Watercolorlanguage

Cofounder of Bitch Magazine in Time

2006-08-09T14:42:00.000-05:00

Bitch cofounder is featured in this Time Magazine article. She discusses why she chose the name, "Bitch" and why the feminist essays focus on pop-culture.

Female Workers Paid Less Than Men

2006-08-08T15:41:00.000-05:00

Thirty-Five Percent of Female Workers Say They Are Paid Less Than Men In Their Workplace, CareerBuilder.com Survey Finds

Mars versus Venus is still in effect in the workplace, with female workers continuing to report gaps in pay and career advancement opportunities, according to a recent CareerBuilder.com survey. Thirty-five percent of women say they are paid less than male counterparts who have similar experiences and qualifications in their organizations, up from 31 percent in the company's 2003 survey. The CareerBuilder.com survey, "Men and Women at Work 2006" included more than 1,400 women and over 575 men working full-time.
Comparing age groups, younger female workers reported less instance of pay disparity at their employers. Thirty percent of female workers age 21 to 35 say they are paid less than equally qualified males. This compares to 35 percent of female workers in the 36 to 50 age bracket and 43 percent of female workers in the 51 to 65 age bracket.

"The perceived inequality women are experiencing in the workplace extends to career progress," said Rosemary Haefner, Vice President of Human Resources at CareerBuilder.com. "Thirty-two percent of women report their employers offer less career advancement options to women than men. The good news is we are seeing more and more companies remedying recruitment, compensation and promotion practices to provide the same opportunities to all workers, regardless of gender and cultural background."

When asked to identify the cause for the disparity in pay and upper mobility, 27 percent of women attribute it to being less apt to schmooze with management. Twenty-one percent say management shows favoritism to the opposite sex while 10 percent point to seniority.

Men also reported a gender bias in pay levels and career advancement, but on a smaller scale. Eight percent of men say they are paid less than their female counterparts who have similar experience and qualifications and 15 percent say their employers afford women more career advancement opportunities in their organizations.

Survey Methodology
The CareerBuilder.com survey, "Men and Women at Work 2006," was conducted from February 21 to March 6, 2006. Methodology used to collect survey responses totaling more than 575 men and more than 1,400 women working full-time involved selecting a random sample of comScore Networks panel members. These Web Panel members were approached via an e-mail invitation, which asked them to participate in a short online survey. The results of this survey are statistically accurate to within +/- 2.61 percentage points for the women and +/- 4.08 percentage points for the men (19 times out of 20).

Discussion Topics!

2006-07-13T22:12:00.000-05:00

Discussion Topic:

1) She feels she lives life with the perspective of how things shouldn't be, while men just accept things as they are.

2) Is negativity realistic? Or are we are own road block?

my other site

2006-05-29T12:28:00.000-05:00

I am working on another blog, For The Long Haul. I write about relationships, what makes them float - and what makes them sink. Check it out!

kids with aids

2006-05-29T12:22:00.000-05:00

The facts are worse than we imagine. At least that is what I find whenever I come across articles like this one.

No more Visits from 'Aunt Flow'?

2006-05-22T09:03:00.000-05:00

Skimming across the Chicagotribune.com headlines this morning, I noticed one that said, "More Women Say No To Menstruation. Period."

What do you think?

I'm not sure what I think about all this yet. Personally, I'm a little creeped out by products like 'Seasonale' that allow your period only four times/year. Actually, I'm creeped out by the idea of birth control all together. Although I am using the pill as my contraceptive currently.

I avoid genetically modified foods - so really I'm not surprised to see that I do not want to change the natural path of my body with birth control. But I cannot afford a baby right now, so I'm not considering going off the pill - like so many other women, it just isn't an option.

Now, I wouldn't dare disregard Margaret Sanger's pioneer efforts toward the contraceptive, and I would never say a full-time form of control should not be an option. I'm just saying it may not be for me.

sick of it

2006-05-21T20:51:00.000-05:00

How dare you call me 'annoying'.

