Cross-posted at PolicyMic and The Huffington Post.

We all-too-often take for granted that photographs like this one, revealing the impact of an oil pipeline leak on Mayflower, Arkansas, will be able to inform us about the state of the world. In fact, such images are taken by actual human photojournalists whose rights of access are protected by the First Amendment establishing the freedom of the press.

This is a real thorn in the side of both corporations and governments that might prefer to control media’s access to embarrassing or illegal activities.  So, often they try to strong arm journalists, co-opt local officials, or pass (likely illegal) legislation designed to protect them from the free press’ gaze.  Here are two current examples.

First, Mother Jones reports that Exxon officials are making efforts to limit reporter access to the oil pipeline leak in Mayflower, Arkansas.  This is happening in at least two ways.  First, Exxon representatives and local law enforcement are blocking journalists from accessing the spill site, threatening  “arrest for criminal trespass.”  Second, BoingBoing reports that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has instituted a temporary “no-fly zone” in the area of the spill.  Here’s a screenshot from the FAA’s website:

Second, in the last two years Americans have shuddered in response to the release of undercover video revealing the abuse of animals on industrial farms and the torture of Tennessee Walking horses.  These have resulted in convictions, but they’ve also raised the hackles of the agricultural industry.  The New York Times reports that, in an effort to limit their risk, they’ve sponsored bills (proposed or enacted in about a dozen state legislatures) making it illegal to videotape animals on their property without their permission and requiring all prospective employees to reveal associations with animal rights groups.

These examples remind us how important it is that journalists have the freedom to do their job.  They also remind us that we must vigilantly protect that freedom.  Corporations, and governments too, have an incentive to limit the freedom of the press.  These are powerful entities, often in cahoots, that can and will ignore the First Amendment when they can get away with it.

“You just have to be cheerful about it and not get upset when you get insulted,” said rocket scientist Yvonne Brill.

She must be chuckling in heaven, because her obituary at the New York Times made the common mistake of making her femaleness and femininity a central part of their retrospective.  After objections, NYT corrected the obit.  Here are the tracked changes, courtesy of NewsDiffs:

At Feministe, Caperton offers a nice discussion of this phenomenon and draws our attention to the Finkbeiner Test, named after journalist Ann Finkbeiner.  Inspired by the Bechdel Test for movies, the Finkbeiner Test is used to judge whether stories about women focus excessively on the fact that they are women.  To pass the test, the story cannot mention:

• The fact that she’s a woman
• Her husband’s job
• Her child care arrangements
• How she nurtures her underlings
• How she was taken aback by the competitiveness in her field
• How she’s such a role model for other women
• How she’s the “first woman to…”

Awesome.

We’ve documented lots of instances of the men-are-people and women-are-women phenomenon.  It’s no wonder it shows up in obituaries too.  I’m glad that we’re becoming sensitive enough to the issue to notice it and that institutions like the NYT are responsive enough to change the most egregious examples of it.  Next step: prevention.

Cross-posted at Osocio.

We’ve been covering the saga of Russian protest punk group Pussy Riot for over a year now. The feminist collective performed guerrilla musical protests around Russia against Vladimir Putin. One in particular, in a church, ended with members Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Maria Alyokhina sentenced to two years imprisonment for “hooliganism motivated by religious hatred”. The human rights implications of this sentence attracted much worldwide attention, with Amnesty International and celebrities like Sting, Yoko Ono and Madonna speaking out for the women.

But something else happened. The “Free Pussy Riot” movement, with its iconic knitted balaclavas and provocative language, became a popular meme. The cause célèbre was even appropriated by the fashion industry.

Which is what makes this video by Blush lingerie an intriguing conundrum. While it legitimately promotes the freepussyriot.org fundraising site to help the women, it is also promoting a product using a woman’s sexuality as the bait:

On the first anniversary of the Pussy Riot concert in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, the Berlin based Lingerie label blush supports the free pussy riot movement with a sexy protest march through icy Moscow (-15° C). Support Freepussyriot.org!

This is no Femen action, in which women’s bodies become weapons of protest. It is a commercial for sexy underwear that pays for its appropriation of a radical feminist cause by directing people to that cause.

Is this irony?

