When Brian K. Vaughan’s science fiction comic epic Y: The Last Man began several years ago, Christine was right on it, praising its “mature and complex look at gender politics.”

Brought to life by Pia Guerra’s stunning artwork, Vaughan’s vision reveals the great potential of both the science fiction and comic genres. As Vaughan says, “Good sci-fi is always about our world rather than some far-flung future.” And he has created a subtle but very relevant political statement.

Well, it’s nice to know that such a vision can find a wider audience. Check out Douglas Wolk’s glowing review in Salon of the concluding volume of the series — just released in June — calling it the end of the “wittiest, most entertaining story about gender in recent memory”:

Vaughan gets a lot of mileage out of speculating about what would happen if all men really did vanish from the Earth: Vatican City, for instance, would become a mausoleum, and so would the floor of the Tokyo stock exchange, but the Israeli military would be just fine. Long-distance commerce would be a disaster for years, thanks to the highways being blocked by enormous pileups caused by half of all drivers abruptly keeling over. Australia, as one of the few countries that allowed women to serve on submarines, would rule the waves. Supermodels would be forced into new lines of work, like driving a garbage truck full of men’s corpses. (America’s next top undertaker!)

But “Y” isn’t an argument about what really would happen if the men were all transported far beyond the Northern Sea, or even a bildungsroman, as much as it is a wickedly clever satire of patriarchal culture. It’s a story about men and the chaos and ruination they’ve brought to the world, in which all the “male” roles are played by female characters. There are ferociously funny little riffs on women getting by on their looks, “man-to-man” conversations, “women and children first,” men as protectors and women as protected, women as sexual temptresses of men, men asking women to smile, “proving one’s manhood,” and practically every other kind of awful gender essentialism.

Vaughan has gone on to write for ABC’s “Lost” and even for the “Buffy, The Vampire Slayer” comic series — and there’s a “Y” movie in development. So expect to continue seeing the world through his unique lens.

Via Daily Kos, a must-watch. And just in case you have any doubts, there really is a Sen. John Cornyn from Texas and he used this video to introduce himself at the Republican state convention:

Yes, it’s just plain silly. But it’s also a hyperbolic presentation of a very real masculinity narrative that the Republicans have capitalized on in the last few election cycles.

I’ve already talked a bit about how defying this narrative might be Barack Obama’s most revolutionary act.

A vegan Gentleman’s Club is something right out of The Onion — but you can’t make the comments of Casa Diablo owner Johnny Diablo up (unlike his name):

Mr. Diablo isn?t concerned with the “feminazis,” as he calls them. As a vegan himself, he says he hasn?t worn or eaten animal products in 24 years and is worried about cruelty to animals. “My sole purpose in this universe is to save every possible creature from pain and suffering,” he said.

And I know objectification of women and commodification of a movement are important issues — and I’ve spent a great deal of space here writing about them — but I can’t help but laugh at some of these well-intentioned lines and quotes from New York Times writer Kara Jesella:

Casa Diablo is just the latest example of selling veganism with a “Girls Gone Wild” aesthetic [...]

Isa Chandra Moskowitz, a cookbook author, is among those who believe such images twist the vegan message. “As a feminist, I?m not keen on the idea of using women’s bodies to sell veganism, and I’m not into the idea of using veganism to sell women’s bodies,” she said.[...]

The issue of sexism in vegan circles is “extremely polarizing,” said Bob Torres, an author of “Vegan Freak” [...]

Vegans who use sexuality to promote the cause say it is a good way to convert carnivores — in particular, men [...]

The article actually does a very good job at getting across the diversity of the vegan community — and the difficulties of tying together progressive agendas and of resisting easy compromises to advance a cause.

But, you gotta admit, it’s a pretty silly way to spark the conversation.

Need to celebrate or drown your sorrows? Take The Wire food quiz

First, if you don’t know “Sheeeet!,” you don’t know … well, you haven’t been following the best show on television.