How many times have you dealt with a boyfriend, girlfriend, friend, mother, father, classmate, teacher - calling you annoying, or scoffing at you when you are upset/frustrated with society?

Whether I am upset over the fact that America has re-elected George Bush, or the fact that talentless women are still clad in bikini's on the cover of every magazine - I still find that my boyfried, or whomever is annoyed with me for being annoyed.

God forbid I express myself or have emotions.

This isn't rage. This is a contemplated anger.

How annoying of me to turn over magazine covers in the "Express" line at the grocery store. "It is an EXPRESS line," after all. How dare I take an extra three seconds out of a stranger's, or my boyfriend's life, to cover something that should't be there in the first place. Something that continues the cycle that says, "it is okay to objectify and degrade women". That little girl's, teenage girl's, women and "goodies, but oldies" alike - should feel ugly, not good enough, or fat because PEOPLE magazine tells us everyday that we should.

And I say, "F*CK YOU."

I do not want to look at that crap. Because it makes me feel fat, ugly or less than? Maybe. Or for a better reason: I would like to see Beauty. I would like to see intelligence, creativity and imagination. I would like to share childlike bewilderment with everything that graces my eyes - and enjoy it all with that person waiting so patiently behind me in line. Because as it turns out, she could be a woman. And she probably wouldn't mind staring at a piece of artwork, or nothing at all, than some no-name-waste-of-time.

Eye Candy

2006-05-17T16:20:00.000-05:00

I'm riding the el with Tim and I look up. A creep-ass guy is leering at a girl inside the train. She is properly clad (as in "prim & proper") in a knee-length green skirt with a cute eyelet print and a denim white jacket. Her makeup is subtle, her hair pulled back in a curly bun, and she is reading a book. The reason I describe her is that, she was doing nothing to attract attention to her, in any way, especially a sexual one. I watched the man stare at the side of her face, eyes move down her neck adn to her barely showing kneecaps. She is completely unaware of the fact that this man is "checking her out."

From this point on, I will use the term "objectifying" in replace of "checking out"

Unfortunately, the creep-ass gets on the train. He goes right for the chair across from Tim and I. Darts his head to the side, nose but an inch from her hair and breathes in. The sniff wasn't too dramatic, there was no eye closing or gasps for breath - there was no poetry. The sniff was rather like that of a dog detected shit in his yard. His territory. His domain.

Snapped from my analysis he looked at me. I jolted from my safety seat directly into oncoming traffic. The creep-ass was now objectifying me. I closed me eyes, "Oh, God. Please make it stop. The blood-shot eyes slowly undressing me must be off the train when I re-open my eyes." I opened my eyes and matched his. Quickly looking away. I felt ashamed as soon as I looked away. He was winning. A battle was on - no other passenger on the train was aware of the show-down, not even my boyfriend snuggled into my arm.

To no avail I silently prayed that this man might even smile - show some sign of humanity. Some recognition that says, "I know you're human. I see you as more than an object, or a piece of meat."

I contemplated telling him to, "Fuck off." But then he would win even more. Then he'd have a voice to go with the fantasy slowly rolling in his sick mind.

Maybe he wasn't in the middle of a sick fantasy, but the part that disgusts me is that it was possible - that there was NOTHING I could do about it.

Instead of telling him off, I decided to collect all of my strength and better knowledge and confront him mentally. I would look him in the eyes, one last time and tell him exactly what I thought - that I was strong, and smart, and human. That he couldn't rape me. I wouldn't be victimized. He couldn't see me as something sexual.

But I lost. As I always do, as I always will.

*My friend Shannon and I were having a discussion yesterday about this type of situation. The daily run-in we have with men. Men who objectify us in a glance. It is as if we are raped everyday. And the worst part isn't the actual rape, it is the simple truth that we are absolutly helpless. Completely dehumanized.