Tom Megginson is a Creative Director at Acart Communications, a Canadian Social Issues Marketing agency. He is a specialist in social marketing, cause marketing, and corporate social responsibility. You can follow Tom at workthatmatters.blogspot.com.

Re-posted in honor of Roger Ebert’s passing. Cross-posted at BlogHer.

University of Minnesota doctoral candidate Chris Miller sent in a fascinating episode of Siskel and Ebert, a long-lasting TV show devoted to reviewing movies.  What is amazing about this episode is the frankness with which the movie critics — Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert — articulate a feminist analysis of a group of slasher movies.

The year? 1980.

First they describe the typical movie:

A woman or young girl is shown alone and isolated and defenseless… a crazy killer springs out of the shadows and attacks her and frequently the killer sadistically threatens the victims before he strikes.

They pull no punches in talking about the problem with the films:

These films hate women.

They go on to suggest that the films are a backlash against the women’s movement:

I’m convinced it has to do with the growth of the woman’s movement in America in the last decade. I think that these films are some sort of primordial response by some very sick people… of men saying “get back in your place, women.”

…

One thing that most of the victims have in common is that they do act independently… They are liberated women who act on their own. When a woman makes a decision for herself, you can almost bet she will pay with her life.

They note, too, that the violence is sexualized:

The nudity is always gratuitous. It is put in to titillate the audience and women who dress this way or merely uncover their bodies are somehow asking for trouble and somehow deserve the trouble they get. That’s a sick idea.

And they’re not just being anti-horror movie.  They conclude:

[There are] good old fashioned horror films… [but] there is a difference between good and scary movies and movies that systematically demean half the human race.

It’s refreshing to hear a straightforward unapologetic feminist analysis outside of a feminist space.  Their analysis, however, isn’t as sophisticated as it could be.

In doing research for a podcast about sex and violence against women in horror films (Sounds Familiar), I came across the keen analysis of Carol Clover, who wrote a book called Men, Women, and Chainsaws.

Clover admitted that most horror films of the time sexualized violence against women — meditating on the torture and terrorizing of beautiful female victims — but she also pointed out that the person who ultimately vanquished the murderer was almost always also female. She called this person the “final girl.”

The final girl was different than the rest of the women in the film: she was less sexually active, more androgynous, and smarter.  You could pick her out, Clover argued, from the very beginning of the movie.  She was always the first to notice that something frightening might be going on.

Boys and men watching horror films, then (and that is the main audience for this genre), were encouraged to “get off” on the murder of women, but they were also encouraged to identify with a female heroine in the end.  How many other genres routinely ask men to identify with a female character?  Almost none.

In this sense, Clover argues, horror films don’t “hate women.”   Instead, they hate a particular kind of woman. They reproduce a Madonna/whore dichotomy in which the whores are dispatched with pleasure, but the Madonna rises to save us all in the end.

Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

Siskel and Ebert full episode:

———————–

Full transcript after the jump:

>> RUN IF YOU MUST.
>> HELLO, OPERATOR.
>> HIDE IF YOU CAN.
SCREAM IF YOU ARE ABLE, BUT ABOVE ALL, IF YOU ARE ALONE… [ TELEPHONE RINGING ]
DON’T ANSWER THE PHONE.
DON’T ANSWER THE PHONE!
RATED R.
[ TELEPHONE RINGING ]

Roger Ebert:
TV COMMERCIALS LIKE THAT, EXPLOITING THE PLIGHT OF WOMEN IN DANGER. THEY HAVE BEEN SATURATING TV FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS AND THE SUMMER AND FALL OF 1980 ARE THE WORST YET. IT’S A DISTURBING NEW TREND AT THE MOVIE BOX OFFICE, ONE WE WILL BE DISCUSSING ON THIS SPECIAL EDITION OF SNEAK PREVIEWS. ACROSS THE HEIL FROM ME IS GENE SISKEL OF THE “CHICAGO TRIBUNE.”