Whether it’s the best television show of all-time … that is a matter of fierce debate in critics’ circles. Check out this enlightening exchange between Alan Sepinwall (The Newark Star-Ledger), Andrew Johnston (Time Out New York) and Matt Zoller Seitz (The New York Times). Johnston argues for The Sopranos, Seitz for Deadwood and Sepinwall for The Wire — but they all admit The Wire holds its own.

In any case, the series finale is here — and many of us are in panic mode, wondering what the future of television might be like beyond the streets of Baltimore. Whether it’s sparking a conversation about masculinity, the media — or something inbetween — it has never failed to deliver on both a literary and a raw emotional level.

And it’s not just me talking.

The reaction to the final season, however, has been surprisingly mixed, to say the least. For a positive take on this season, see The House Next Door. For a more sober assessment, see David Zurawik of the hometown Baltimore Sun (which — and I’m not accusing Zurawik of bias here — has been mocked incessantly on the show this season) or Ross Douthat of The Atlantic. Or check out this debate between Dan Kois and Adam Sternbergh of New York magazine.

I happen to think that while the show made its various allegories a little too explicit this season, it worked as a climatic crescendo to what has been an incredibly patient and subtle show over the years. The show’s unflagging criticism of both personal and collective corruption is now blatantly obvious, I admit, and McNulty’s fake serial killer scheme does strain the very disciplined realism of the show. But it is the reactions of the media and the mayor to McNulty’s scheme that bring the show back home.

Those reactions, even though they are laughable and outrageous, feel undeniably true. That’s exactly how a modern for-profit newspaper and an idealistic but inevitably political politician would respond to the sensationalist opportunity that McNulty delivers to them. Yes, it’s over-the-top, but have you watched a 24-hour news channel lately when it’s got a celebrity scandal/scandalous murder to latch onto?

Whatever one’s thoughts are toward this final season, as the finale approaches it’s time for celebration and appreciation.

For a celebration, how about some crab cakes — Baltimore-style. Get the recipe here (or try yellow pepper coulis). Thanks to the the Raleigh News and Observer — which also created the definitive Wire food quiz (pdf).

Better yet, if you are near Baltimore, hit some of the show’s favorite bars.

Putting aside food and drink, you might enjoy BET’s Top 10 Wire Moments and other fun stuff.

For an appreciation, beyond reading the critical appraisals noted above, let’s leave it to David Simon, the show’s creator, who recently held forth on The Wire — its take on journalism and its roots in everything from Greek tragedy to Stanley Kubrick.

Most importantly, though, let’s give Simon and the other minds behind the show a final chance to remind us that for all its literary greatness, it’s a show very much based in a reality that persists and that we must fight to change. In their humble opinion, that means rejecting, among other things, the so-called war on drugs.

After humanizing a part of America that had been dismissed or forgotten by media and popular culture, after representing what many thought was unrepresentable, in this election season they have my vote.

“24″ — the “real-time” TV series featuring Jack Bauer saving the world against all odds (and those pesky terrorists) — has been strangely addictive through its six seasons … and counting. It’s not a love affair. It’s more like being a voyeur on the Bush administration’s rugged individualist fantasy.

In any case, I thought I had finally kicked the habit after I only half-heartedly watched some of last season.

Now comes along Dr. Walter Gary Sharp Sr., an adjunct law professor at Georgetown University Law Center, who is teaching a class titled The Law of “24″ and using the show as a way to discuss real-world dilemmas:

In law school we use hypotheticals all the time: What we can?t pull from the real world, we make up. Pulling from a show on counterterrorism that?s chock full of legal issues would be a good way to make it entertaining to the students while they?re still learning.

Damn. “24″ sounds interesting again.

My, how time flies. It was seven months ago that Don Imus made his remarks about the Rutgers women’s basketball team and found himself on the receiving end of a considerable amount of heat from a wide range of critics. Now Don Imus is returning to the airwaves in New York City, and he is in negotiation with RFD-TV.