Eye Candy

2006-05-17T15:26:00.000-05:00

I'm riding the el with Tim and I look up. A creep-ass guy is leering at a girl inside the train. She is properly clad (as in "prim & proper") in a knee-length green skirt with a cute eyelet print and a denim white jacket. Her makeup is subtle, her hair pulled back in a curly bun, and she is reading a book. The reason I describe her is that, she was doing nothing to attract attention to her, in any way, especially a sexual one. I watched the man stare at the side of her face, eyes move down her neck and to her barely showing kneecaps. She is completely unaware of the fact that this man is "checking her out."

From this point on, I will use the term "objectifying" in replace of "checking out"

Unfortunately, the creep-ass gets on the train. He goes right for the chair across from Tim and I. Darts his head to the side, nose but an inch from her hair and breathes in. The sniff wasn't too dramatic, there was no eye closing or gasps for breath - there was no poetry. The sniff was rather like that of a dog detecting shit in his yard. His territory. His domain.

Snapped from my analysis he looked at me. I was jolted from my safety seat directly into traffic. The creep-ass was now objectifying me. I closed me eyes, "Oh, God. Please make it stop. The blood-shot eyes slowly undressing me must be off the train when I re-open my eyes." I opened my eyes and matched his. Quickly looking away. I felt ashamed as soon as I looked away. He was winning. A battle was on - no other passenger on the train was aware of the show-down, not even my boyfriend snuggled into my arm.

To no avail I silently prayed that this man might even smile - show some sign of humanity. Some recognition that says, "I know you're human. I see you as more than an object, or a piece of meat."

I contemplated telling him to, "Fuck off." But then he would win even more. Then he'd have a voice to go with the fantasy slowly rolling in his sick mind.

Maybe he wasn't in the middle of a sick fantasy, but the part that disgusts me is that it was possible - that there was NOTHING I could do about it.

Instead of telling him off, I decided to collect all of my strength and better knowledge and confront him mentally. I would look him in the eyes, one last time and tell him exactly what I thought - that I was strong, and smart, and human. That he couldn't rape me. I wouldn't be victimized. He couldn't see me as something sexual.

But I lost. As I always do, as I always will.

***

My friend Shannon and I were having a discussion yesterday about this type of situation. The daily run-in we have with men. Men who objectify us in a glance. It is as if we are raped everyday. And the worst part isn't the actual rape, it is the simple truth that we are absolutly helpless. Completely dehumanized. And practically no one knows its happening.

"Gray Area"

2006-04-19T20:18:00.000-05:00

Bummer.

I quit

2006-04-19T19:25:00.000-05:00

Despite my realization that our culture is obsessed with superficial, false signs and symbols - I still fall into the trap. Just a glimpse of Scarlett Johanssen, Jessica Alba, or any of the other "stars" ruins my day...and my boyfriends. Every time I see a "sexy starlet" I get angry. I feel bad about myself in two ways. In one way I feel insecure about my own looks, or sex appeal - and then, right after that, I feel bad for buying into the brainwash.

I could say, "Its all airbrushing, makeup and surgery." And, "Isn't our obsession with "beauty" just another item for us to consume?" Yes, it might all be...but that is not the point. What is important is that we still rely on attractiveness, or sex appeal, to determine some, or all of our self worth. I've had plenty of female friends (and some male's) who have been smart, funny, strong, and "aware" - and others who are a little more superficial, or weak - regardless of our attributes...we all seem to be stuck. Stuck into giving how we look importance.

I've had friends who have said, "I'll never be as hot as him/her." Or, "God, if only I could have a body like that." Most of whom knew very well that they were being shallow. But sometimes, a bad day is all you need to feel disgusting, fat, greasy, wrinkly, or simply plain. I'm tired of having my friends feel like they're not good enough. Because even if they say that they know they're "better" in a lot of ways than these supermodels/actresses/celebrities/heiresses - My friends have starved themselves, started saving for breast implants, gotten nose jobs, suffered from bulimia, or just been depressed.

