing too much?).  Anyway, I am shocked at how little these ladies are making. They bring ad dollars & viewers who know they shouldn’t be watching.

Viewers whose Hubbies tell them how their brains are rotting by watching it. Viewers who swear it’s sociological research to watch, you know pop culture & subcultures all rolled into one. You know, viewers like me.

I mean Teresa is the Housewife whose table flip was heard around the world! That should count for something.  Oh & perhaps there could be some discussion of living within your means & how this whole thing is indicative of the gimme culture we live in, but that’s too real for me, I’d rather pretend it’s all mansions & fast cash sitting here in my bungalow, with four kids & working to pay debt off every month whether I like it or not.

Tweet This Post

Doug Savage of Savage Chickens (one of the funniest cartoons EVER. AND. I. MEAN. EVER!!!!) created this video for Laura Veirs for “July Flame”, the title track from her new album. I’m loving it. It’s different than the Savage Chickens but the art is wonderful & the song is addictive. The kids keep asking again, again, again. So again, again, again we go!

Tweet This Post

I love Conan O’Brien. I’m not going to lie about it or hide it. We are massive Conan fans here at casa de confusion. We are not anti-Leno by any stretch, trust me Hubby is one of the few people who actually watch Leno at 10 p.m. However, I think NBC has managed to insult both Conan and Leno not to mention the viewers at home with its inability to manage the late-night line-up & screw this up BIG TIME. Now NBC wants to push Conan back & let Jay Leno start an hour later (no longer at 10pm).

Wonder if NBC is hoping Conan would just go up in flames & disappear into thin air? Or if Conan isn’t wondering if NBC thinks this way?

Tweet This Post

Is this the safe way to carve pumpkins into Jack-O-Lanterns?  Because it definitely caused me to have a scare.  I mean she could cut herself! Or fall off the stool onto her carving utensil.  I’ve read about stranger things happening.

Hope your Halloween is Boo-Tacular!!

Tweet This Post

Ok, if you have not seen this you have to.

The model is Model Filippa Hamilton and she was photoshopped in the above ad to look thinner. Even though she’s already 5’10” and 120 pounds.

Also, Hamilton said on the Today Show she was fired because she “couldn’t fit in their clothes anymore.” Although she’s been the SAME size since she started with Ralph Lauren 8 years ago! She’s not fat by anyone’s standards, except maybe Ralph Lauren’s. She came out about why she was fired after the photoshopped ad surfaced.

This ad is an insult to her & to women across the board, because it perpetuates a totally unrealistic body image expectation one that is PURE FANTASY! Since it’s FAKE! I’m thinking Lauren could take a few hints from Glamour & maybe a few tips on how to photoshop without making women look like they are LOLLIPOPS!!

Here she is another ad looking more human & certainly not fat.

If she couldn’t fit into their sample sizes, then that’s a scarey thought. One that is highly unhealthy, since there is a really small percentage of the female population that is naturally that thin (note NATURALLY). For most women getting extremely thin puts their health at risk. Most women are not naturally able to be extremely thin & by most standards Hamilton is really thin.

Here’s her interview on the Today Show:

My dander is officially up over this silliness.

Tweet This Post

I don’t know how anyone could think a 6 year old should go to reform school for carrying a camping tool to school, but that’s what the rules say for this Zachary Christie in Delaware.  I’m thinking this is OVERKILL & that this boy (along with fellow students) could be harmed MORE from suspending him for 45 days & stating he should attend a reform school.  Reforming him for what?  Being 6.  He was trying to eat lunch with the camping utensil that his parents got him because he is excited to be a Cub Scout. His mother did not know he had taken it with him.

Should he have brought the tool to school? Probably not.  However, I believe this is an example of a rule that had unintended consequences to it that were not foreseen when it was put into place. The rule is to protect kids from dangers, weapons & students who may hurt others. On the surface it is a VERY good thing, no one wants to overlook real dangers.  But because the rule is blanket & does not take into account the different cases that can occur it puts ALL kids into a threat zone if they are seen to violate the policy.  Even if they were never intending to be violent or had what most reasonable people would consider a weapon.  I don’t consider this an intended weapon, it’s not a hunting knife or a gun. I think it’s reasonable to see this simply as an eating utensil, not a weapon.

In this case the child is 6 & was just excited to eat lunch with his camping tool that he also used as a Cub Scout. He took it everywhere him, no one considered it a weapon, & he was innocent in his intention. I believe there needs to be understanding in what should constitute a real threat under zero tolerance policies.  By putting non-threats into the same category as real & serious threats children are being given the message that excitement over camping is the equivalent of plotting murder.  That probably seems silly to us adults, but remember these are really young kids who are still trying to make sense of the world around them. It’s a confusing message sociologically & psychologically.

And the consequences that this boy could have as a result of going through this process are life changing. He has been removed from school, his friends during the day, & labeled a “threat.” His mother has even started a website to help him: Helpzachary.com

Here’s a story from the Today Show about this case:

Is it just me or is this an extreme punishment for him? I cannot imagine how my own 6 year old would feel if this happened to him.