Gene Siskel:
AND THIS IS ROGER EBERT OF THE “CHICAGO SUNTIMES.” WE WILL LOOK AT A GROUP OF RECENT FILMS THAT HAVE UGLY THEMES IN COLUMN. THEY ARE THRILLERS FEATURES EXTREME VIOLENCE DIRECTED AT YOUNG WOMEN. TO PUT IT BLUNTLY, WHAT YOU SEE IN MOST OF THESE YOUNG FILMS IS YOUNG GIRLS BEING RAPED OR STABBED TO DEATH, USUALLY BOTH. THIS IS A DEPRESSING DEVELOPMENT IN AMERICAN MOVIES. WE WILL EXAMINE THE NATURE OF THIS TREND AND SPECULATE ON WHY WE ARE GETTING SO MANY OF THESE FILMS AND GETTING THEM NOW. A LOT OF MOVIE GOERS, ADULTS AND TEENAGERS SEE THESE R RATED FILMS AND THEY ASSUME THEY WILL SEE A BUNCH OF ROUTINE SCARY PICTURES BUT OFTENTIMES THEY ARE REALLY SHOCKED HOW AWFUL THESE FILMS ARE. AS WE EXPLORE THIS TREND, WE WILL NOT BE SHOWING YOU EXTREME VIOLENCE IN THESE MOVIES. WE PICKED THEMES THAT ONLY SUGGEST THE VIOLENCE. WE WANT TO INFORM YOU NOT OFFEND YOU.

Roger Ebert:
IT’S JUST AS WELL WE ARE NOT SEEING SOME OF THOSE FILMS. I THINK PEOPLE WOULD TURN THEIR SETS OFF.

Gene Siskel:
YES.

Roger Ebert:
TO BEGIN WITH, ONE OF THE SOCALLED WOMEN IN DANGER FILMS HAVE IN COMMON, THEY PORTRAY WOMEN AS HELPLESS WOMEN. AS YOU SET THROUGH HALF A DOZEN OF THESE FILMS AS GENE AND I HAVE HAD TO, THEY FALL INTO THE SAME PATTERN. A WOMAN OR YOUNG GIRL IS SHOWN ALONE AND ISOLATED AND DEFENSELESS AND THE SUSPENSE FILLED SCENES AND THEN WHEN YOU THINK EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE OKAY AND NOTHING WILL HAPPEN, A CRAZY KILLER SPRINGS OUT OF THE SHADOWS AND ATTACKS HER AND FREQUENTLY THE KILLER SADISTICALLY THREATENS THE VICTIM BEFORE HE STRIKES. THAT’S WHAT’S HAPPENING FROM LAST YEAR’S SLEAZY MOVIE “WHEN A STRANGER CALLS” WHICH HAS BEEN RERELEASED BECAUSE OF THE RECENT UPSURGE OF THE POPULARITY OF THESE MOVIES AFTER TACKS ON WOMEN. THE WOMAN HAS BEEN TOLD TO KEEP THE CALLER ON THE LINE THAT HAS BEEN THREATENING HER UNTIL THE POLICE CAN TRACE THE CALL.

[ TELEPHONE RINGING ]
>> HELLO?
>> IT’S ME.
>> I KNOW.
WHO ARE YOU?
I’M NOT GOING TO BE HERE MUCH LONGER.
I’M COMING HOME.
>> I KNOW.
>> CAN YOU SEE ME?
>> YES.
>> TAKE ME HOME, OR MAYBE EVEN THE POLICE.
>> YOU CALLED THE POLICE?
>> I WANT TO TALK TO YOU.
[ DIAL TONE ]

TELEPHONE RINGING ]
>> LEAVE ME ALONE.
>> JILL, LISTEN TO ME.
WE TRACED THE CALL.
IT’S COMING FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE.
JUST GET OUT OF THAT HOUSE.

Roger Ebert:
THAT BASIC SCENE HAS PROVIDED THE PREMISE FOR AT LEAST A DOZEN FILMS IN THE LAST YEAR. IT’S ALWAYS THE SAME, THE GIRL IS AT HOME ALONE. THE MENACING ATTACKER, THE RINGING TELEPHONE, THE WIDE, FRIGHTENED EYES. I THINK THERE’S SOMETHING TERRIBLY WRONG WHEN AN IMAGE LIKE THAT BECOMES THE BUILDING BLOCK OF AN ENTIRE MOVIE GENRE.