Niptucked

2006-04-19T10:59:00.000-05:00

So I was watching Maury this afternoon. Yep. I'm not one for such a show, but the topic grabbed me.

A woman who got plastic surgery at 19 and has since received 30 surguries. DAMN GINA! 'Tis insane. Now I've heard the stats...30 million American women have had plastic surgery. Yet it still shocks and appauls me to hear something so sick as 30 times. Clearly this woman has a very, very serious problem.

Apparently it all started because of a verbally abusive boyfriend. The show offered a photo of her at 19, before the surgery - she was attractive by even the media's standards. Her boyfriend, however, told her that her nose looked 'swollen' and her eyes were set too close, and of course, that her boobs sagged.

Now I would like to say, "Why didn't she tell him to F*ck off and dump the jerk?" But I know better. I know that the majority of women in our society feel "sub-par" to the likes of Angelina Jolie, Jennifer Lopez, and Jennifer Aniston (all of whom this woman wanted to have something of) - yet, I don't know many who want to look like...MICHAEL JACKSON. This woman actually brought a photo of the one-glove wonder to her surgeon so she could get the same, frightening nose.

Her psychologist tells her she has Body Dysmophic Disorder. Her plastic surgeon tells her she needs the surgery. What a bastard. He needs heart surgery.

What does this all boil down to for me?

The wise old saying: Beauty is on the inside.

It doesn’t matter how many times you change the outside - You’ll never be happy until you learn to love what’s on the inside.

Unfortunately, our society doesn’t want us to really believe that truth. But we all know it needs to happen. We all want it to happen. So what’s the problem?

Blogging

2006-04-09T11:27:00.000-05:00

I actually got a job - as in I get paid - as a blogger. I will be writing about long-term relationships. So unfotunately, my plans of becoming more focused on watercolorlanguage are slowly dissipating. I will try to make this a weekly column. Although I realize - that does very little for readership. However I do want to continue with the 'Down-with-Advertising' project. That being said, if you see any advertisements that are selling clothing, but the female models are barely clad in the product - for example - send them my way.

Is Lindsay Lohan who we see as our Wonder Woman???

2006-03-27T10:20:00.000-06:00

I love Joss Whedon's Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I love the episodes he wrote for Roseanne, but now, Whedon might have hit a greedy low. He has been said to be putting together 'Wonder Woman' for some time now. And the question has always been, who will play her? In 2002, the debate was over Jessica Connelly, Monica Belluci and Catherine Zeta Jones, all of whom would be good choices in my opinion. They all certainely look the part and they're the right age. I would suggest myself since WW is supposed to be a beautiful Greek woman, but unfortunately, I have no way to get in contact with Whedon. This morning I was very disappointed to see a Yahoo article about the potential of Lindsay Lohan playing Wonder Woman.

Oh God, what has our country come to?

Well, not that Wonder Woman was always the best role model for women - she was however, a female superheroine and a 'strong' woman character. Although Lynda Carter was a supermodel, she did have a fair amount of muscle on her to allow us to assume she wasn't using pills or anorexia to keep her slim figure. Joss Whedon gets praise from 'geeky' feminists all over the globe on how his 'Buffy' was a feminist piece of work, and his WW could of done the same, but I have to say...Lindsay Lohan is no way to get that praise. Its just a cheap way to sell out tickets, and frankly - Whedon would be selling out his reputation, as well.

"Feminine Beauty is a load of pornographic crap"

2006-03-25T11:20:00.000-06:00

I was reading I Blame The Patriarchy and came across the blog, "Hot Mama".

The writer found an interesting blog called, Morphing into Mama (MIM). The MIM discusses how she thinks its incorrect to assume that she should feel love for her infant - which is a liberating idea for some women, but I'm not even going to get into this right now - and yet she also discusses how she feels it is her duty to keep her self looking good for her husband...otherwise he could say it was, "false advertising" before they were married. Her husband, no I'm sorry - she refers to him just as "husband" - doesn't want her to cut her hair or gain weight. God forbid a woman's figure change after carrying around another human being inside of her.