Tweet This Post

Photo from ESPN cover for Body Issue

I know that I’ve featured several Glamour Magazine photos of nudes. This isn’t Glamour. It’s one of the covers for ESPN’s Body Issue hitting stands this Friday (October 9th). And since I noticed the moves by Glamour I wanted to show what ESPN was doing. Even if it’s like ENOUGH WITH THE NUDES ALREADY!!  It’s not me, it’s the media.  They are nudie obsessed.

I do think this cover is a great step. Showing more diverse bodies, in all forms. In fact, all the covers together show a wide variety of bodies albeit highly athletic. I’m not athletic. I like to watch sports not do them. However, I appreciate ESPN’s move toward including diverse bodies. Because really bodies come in all forms.

The woman featured is Sarah Reinersten. Sarah’s the first female leg amputee to complete the Ironman Triathlon World Championship in Kona, Hawaii. She’s also taking a big leap for body image across media with her cover.

It’s not often we see the beauty of a woman’s body or man’s body (for that matter) after amputation.

What do you all think? Will it get people to stop and think about how diverse bodies can be?

Tweet This Post

Photo by Matthias Vriens-McGrath in November 2009 issue of Glamour

Glamour magazine in its November 2009 edition, on stands now, has decided to feature a spread of “plus sized” models. I put quotations around plus sized because in the modeling & fashion world that is really anything about a size 6. Talk about unrealistic standards & for a magazine like Glamour we aren’t talking modeling high couture fashion that is directed toward a more high art sense of fashion this fashion to actually wear. It’s marketed toward the “average” person but still the standards that have been part of the industry are anything but average.

The feature of these women in Glamour was sparked by Lizzi Miller’s picture on page 194 in the September issue. When I wrote it about that  I was hoping it would translate into something real and sustainable in the marketing & selling of beauty.  I don’t fault naturally thin women for being featured in media.  I believe those bodies are equally beautiful when they are natural & I don’t want thin women to go anywhere (love your thin self!).

However, there are a lot of women in all forms of media & fashion who have to actively control everything they eat, hide food, or deny themselves food in order to meet unrealistic expectations.  Women in everyday life do the same thing, that is not healthy or beautiful.  It can even be an extremely serious disorder. I believe unrealistic pressures & expectations of women having to meet a rigid body image & beauty featured in media (one that is constructed through photoshop, mind you) doesn’t help anyone.  Media helps to reflect and shape cultural attitudes, it’s a major social institution.  We can’t deny the power it can have in the discourse on body image.

Therefore, I am happy to see this feature. I believe that the feature spread of models who are not the “fashion world norm” is a step, but it’s a long way from seeing body diversity in media.  I mean all out body diversity, not just some able-bodied size 10–14 women who looked like Glamazons. Instead, featuring the wide range of beauty and bodies that exist in the world could really open up how we construct beauty ideals in the 21st century.

I don’t think a feature like Glamour has done will do this automatically.  I’m not naive & know that money will ultimately do the talking. If people buy it, more diverse images will be shown.  But still it’s a step, a step toward seeing a reflection of the reality that beauty comes in a lot of different bodies.  And maybe, just maybe, the world won’t come to a screeching halt if people see that reality of diverse body beauty in the magazines, commercials, shows, and other media outlets they interact with.

What do you think about it? Will you buy the magazine?

Tweet This Post

I have been reading a lot about the recent naming of Diane Sawyer as Charlie Gibson’s replacement on the evening news for ABC.   I noticed that ABC News declared that the glass ceiling has given away because now both she and Katie Couric (CBS) are anchors.  Forgive me if I am skeptical of that claim.  Given it is being offered by the same network agency that Sawyer works for and there is evidence to the contrary present.

The glass ceiling is an invisible barrier preventing women from rising to positions of power within corporations, a metaphor for what women our culture face.   Coupled with the glass ceiling is that when women have risen to commanding positions their ability is degraded, without this the ceiling isn’t able to continue.It’s not the quality of their work that has moved them up the ladder but some quality about their femininity that has.

Similarly women who do not earn paid income are demeaned for their unpaid carework, mothering is not a valued aspect of society. As if contributing to society through carework, like raising children or volunteering to care for others, is unimportant to a vital society.  Although I must note that jobs that are paid but are carework jobs are also devalued, even though they also give an immense amount of value back to society.

One piece in particular stuck out to me in this discussion on the glass ceiling and Sawyer entering the fray of the evening anchor’s chair. With recent piece in The New York Times, the Critic’s Notebook:The Rise of the Female Anchor by Alessandra Stanley, it appears the glass ceiling is still alive and well.  While one can understand that Stanley was attempting to point out that there was a standard that women must adhere to that is negative & she did in a roundabout manner state that there was still a glass ceiling.  The reality is that having two female anchors isn’t as powerful as it would have been 10 years ago before cable news and the online world of social media moved into the Network’s Big 3 territory.