Gene Siskel:
A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK THAT THE BATTLE HAS BEEN WON THAT THERE ARE STRONG WOMEN IMAGES IN THE FILM AND JILL CLAYBURGH IN “UNMARRIED WOMAN” AND FONDA AND CLAYBURGH MAYBE ONE FILM A YEAR. AND THESE FILMS COME OUT WEEK AFTER WEEK AND THE DOMINANT FILMS IS NOT FONDA AND CLAYBURGH IT’S WOMEN LIKE THAT COWERING IN THE CORNER, KNIVES BEING BRANDISHED IN THEIR FACES, BEING RAPED AND BEING SLICED APART. THAT’S WHAT’S GOING ON IN AMERICAN MOVIES. THAT’S WHY WE ARE DOING THE SHOW.

Roger Ebert:
I THINK PEOPLE IDENTIFY THESE FILMS WITH EARLIER THRILLERS LIKE PSYCHO OR MORE RECENT FILMS LIKE HALLOWEEN. THESE FILMS ARE NOT IN THE SAME CATEGORY. THESE FILM HATE WOMEN AND UNFORTUNATELY THE AUDIENCES THAT GO TO THEM DON’T SEEM TO LIKE WOMEN TOO MUCH EITHER. WE GO TO SEE THESE FILMS IN MOVIE THEATERS. THESE ARE NOT THE KIND OF MOVIES WHERE THEY HAVE NICE PRIVATE LITTLE SCREENINGS FOR THE CRITICS AND TO BE SURROUNDED BY PEOPLE WHO ARE CHEERING THE VILLAIN ON IS A SCARY EXPERIENCE.

Gene Siskel:
THEY ARE IN FAVOR OF THE KILLER AND REALLY AGAINST THE WOMEN COWERING BACK. I DON’T THINK WE CAN STRESS THIS TOO STRONGLY THAT WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT JUST A COUPLE OF FILMS. IT SEEMS LIKE WE ARE GETTING NEW ONES OF THESE TYPES OF FILMS EVERY OTHER WEEK. THAT AMOUNTS TO A MAJOR MOVIE TREND. HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES. THERE’S PROM NIGHT WITH TEENAGED GIRLS BEING SLAUGHTERED AT THEIR HIGH SCHOOL PROM. THE AD CAMPAIGN IS, IF YOU ARE NOT BACK BY MIDNIGHT, YOU WON’T BE COMING HOME. THERE’S DON’T GO IN THE HOUSE. A GUY WHO WAS TORTURED BY HIS MOTHER BURNS THREE WOMEN TO DEATH, AND THE SELL LINE HERE IS YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. AND THERE’S THE HOWLING, A NEW MOVIE ABOUT A WOMAN WHO GOES ALONE ON A VACATION AND IS TORTURED BY THE LOCALS. THE COME ON LINE HERE IS IMAGINE YOUR WORST FEAR A REALITY. AND THERE’S TERROR TRAIN IN WHICH SIX COLLEGE STUDENTS AT A MASQUERADE PARTY ON A TRAIN ARE STALKED BY A PSYCHO PATH AND THERE’S THE BOOGEYMAN. A SUPERNATURAL KILLER HAUNTS A HOUSE. HERE’S ONE OF THE ADS FOR THE BOOGEYMAN.

>> YOU CAN’T HIDE FROM HIM.
[ CRYING ]
>> BY THE TIME YOU BELIEVE IN HIM, IT WILL BE TOO LATE.
THE BOOGEYMAN, HE WILL GET YOU.

Gene Siskel:
AND WE ARE OUT TO GET HIM BEFORE HE GETS YOU AND YOUR $4. THESE ARE THE MOVIES WE ARE GETTING. IT’S RELENTLESS. EVERY FILM COMPANY SEEMS TO BE MAKING ONE OF THESE MOVIES OR DISTRIBUTING ONE. IN ADDITION TO THE FILMS WE ALREADY MENTIONED THIS SEASON, WE ALSO HAVE “HE KNOWS YOU ARE ALONE,” MOTEL HELL, PHOBIA, MOTHER’S DAY, SCHIZOID, SILENT SCREAM AND I SPIT ON YOUR GAVE, WHICH IS EASILY THE I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE, WHICH IS EASILY THE WORST OF THIS BUNCH.