OK - now 'Patriarchy's' writer went on to say that 'feminine beauty is a load of pornographic crap.' I like this. I don't even know where to begin describing why I like this statement.

On a somewhat related note...The other night I was in Dominicks buying some beer and snacks with my boyfriend and our friend. We passed by the 'best selling' beauty magazines adorning the racks near the register (how much more obvious could it be that they're SELLING to us the products on and within those magazines as they're surrounded by impulse buys). Now, I hate going to the register. Every time I do I see these magazines encircling me in brainwashing, disturbing madness.

The proof of the stupidy: So I made some comment on how Oprah looked so thin (first mistake) - I was simply poking fun on the constant topic of Oprah's fluctuating weight - just be a full figured woman Oprah, please stop giving in. And our friend goes, "I'm sure she's airbrushed." Ok - so this is a constructive comment. Good, good...And then, I mentioned how I'm not a fan of Eva Longoria (Desperate Housewives is good enough reason why) and he said, "but she's hot."

Just kill me. If I here one more person refer to anyone as HOT ever again...

OK - So I took a deep breath and muttered some of my disgust for this comment, but it was the guys birthday, so I let it go.

Everyone seems to think that its OK how we think. That it is OK that our society praises unhealthy, fake, made-up ideal images (feminine beauty). Friend, Oprah's airbrushed, and this 'hot' Eva Longoria is not? Where is your logic? Do you actually believe that Eva Longoria is hot? Or is it that you believe that picture on the cover of that specific magazine is hot? If you married Ms. Longoria, then you would probably expect her to keep her polished coiffeured hair and skinny figure, right? Because I wouldn't believe you if you said otherwise. (Sorry friend, this isn't all about you - you just gave me an example).

This blatent obliviousness occurs everyday by the masses.

And the worst part is that I'm already tired of explaining to some people why their thinking is harmful. Why their way of believing the media and this patriarchies obsession with superficiality leads to destruction.

It was my boyfriends own comments regarding Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton that really made me hate the word 'hot' and opened my eyes even wider to the absolute...disgustingness (is that a word) of what men find attractive. If 'good' men find these girls 'hot', then how are little girls going to feel? Little girls who are trained in a society that upholds the belief that women should do their best to keep the men happy, that men rule, that men decide what's attractive. They're going to grow up thinking they should look like (should I add - dress and act like) Lindsay Lohan and if they don't, they're not pretty enough.

But its the women's fault, right? Women are supposed to make up their own minds - we should be who we are and not worry about what men want? Can you really blame us for wanting to be found attractive by someone when that's what we're told is important? Or its the woman's fault for not listening to men when they say, "No, really...I want a girl with curves." What that means is they want Salma Hayek or Jessica Simpson. A size two with large breasts, a tiny waist line and hips (the infamous hour glass)...

Or guys will say, "We just like women. We wanna have sex with everything." Sure guys, that's why you said that the airbrushing on Oprah isn't enough to make her hot? That a strong, intelligent, curvy, beautiful woman cannot be 'hot' next to a tiny, tan woman who portrays a slut on a sexist tv show?

C'mon, Men...Out with it: What say you?

Women want to be...what men want?

2006-03-23T09:26:00.000-06:00

If money is the root of all evil, then most advertising is its spawn.

The media and advertising are really one in the same. We've all heard this before...that what you see on the cover of magazines is a product, celebrity gossip is false, everything we see is made up to get us to consume, CONSUME, CONSUME.

The other day at work I noticed a third GIANT advertisement sweep by on the side of a commuter bus. The first one I noticed was an AD for the new show, "Pepper Dennis," which stars former supermodel Rebecca Romijn (however you spell her name...I don't really care to look in up). The AD shows her in a (not particularly revealing) red dress, she has heels on and pearls around her ankles (Don't get that), and she's twisted up in the cord of her mic. Of course she is sprawled across the AD in a typical 'model' pose...lest we forget she's a former model. The show, however, is about a reporter.