So after being away for eight months, being the subject of considerable criticism, and collecting $20 million for his troubles, the I-Man will return. I am already feeling the Christmas spirit.

As someone who believes in freedom of speech, I can’t object to Imus’ return to radio. No one has to listen to him; radios have a tuner and an off-switch.

I do have one suggestion for the I-Man: Make your first guest interview Isiah Thomas. Imus and Thomas could engage in an interesting discussion of “bitch” and “ho” and the race-appropriate use of such words. And Imus might want to invite Madison Square Garden Chairman James P. Dolan to come along. It would be interesting to hear Imus apply his skilled interviewing techniques to the likes of these men.

Thomas and his employer, Madison Square Garden, recently lost a major lawsuit for sexual harassment. The suit was brought by Anucha Browne Sanders, a former executive at MSG. She was awarded $11.6 million, to be paid by MSG. Thomas, Dolan and All-Star player Stephon Marbury were all named in the suit.

In the course of the trial, Isiah Thomas admitted that he called Ms. Browne Sanders a bitch, and said that it was more acceptable for a black man to call a black woman a bitch than it would be for a white man to do so. For his part, Marbury testified that he had sex with a team intern in a truck following a group outing to a strip club. It is, of course, a well-known principle of management that there is nothing else quite like a visit to a strip club to build organizational unity.

(more…)

We’ve posted a new article in the PopPolitics magazine: “Fall Out Boy’s Biggest Faggot Fan” by Sam J. Miller, who has previously written about the political and economic subtext of haunted house films.

In his latest piece, Miller writes:

Fall Out Boy just wants to be your boy. Everybody’s boy. While most of the band’s career has focused on infiltrating the bedrooms of every young woman in the world, their new album, “Infinity on High,” makes a bid for broadening their boyfriend base into an entirely new realm: the gay market.

Bassist/songwriter/propaganda mastermind Pete Wentz gives interviews to The Advocate, makes out with boys, and picks fights with homophobic moms at concerts. There’s an overall absence of personal pronouns on the new record — a big shift from their bloody-brilliant last album, “From Under the Cork Tree” — and I’m sure that this savvy business boy left things intentionally gender-neutral so that gay guys can come on board.

But as Miller’s discusses, it’s a calculated, commercial come-on. “Who are these boys,” he asks, “and what do they want from us?”

Read the full article here.

“The Kite Runner” is easy to love.

It’s a story written in elegantly simple prose that simultaneously humanizes and complicates a people and a region that, amazingly, Americans never — since their attention got quickly diverted to another place, another set of conflicts — had a chance to get to know, even if only in that shallow love-the-people-you-invade/hate-their-leaders kind of way that the American media likes to play it.

But the English teacher in me always thought it would make even a better movie than a book. Without giving away too much, let’s just say that there are story arcs aplenty — and there’s even an American angle to the whole thing.

When I saw the trailer in the theater recently, I was impressed. And from all accounts, the filmmakers have seen this as a labor of love, rather than a commercial bonanza — going so far as to make the film in Dari, an Afghan language.

So it’s incredibly sad to see those same filmmakers be forced to delay the release of the film because of fears that it could endanger the lives of Afghan child actors.

David Halbfinger of the New York Times has the amazing story — that still has a chance for a happy ending. In the meantime, as Halbfinger writer, the situation raises excellent questions concerning “the limits of corporate responsibility, wondering who was exploiting whom and pondering the price of on-screen authenticity.”

We are minutes away from the first of many Sunday afternoons brought to you by the National Football League. To put the American obsession with their own particularly violent and brutal version of football in context, keep in mind the words of Jonathan Yardley in his review of Michael Oriard’s “Brand NFL: Making and Selling America’s Favorite Sport”:

The league’s obsessive focus on “image” is complicated by players’ use of recreational and performance-enhancing drugs, by various embarrassing crimes committed by a handful of them and by racial tensions and discrimination that persist despite the NFL’s efforts to ameliorate them. More fundamentally, Oriard wonders whether the NFL may have gained the whole world but lost, or at least compromised, its soul.