Roger Ebert:
THEY SEE THE R RATING AND THEY THINK, R, THAT MEANS IF YOU ARE UNDER 17, YOU HAVE TO TAKE ALONG A PARENT OR A GUARDIAN, AND IT CAN’T BE THAT BAD. MAYBE THEY SAW THE BLUE LAGOON OR THE BLUES BROTHERS AND THEY SAY, WELL, THAT’S NOT SO BAD. THEY HAVE NO IDEA. I AGREE WITH YOU, ABOUT I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE. THAT’S THE MOST VIOLENT, EXTREME, GROTESQUE, NAUSEATING R RATED FILM I HAVE EVER SEEN. I DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW THE R RATING HAS GROWN SO LARGE TO INCLUDE THAT MOVIE.

Gene Siskel:
WHAT IS HAPPENING, THE GOUGINGS, AGAIN TO MAKE THE POINT ARE TAKING PLACE AND THEY ARE BASICALLY, BASICALLY WOMEN THAT ARE BEING GOUGED. I THINK AT THIS POINT SOMEBODY IS PROBABLY WONDERING WHY. WHY? WHY NOW? WHY IS THIS HAPPENING? I THINK IN THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS I HAVE BEEN SEEING THESE PICTURES, I’M CONVINCED IT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE GROWTH OF THE WOMAN’S MOVEMENT IN AMERICA IN THE LAST DECADE. I THINK THAT THESE FILMS ARE SOME SORT OF PRIMORDIAL RESPONSE BY SOME VERY SICK PEOPLE OF MEN SAYING GET BACK IN YOUR PLACE, WOMEN.

Roger Ebert:
I THINK YOU ARE BASICALLY RIGHT, GENE. YOU KNOW, AFTER YOU SET THROUGH HOUR AFTER HOUR OF THIS COMPLETE TRASH, YOU BEGIN TO ASK YOURSELF, WHAT DID THESE FEMALE VICTIMS DO TO DESERVE THE HORRIBLE ATTACKS THEY UNDERGO IN THESE FILMS? WHAT WAS THEIR CRIME? WHY IS IT SUDDENLY OPEN SEASON ON YOUNG WOMEN IN THE MOVIES? ONE THING THAT MOST OF THE VICTIMS DO HAVE IN COMMON IS THEY DO ACT INDEPENDENTLY. I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT ONE POINT. THEY ARE LIBERATED WOMEN WHO ACT ON THEIR OWN. WHEN A WOMAN MAKES A DECISION FOR HERSELF, YOU CAN ALMOST BET SHE WILL PAY WITH HER LIFE, AND HERE’S A SCENE FROM “THE SILENT SCREAM” WHERE SHE’S LOOKING FOR OFF CAMPUS HOUSING.

>> I’M NOT A VIOLENT PERSON BY NATURE.
IF THERE’S A ROOM HERE, I’M READY TO FIGHT FOR IT.
>> WHY FIGHT?
WE CAN SHARE IT.
>> SHE GETS A ROOM, BEATEN, GAGGED AND ATTACKED WITH A KNIFE.
[ WHIMPERING ]

Roger Ebert:
AND IN MOVIE “FRIDAY THE 13th” AND INDEPENDENT CAMP COUNSELOR GETS A RIDE WITH THE WRONG DRIVER.

>> HI.
I’M GOING TO THE LAKE.
I GUESS I ALWAYS WANT SISTERS.
I HATE WHEN PEOPLE CALL THEM KIDS.
IT SOUNDS LIKE GOATS.
BUT WHEN YOU HAVE A DREAM AS LONG AS I HAD, YOU WILL DO ANYTHING.
HEY, WASN’T THAT THE ROAD FOR CAMP CRYSTAL LAKE BACK THERE?
I THINK WE BETTER STOP.
PLEASE.
PLEASE.
PLEASE STOP!
PLEASE!
PLEASE STOP!