The second AD I saw was for GUESS. Need I say more? Their ADs are always filled with tiny, skinny, girls with dark makeup around their eyes, they usually have tan skin, and they're wearing barely any clothing -- all of them are in provocative positions. Now for a clothing line, wouldn't you want to showcase the clothing??

The third AD I saw was for...well, this shows how ineffective the AD was...I don't know. But it said 'STYLE' next to two supermodel sized women in bikinis fighting -- surrounding them were men in suits.

OK. At this point I spoke up to my co-worker Pet. "Why are ADs, even those trying to sell to WOMEN, smeared with negative images of women?" Pet laughed and I continued, "Its like women want to be what men want now...and that's it. That's all they need to know to buy something - that men will like them for it."
"And its probably a woman who's leading the AD campaign," she replied.
"GENIUS!" I thought. OF COURSE. Not all the campaigns, but how much do you want to bet that women are the ones throwing these pitches.

Now, no one is forgetting that we live in a patriarchal society to begin with and that it has thus far brainwashed most of the people within...but nonetheless, women have probably given in to wanting to be what men want them to be - even when it comes to their careers and intentions.

So lets see who the people in charge of the sleazy, unhealthy, negative ADs are. Are they women? Are they strong women? Are they money-hungry (Duh)? Do they know what they're doing? That they're influencing 80% of women to feel poorly about the way they look - telling little girls, they aren't beautiful the way they are??

I'm on a mission! I'm going to research who it is that is leading these campaigns and I'm going to start with the women I find who are. I'm going to contact the women I find who are heading these campaigns, see who replies and see if they know what they're doing. And I'm going to report to you my results. Maybe no one will respond, but it will be interesting just to see how many women are leading these ugly campaigns.

Retouching: An invisible lie

2006-03-21T21:47:00.000-06:00

We have all heard that magazine covers, movies, television -- whatever media you choose -- uses 'retouching' to make their 'stars', models, objects...look flawless. Well, the 'Swedish Campaign' has come out with the truth.

We can now see exactly what is being retouched. And I, who was already aware of retouching, am astonished to find how very much is actually changed and...to what degree.

They have developed a before and after photo of a model on a magazine. This is all in hopes to interfere with the negative brainwash forced upon children everyday. Maybe our future will look brighter...and a little more natural.

CHECK THIS OUT!

Honesty - the key to revolution?

2006-03-19T22:59:00.000-06:00

I briefly mentioned Jane Fonda in my blog, When did we decide "girly" was "weak"? And I'm going to use Fonda and her interview with Ms. magazine's Robin Morgan as a springboard for another discussion: Is Honesty the Key to a new woman's movement?

Jane Fonda, Oscar winner for roles in Klute and Coming Home (maybe even better known for her slew of successful exercise tapes), is "coming clean." More recently her name is in the air for her new novel, My Life So Far, which is to be available in April 2006. Fonda, after years of failed marriages, admits she suffered from the "disease to please." She said, "Meaning I'm not good enough for someone to love, I must hide parts of me I think aren't 'acceptable'."

Some might not find these words surprising, or even very confessional; I, however, find them very liberating. A bit liberating for me, and I imagine, plenty liberating for many others (male and female).

What I mean is, not that I necessarily feel like a "people pleaser" or a "pushover", but that I, at times, have felt not entirely ideal in whole. That being my intellect, my thighs, my ability to show affection...whatever it is any certain day that I am feeling "insecure."

For women though, I might go as far to say that we always feel "insecure." In that we do search for a sense of security, but rarely do we search within ourselves. Instead of accepting that we are "ok", or "acceptable", we assume we are not and that we should do as someone else says we should.

Even writing that, I am afraid it is a false statement because it seems so...feeble minded - which is not usually something I use to describe myself. Yet I know it is true at times. When I am honest with myself.