Oriard’s book isn’t anti-football or even anti-NFL. He played in the league, in fact, before he became a professor of literature at Oregon State University.

Oriard’s argument, instead, is a rallying cry, according to Yardley, against the consumerist mentality that is threatening to overwhelm both the production and consumption of the sport:

He is concerned about “oversaturation” of NFL games and products, but he thinks “the greater danger lies in devaluing the actual football games if they become simply part of a larger spectacle or a multipronged marketing campaign.

So, when you feel yourself getting lost in the spectacle — and ignoring how football interacts with the real world — take a couple of steps back, throw the ball away, and start again.

And during the commercial breaks, you might read a little of what we’ve been saying about football at PopPolitics over the years.

Finally, some context. Over the weekend I read the first media account explaining why Sen. Larry Craig’s behavior in a Minneapolis airport restroom constituted a crime.

While everyone else seemed to be jumping with joy (or shaking their head in moralizing sadness) over Craig’s desperate, closeted life and his (and others) outrageous, public hypocrisy — all I kept wondering was why the prosecution of public sex acts always seem to be focused on gay men.

It felt obvious that sting operations like the one that caught Craig were thinly-veiled operations of the morality police — even though, in this case, it was conducted by real cops.

Does law enforcement cast such an elaborate net to catch heterosexual couples getting it on in public places? Clearly not, as many walks through my local parks would attest.

Yes, I know about efforts to combat prostitution — but what was happening with Craig in the restroom was presumably between consenting adults, with no payment involved. I’m not condoning public sex here — I’m only pointing out that the only sex that seems to irk the authorities is gay sex.

This is homophobia in action, with the full force of the state behind it.

So thank you, University of California-Santa Barbara professor Aaron Belkin, for providing a history lesson.

(more…)

We were disturbed a couple of months ago when not a single film directed by a woman made the AFI’s list of the Top 100 Movies of All-Time. Thankfully, the Alliance of Women Film Journalists came to the rescue with their own, alternative list that features women more prominently.

Christy Lemire of the Associated Press, however, reports that the institutional bias reflected in the AFI list is very much a reality in Hollywood, even though female directors are “flooding today’s theaters more than ever.”

On one level, Lemire’s article is a depressing one, as it reflects on dismal statistics and first-hand accounts that reveal how sexism persists in all aspects of the movie business.

Julie Delpy directing “2 Days in Paris”

But as Lemire discusses all the new female-directed films set to be released — from Julie Delpy’s “2 Days in Paris” to Shari Springer Berman’s “The Nanny Diaries” to Robin Swicord’s “The Jane Austen Book Club” — hope springs.

And even though someone like Delpy is sick of only getting requests to direct romantic comedies, her strength and humor makes you feel she’s in this struggle for the long-term:

They’re looking for a female director, and it’s all about a relationship. You know what? I don’t want to make a movie that they want a female director for. To me, first of all, it’s condescending. What does that mean? Is it about breast feeding?

(more…)

We’ve posted another article in our online magazine: “Dog-Fighting Is Bigger Than Michael Vick: Exploring the History and Culture of the Latest American Blood Sport” by Richard Crepeau.

Dick, a regular contributor to the blog, decided that the subject matter deserves a more extended treatment:

It’s difficult to know what to say about the Michael Vick story, and it might be wise to say nothing just yet. It does, however, bring to the forefront some interesting bits of history concerning what constitutes sport; the relationship of sport to gambling; the confluence of sport and masculinity; the evolution of what is seen as civilized and barbaric behavior; and the ways in which people react to that behavior.

Read the full article here.

As “I Pronounce You Chuck and Larry” premiered this past weekend, critics panned it — arguing almost universally that it cynically exploited homophobia while superficially emphasizing a message of tolerance. Despite its dream-team pairing of comedic powerhouses Adam Sandler and Kevin James, that mixed message apparently wasn’t very funny at all.