Roger Ebert:
NOW THAT SCENE DEMONSTRATES A VERY COMMON AND PROBABLY VERY SIGNIFICANT TECHNIQUE THAT’S USED AGAIN AND AGAIN IN THESE FILMS. WE VIEW A SCENE THROUGH THE EYES OF THE KILLER. YOU NEVER SAW THE DRIVER IN THAT LAST SCENE. INSTEAD, YOU SAW EVERYTHING THROUGH THE DRIVER’S EYES. NOW, IN THE TRADITIONAL HORROR MOVIE, WE OFTEN SAW THINGS FROM THE VICTIM’S POINT OF VIEW, BUT THAT’S NO LONGER. NOW WE LOOK THROUGH THE KILLER’S EYES. IT’S ALMOST AS IF THE AUDIENCE IS BEING ASKED TO IDENTIFY WITH THE ATTACKERS IN THESE MOVIES AND THAT REALLY BOTHERS ME.

Gene Siskel:
THAT’S A GOOD POINT. THE BEHAVIOR THAT THESE WOMEN ARE ENGAGING IN, IF DONE BY MEN WOULD BE BRAVE, BOLD AND FUN, HITCHHIKING LIKE IN “EASY RIDER.” A WOMAN TRIES TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN THESE FILMS, WHAMO, THEY GET SLICED UP. WHENEVER WE SEE A MOVIE TREND, I THINK THAT’S WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON. I THINK I TALKED ABOUT THIS IS A CONVALESCED DREAM THAT THE PEOPLE MAY BE FEELING AND THE FILMMAKER HITS ON. THEY TALKED ABOUT EVERYBODY BEING AFRAID THAT SOMETHING BAD MIGHT HAPPEN TO THE WORLD, A NUCLEAR EXPLOSION. I THINK THEY ARE PICKING UP THAT MEN ARE ANGRY WITH WOMEN AND THEY ARE PANDERING, EXCITING, INFLAMING MEN. VERY BAD.

Roger Ebert:
WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE CONVALESCED DREAMS. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE URGES OR FEARS THAT THEY DON’T ARTICULATE THEMSELVES AND SOMETIMES A MOVIE COMES ALONG THAT STRIKES THAT CHORD. WHEN “AIRPORT” CAME OUT IN 1970, NOBODY KNEW THAT WAS GOING TO BE THE FIRST OF COUNTLESS, UMPTEEN DOZEN DISASTER MOVIES BUT IT SPOKE TO PEOPLE THAT MADE THEM INITIATE IT. I THE FIRST MOVIE IN THESE WOMEN IN DANGER FILMS WAS HALLOWEEN, WHICH WE WILL GET TO HALLOWEEN IN JUST A MOMENT. I THINK IT’S A PRETTY GOOD PICTURE BUT IT CAPTURED AN ENORMOUS AUDIENCE. IT DID MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN BUSINESS AND THEN THE SLEAZE MERCHANTS LOOKED AT THAT MOVIE AND TRIED TO PUT THEIR FINGER ON WHAT IT WAS THAT MADE IT SO SUCCESSFUL. WOMEN BEING CHASED BY A KILLER.

Gene Siskel:
THAT’S WHY THEY CALL THEMSELVES EXPLOITATIONS, THESE ROTTEN ONES BECAUSE THEY EXPLOIT ONE ELEMENT AND MAKE IT SICK. AND MANY OF THESE ATTACKS TAKE ON WOMEN WHO ARE SCANTILY CLAD. I THINK THAT THE INTENT IS TO EXPLOIT THE SEX ANGLE IN THESE PICTURES. THE NUDITY IS ALWAYS GRATUITOUS. IT PUT IN TO TITILLATE THE AUDIENCE AND WOMEN WHO DRESS THIS WAY OR MERELY UNCOVER THEIR BODIES ARE SOMEHOW ASKING FOR TROUBLE AND SOMEHOW DESERVE THE TROUBLE THAT THEY GET, THAT’S A SICK IDEA. HERE’S AN INNOCENT SUN BATHER IN “I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE.” WATCH WHAT HAPPENS TO HER.
[ SHOUTS ]

Gene Siskel:
AND IN FRIDAY THE 13th WE WATCH AS A YOUNG WOMAN PRIMPS PROVOCATIVELY IN A BATHROOM MIRROR AS SHE’S STALKED BY A HATCHET KILLER. IT’S A FILM SAYING ACT THIS WAY YOUNG WOMEN AND YOU ARE ASKING FOR TROUBLE.

>> HELLO?
>> NED?
COME ON.
>> TRUST ME.