For the oppressed, life is a constant struggle. The oppressed is already described to be less, to be flawed. And the battle to come eye to eye with the truth is a long one. If you can imagine, someone who is told they are less must always fight this thought, while never fully knowing if they are in the right - since it is very possible they are less.

Jane Fonda was honest...so honest she admitted to having 'threesomes' with her husband in order to keep him happy. She wondered what was wrong with her until she read other women's work where they were honest about their own lows and "Not in a salacious way, but a way showing how even intelligent, strong women can betray [their] bodies and minds." This was liberating for Fonda. And now Fonda's honesty is liberating others.

I wonder, if we do all follow in their lead...if we all open up and accept ourselves for everything that we are - the "good" and the "bad" - maybe we will all become what we truly are.

We might never be able to stop the oppressors from trying to oppress, but we can stop oppressing ourselves.

When did we decide "girly" was "weak"?

2006-03-14T12:28:00.000-06:00

The other day my long awaited relationship with Ms. magazine finally commenced. I had ordered the magazine in September, but delivery failed for months until finally Jane Fonda and Charlize Theron landed on my doorstep - along with an extension of my subscription.

My sweetheart, Tim, had clued me in on a recent conversation he read reqarding the cover of Ms. magazine - the winter issue with Jane Fonda. Let me describe the cover: Her hair is perfectly frosted and curled, her makeup by most 'magazine' standards is flawless and her top is frilly and pink. Her nails match her blouse and her (adorable) dog is perched on her lap. Quite similarly to the Good Housekeeping issue that adorns Laura Bush.

Now I looked the two covers over and the conversations at both Salon.com's broadsheet and Feministing.com and I get the confusion. But that's all it is. Confusion. Are we (women/feminists) supposed to all look like 'strong women'? Do we all need to wear bandanas, cut our hair, wear pants? Do we all need to stop wearing bras, painting our nails, or 'styling' our hair? Now I'm not saying what we wear should be a total free for all with no consideration and that we should dress like Erin Brokovich, but even if we do - should we be objectified, ridiculed and ignored regardless of our convictions?

Jane Fonda might be wearing a little too much makeup even for my 'openminded' standards, but hey, the lady is using her profits from her latest film (and first in the last 15 years) for G-CAPP -- the Georgia Campaign for Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention -- which she founded. Not to mention all else she has done in the name of human rights (Which I discussed in Honesty - the key to revolution?)

And furthermore, I love pink. I love "pretty things" (flowers, cakes, dresses)...I thought being "girly" was empowering. I thought being who I am is strong. When did we decide "girly" was "weak"? And why would we ever want to?

"Chick-lit"

2006-03-11T12:17:00.000-06:00

Hopefully most read the title of this blog and think of the popular new genre taking our country by subtle storm...and not the tasty, crispy mint gum.

Typically, when I heard the term "chick-lit" I tossed my head back and slightly rolled my eyes in both condescenion and minor disgust. "'Chick-lit?' You mean that 'Sex & The City' spawned collection of novels that seem like they were written for a more sexually mature Seventeen magazine?" Obviously, I didn't know what I was thinking and I am ashamed. When it comes down to it, "chick-lit" is a genre of opportunity for women writers. And with that and that alone - I should be praising it's very existence.

In the patriarchal society we live in today, everything from cars to books are subject to sexism. The 'Virginia Woolf's' of the world's revolutionary contributions to history helped make it possible for women to not only have their books be publised, but to have their books read and well-received. But today, too few realize that the times haven't changed much since before women were allowed to write. Or rather, not as much as should have changed.

Writers like Chuck Palanhiuk have sometimes skirted around the loopholes, but in most cases, a writers gender, or lifestyle, will determine the genre in which the book is placed in the book business. Homosexuals and women, for example, will most often have their books automatically placed in the 'Gay/Lesbian Lit' or 'Chick-Lit' categories, accordingly, regardless of their subject matter. We can all easily understand the problem this conveys.