So, amidst this critical deluge, who was there to defend the film? Well, gay activists, of course. “Chuck and Larry” received a seal of approval from GLAAD — the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation — and it got a positive review for its ideology, if not its comedy, by Alonso Duralde at After Elton.

Huh?

Just call it another strange chapter in Hollywood’s hypocritical history of representing gay life.

Stephen Garrett of Time Out Chicago provides a concise synopsis of what bothers most critics — and admittedly, many other gay activists — about the film:

(more…)

In a provocative Salon article — “Hillary is from Mars, Obama is from Venus?” — Michael Scherer lays out what he sees as the upside-down gender politics of the Democratic primary campaign:

When Obama travels the country, he does not appear to worry much about posing with guns or wearing those khaki workman jackets that made Kerry look so silly in 2004. Instead, he sings an empowerment ballad on the stump that would make most lady folk singers proud. “The decision to go to war is not a sport,” he tells crowds, rejecting the male metaphor. “We can discover the better part of ourselves as a nation,” he says. “We can dream big dreams.”

In contrast, Hillary Clinton has run her campaign with all the muscular vision and authority of the macho candidates of yesteryear. “I’ve seen her stand up to bullies,” announced Christine Vilsack, the former first lady of Iowa, when she introduced Clinton at a rally in Des Moines last week. On the stump, Clinton repeatedly tells people that they should let her take control of the country, eschewing Obama’s more abstract calls for national soul-searching. “If you are ready for change, I am ready to lead,” she says. “I want to be the president who sets goals again.” [...]

Obama, who currently trails Clinton in the polls, especially among working-class women, has run a campaign that is virtually free of macho symbolism. He is, instead, a self-consciously inspirational candidate, who is always talking about things like coming “together for a common purpose.”

Readers who are concerned with the perceived “feminization” of the Democratic party, which they believe caused John Kerry, among others, to lose on the national stage, have responded angrily to Scherer’s argument.

But more conscientious readers have more substantive, thought-provoking critiques. They point out, for example, that Scherer is too caught up with the masculine/feminine binary, even while he is pointing out that it’s just a “social construction.” Why can’t Obama simply be labeled an empathetic, compassionate, consensus-building man? For that matter, why can’t Hillary be just a tough woman?

Race, moreover, might be a big factor in Obama’s reluctance to go macho, since Obama has the extra burden of dealing with white people’s fear of the angry black man.

Putting this discussion in a broader cultural context might help us understand better the gendered and racial pressures on Hillary and Obama.

Jenn Pozner of Women in Media and News breaks down the promotional materials for a new Fox reality show coming this Fall: “When Women Rule The World.” The tension on the show will come from the fact that “the men must accede to the women’s every demand, 24/7.”

Pozner points out that Fox is setting up the show to be part of a long-standing feminist backlash that demonizes strong, independent women. But, in the middle of a presidential campaign where gender is front and center, it also feeds into the inevitable strategy the Republicans will take to undermine Hillary, if she becomes the Democratic nominee.

(more…)

Here’s a little addendum to Mark’s spot-on analysis of the construction of masculinity in the latest “Die Hard” film:

One of the most disturbing parts of the film is the portrayal of villain’s sidekick — an unnamed Asian woman played by the very talented Maggie Q. In many ways, she is the prototypical modern action movie femme fatale — with all the sexist baggage that it implies. Despite her obvious intelligence, leadership skills, and martial arts prowess, her sexual allure is the camera’s — and the narrative’s — primary concern.

And, of course, she’s evil and will eventually die at the hands our hero — because any capable woman must in a story which is, as Mark points out so well, “a template for how the most conservative (and often reductive American ideas) about gender and power can remain firmly in place.”

While this portrayal is regrettable, though, it is not very surprising. What drops the jaws of many viewers is the virulent racist edge to it all.

(more…)