Gene Siskel:
IN THE PAST YEAR, I MUST HAVE SEEN THAT SCENE 100, 150 TIMES, EVERY MOVIE OF THIS KIND HAS EIGHT OR TEN SCENES JUST LIKE IT. I’M SICK OF THEM. I DREAD GOING TO THESE TYPES OF MOVIE. IT’S THE MOST DEPRESSING PART OF MY JOB AS A FILM CRITIC.

Roger Ebert:
THERE WE ARE IN TOTAL AGREEMENT. WE GO TO SEE THESE MOVIES AND I ALMOST FEEL AS IF I DON’T BELONG IN THE THEATER BECAUSE EVERYBODY ELSE APPARENTLY WENT TO THE MOVIES LIKE THIS VOLUNTARILY. THEY ARE REACTING AND HAPPY TO BE THERE. I FEEL LIKE AN UNDERCOVER SPY IN THE DARK. I SPENT TO SEE “I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE” AND I WAS SITTING NEXT TO A MAN WHO WAS 50 YEARS OLD WHO WAS TALKING BACK TO THE SCREEN WHO SAYS, SHE REALLY ASKED FOR IT NOW. OR THERE WAS A RAPE SCENE AND HE SAID, THIS SHOULD BE A GOOD ONE. I FELT CREEPY SITTING THERE.

Gene Siskel:
I SAW A LOT OF COUPLES ON DATES. WELL, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SEE THIS FILM AND IMITATE THE BEHAVIOR. SOME PEOPLE MAY, BUT I DON’T KNOW. A MAJORITY OF MIDDLECLASS PEOPLE ARE SEEING THEM. I WORRY ABOUT THIS IDEA WHICH IS WHEN YOU VIEW WOMEN, CONSTANTLY AS SPORT, BEING STABBED, I THINK THAT’S A SORT OF SICK NOTION THAT JUST SORT OF MAKES IT’S DEGRADING. YOU VIEW THEM AS SECOND CLASS, THAT SOMEHOW THIS IS ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR. YOU SAID BEFORE THAT ALL MOVIES TEND TO ARGUE IN FAVOR OF THE BEHAVIOR THAT THEY SHOW. THESE ARE WOMEN AS SPORT TO BE STABBED. I THINK THAT’S A BAD IDEA. THEY OUTLAWED BULLFIGHTING BECAUSE IT WAS CRUEL. I ALMOST HAVE SOME OF THE SAME FEELINGS TOWARDS THESE KINDS OF MOVIES.

Roger Ebert:
IT PUTS SOME BAD IDEAS IN SOCIETY IN THE CONTEXT OF ENTERTAINMENT, YES. YOU KNOW, GENE AND I HAD SOME LONG DISCUSSIONS BEFORE WE DECIDED TO DO THIS SPECIAL PROGRAM ON WOMEN IN DANGER IN THE MOVIES AND FRANKLY, WE WORRIED ABOUT WHETHER ADDITIONAL PUBLICITY FOR THESE MOVIES MIGHT SIMPLY HELP THEM OUT AT THE BOX OFFICE. WE SURE HOPE NOT. OUR INTENTION IS TO SIMPLY REPORT ON THIS TREND AND TO WARN UNSUSPECTING PEOPLE WHO MIGHT GO TO THESE FILMS THINKING THEY ARE MERELY, GOOD OLDFASHIONED HORROR FILMS, THE KIND THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE USED TO ENJOY BECAUSE THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOOD AND SCARY MOVIES AND MOVIES THAT SYSTEMICALLY DEMEAN HALF THE HUMAN RACE. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MOVIES WHICH ARE VIOLENT BUT ENTERTAINING AND MOVIES THAT ARE GRUESOME AND DESPICABLE. THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A HORROR MOVIE AND A FREAK SHOW. AND A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THAT IS THE FACT THAT BOTH OF US GAVE FAVORABLE REVIEWS TO A VERY SCARY 1978 HORROR FILM NAMED “HALLOWEEN” THERE MUST BE PEOPLE ASKING HOW COULD WE PRAISE A MOVIE LIKE THAT AND NOW SAY THESE OTHER MOVIES SORE TERRIBLE. WELL, HERE’S A SCENE FROM “HALLOWEEN” IT HAS THE SAME BASIC SITUATION AS ALL THE WOMEN IN DANGER MOVIES HAVE. THERE’S A WOMAN ALONE IN A BIG HOUSE AND SHE’S BEING CHASED BY A KILLER, BUT LET’S LOOK AT IT FIRST AND TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE DIFFERENCES.