Works like Greg Benhrendt and Liz Tucillo's He's Just Not That Into You had personally ruined my interest in the "chick-lit" genre. Sure, I'm a lazy critic - I never read the book - but I heard tale. The premise alone was about snagging a guy...or how not to lose one. That is enough reason for me NOT to pick up a book. But, I shouldn't turn my nose up at the entire genre. Helen Fielding's Bridget Jones's Diary is good lit -- Regardless of where it is placed on the Barnes and Noble shelves.

A recent article I read in the March 2006 issue of Writer's Digest had an article discussing this very subject. Writer Jennifer Armstrong, better known for her work for Entertainment Weekly, spends most of her time cornered into the "chick-lit" world. She tackled the subject in, "Eh, You Write Like A Girl."

Armstrong broke the reasons good and bad down for the reader to better understand what's happening in the genre. The reasons looked like this: It Seems Like Anyone Can Do It; It Churns Out Good Stuff, Big and Small; Its Biggest Names Are Young and Glamorous; and It Sells Like Crazy.

Sure, It does seem like anyone can do it, but isn't that a skill to be mastered by any writer? To look like the work of creating a relatable, witty character is effortless? It Churns Out Good Stuff Sarah Dunn, Helen Fielding, and Darcy Cosper are a few names that have put out 'good stuff'. Its Biggest Names Are Young and Glamorous Which means it will be popular, right? What's wrong with selling the genre that is ours?? And It Sells Like Crazy Need I say more.

Maybe we can use "chick-lit" for us instead of compromising the opportunity. If we choose to accept "chick-lit" as something positive, we might be happy with the results: a new, powerful genre, just for the ladies...They do make up 70 percent of readers afterall. And it is my understanding that most writers' intention is to write for their audience. This isn't about gender, this is about the facts.

Fiction and Politics

2006-03-07T17:15:00.000-06:00

The January/February issue of Poets&Writers included the article The Politics of Fiction by Daniel Nester. The question at hand was simple: "Can political fiction matter?"

While most political literature you will find today is non-fiction or memoir, there is a fair-share amount of political fiction, as well. Two anthologies, the 2003 released Politically Inspired and its new follow-up Stumbling and Raging: More Politically Inspired Fiction (MacAdams/Cage) prove political fiction can have an effect on the page and off.

Contributor David Amsden tells P&W that an anthology is "an active document of writers trying to process things that are impossible to process."

What's really special about the anthologies is that they are politically inspired creatively and actively, too. Politically Inspired shares its sales with the Boston-based Oxfam America. Stumbling and Raging will donate its sales to the "progressive candidates" in the 2006 midterm elections.

Stephen Elliot, editor of Stumbling and Raging is not concerned with the best-selling "competition" (i.e. A Time to Run, Washingtonienne, Against All Enemies) because, as he told P&W, Stumbling and Raging "is so much better written than all that!"

A better comparison to the quality of the anthologies might be You Shall Know Our Velocity by the exponentially popular Dave Eggers. The ability for fiction, or more specifically, "character-driven literary fiction" - to offer further insight into the character/us/you/them. An "emotional truth" can be conveyed in fiction that can not be offered in other genres.

So good news to you politically motivated creative-types! Political fiction might have a new place in our libraries, but beware: The fine art lies in the painting. You cannot overshadow the narrative arc with your propaganda...the story should be able to stand on its own two feet.

Bienvenue!

2006-03-01T23:23:00.000-06:00

Welcome to watercolorlanguage.

I do not have a narrow perspective on topic choices for my blogs. There will be blogs on music in general and music reviews, films in general and film reviews, books in general...and book reviews - you get the picture.

Also, you will find a lot of blogs where I will discuss writing. I have a degree in writing and so that explains itself. I am also a musician so you might find some geeky posts about such topics, as well.

Alright...that's all I'm going to write for now.

Sincerely,
Reading Material