However, Stanley also helped perpetuate the standard of women as unprofessional in their own right in her column.  Stanley essentially is adding to the glass ceiling for her fellow female journalists and reporters, adding to the institutional discrimination women face. Her reference to the presence of two evening news anchors that are women as a “catfight” and offering them as a “Betty and Veronica” is setting the stage to demean both women.   Remember, Stanley’s work is not offered as satirical but as a supposed critical assessment of the media. If this piece had been satire one might have been able to play off the cultural insults women face, the stereotype that women who compete with each other are going to gouge each other’s eyes out.

Additionally, referring to Diane Sawyer as “coy” and stating Ms. Sawyer was “geisha like” in her acceptance, paints her as a submissive woman.  It does not give her the equal respect she deserves to her male peers (or female peers for that matter).  When her work over the years does indicate she is more than qualified to be an anchor and I’m not sure what would have sufficed as an acceptance.  Should she have shouted out “F-ck Yea! You bet your ass I’m an evening anchor.  Suck it Williams.”? While that would have been fun to watch, I doubt it would have kept her in the seat and having watched the clip I’m not certain what was geisha about it. Thanking a coworker does not equal geisha. And  I’m wondering how her response was really any different than Gibson’s (whom she is replacing) response when he took the seat?  I don’t remember him being boisterous but very considerate in his acceptance (similar to Sawyer), although I’m not sure anyone would call a man a “geisha” or say he was “coy” in how he waited to receive the position.

Sawyer is also critiqued for not being maternal.  Stanley states:

Ms. Sawyer is not likely to have difficulty adopting a more neutral, impassive persona for the new job. She is at her best, and most natural, when avoiding human emotion.

Inferring that Sawyer is suited for this position because she is masculine in her emotion and referring to the incidents with Elian Gonzales & the Dixie Chicks invoke the image of a woman who lacks the ability to be warm or innately motherly.   While stating her lack of emotive conveyance is a positive to command the anchor chair, Sawyer’s drawn into the maternal role and apparently shown to lack this quality.  Assuming that men do not have emotion is sexist, assuming that women should be a particular kind of maternal is equally sexist.  Caregiving qualities exist in both men and women, and there is no set way a woman should be when dealing with a child or “scolding” someone (I’d call it disagreeing, but obviously women can’t disagree we “scold”).

Stanley’s stereotypes assert Sawyer is better suited for the male oriented news anchor position; while someone like Couric (according to Stanley) is better suited for morning shows.  It would appear in the charged stereotypes being offered that Couric’s peppy quality is better suited for the mothers at home watching these shows.  And everyone knows mothers don’t have brains to think about worldly things.  Leave those heavy hitting topics to the non-emotive menfolk, while we little ladies get our “slap happy morning television” while tending to the children.   Sawyer is not maternal and therefore has a brain suited for the genre of hard hitting news.

Then again, given that Stanley was taken to task for an error riddled piece, published in June 2009, on the late Walter Cronkite by Katie Couric perhaps she could use some of that “slap happy” attitude of morning TV to correctly edit her own work.  The errors in that particular piece round out a series of poorly researched and written pieces that have been published in The New York Times by Stanley.  Stanley could take a page from both Couric and Sawyer in the department of accuracy.

It’s frustrating to work extremely hard only to be reduced to a woman in a “catfight” or a “geisha”. Your work as a professional is taken out of the equation and becomes secondary if not completely removed from the picture.  Stanley as a professional reinforces this with her piece on Sawyer.   When Sawyer, Couric, or any other female deserves to be evaluated on the professional work she has completed.  Not on outdated stereotypes and not at the expense of taking a sideswipe at mothers, as implied in her critique of morning TV and that Sawyer is better suited for hardhitting news because she does not appear to possess maternal qualities. It would be nice if Stanley would realize that and begin to strip away her own handiwork in perpetuating the glass ceiling for women by reducing women to mere stereotypes, which in turn do nothing to help her as a woman in the profession of journalism, reporting, or the media.

Tweet This Post

Reading:

Kelis’ Milkshake is Worth $40,000 a Month.  I hope Nas at least got fries with that.  I’m also thinking I’m so in the wrong business.  Mind you I have no musical talent (or the ability to fake it), but man this is some major bank.

Listening:

The theme song from Diego. Then I realized I was singing said theme song, it was not on. It was just me singing & there may have hands in the air. Read above to realize I have no musical talent, this extends to being able to sing in any recognizable key. By the way, it’s a kid’s show. I was singing the theme song for a kid’s cartoon show on my own. No wonder my kids were laughing at me.

Watching:

The Next Food Network Star.  It’s one of those shows I don’t want to watch, like the endless Food Network Challenges, but find myself now anxiously awaiting the big announcement on who the winner is.  I just hope it’s not Debbie, I don’t like how she tried to mislead (lie) about her mistakes (blatant disregard for rules). Honesty is always the better policy or at least learn to do a better job at lying, who does she think she is? Mark Sanford?

Tweet This Post