>> WE WILL TAKE A LITTLE WALK.
>> WHAT IF IT’S THE BOOGEYMAN.
I’M SCARED.
>> THERE’S NOTHING TO BE SCARED OF.
>> WHY?
>> I KILLED HIM.
>> YOU CAN’T KILL THE BOOGEYMAN.
[ SCREAMING ]
>> LOCK THE DOOR!
¶

Roger Ebert:
OKAY. THAT’S “HALLOWEEN” A HORROR MOVIE WE BOTH THINK IS PRETTY GOOD.

Gene Siskel:
VERY GOOD.

Roger Ebert:
HALLOWEEN IS DIRECTED AND ACTED WITH MORE ARTISTRY AND CRAFTSMANSHIP THAN THE SLEAZE FILMS WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. AS YOU WATCH HALLOWEEN, YOUR BASIC SYMPATHIES ARE ENLISTED ON THE SIDE OF THE WOMAN, NOT WITH THE KILLER. THE MOVIE DEVELOPS ITS WOMEN KILLERS AS INDEPENDENT, INTELLIGENT, SPUNKY AND INTERESTING PEOPLE. HALLOWEEN DOES NOT HATE WOMEN.

Gene Siskel:
YOU KNOW WHEN I SAW THAT SCENE, I MUST ADMIT I WASN’T WORRYING AS MUCH ABOUT THE WOMAN, BUT I WAS THINKING ABOUT THAT KILLER AND HOW I WOULD HANDLE. I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT HALLOWEEN NOT ONLY HATES WOMEN BUT IT LOVES FILM AND FILMMAKING. THE MUSIC IS FABULOUS, THE WAY HE STARTS ONE THEME AND KEEPING THE OTHER THEME REALLY GOOD. ALSO THE LIGHT COMING THROUGH THE SLATS IN THAT CLOSET. IT’S A FILM THAT’S UP. THAT SCENE IS UP AND YOU ARE JUMPING RATHER THAN GETTING DEPRESSED AND FEELING SORRY AND FEELING SORRY THAT YOU ARE WATCHING.

Roger Ebert:
ARTISTRY CAN REDEEM ANY SUBJECT MATTER. THAT’S WHY I HAVE BEEN OPPOSED TO CENSORSHIP. I DON’T BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE OFF BASE. WHAT DOES THE ARTIST DO WITH IT? HOW DOES HE PUT IT THROUGH HIS ART IN ORDER TO MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT IT OR TO MAKE IT INTO A COMMERCIAL FILM OR A SERIOUS FILM. I BELIEVE IN THE CASE OF THE MOVIE LIKE HALLOWEEN, WE CAN ENGAGE IN THAT JOY OF FILMMAKING THAT YOU TALK ABOUT. THAT’S NOT THE CASE WITH THE OTHER FILMS THAT REALLY ADDRESS THEMSELVES TO THE LOWEST POSSIBLE COMMON DENOMINATOR.

Gene Siskel:
THE FILM WE ARE DEALING WITH DO NOT HAVE THE ARTISTRY OF HALLOWEEN. THEY BOIL DOWN TO ONE IMAGE, ONE DISTURBING IMAGE, A WOMAN SCREAMING IN ABJECT TERROR.

[ SCREAMS ]

Gene Siskel:
AS TO WHAT PEOPLE CAN DO ABOUT THESE FILMS, THE TREND IN THE MOVIES THAT WE HAVE BEEN SPOTLIGHTING, I THINK PEOPLE HAVE TO REALIZE THAT THE BOX OFFICE SPEAKS LOUDER THAN JUST TWO FILM CRITICS. IF ONE OF THESE FILMS IS AROUND, IF YOU HAVE AN IDEA THAT IT MIGHT BE AROUND, STAY AWAY.

Roger Ebert:
HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT FILMS TO STAY AWAY FROM, USUALLY YOU CAN TELL BY THE ADS, R RATED WITH A KNIFE OR A HATCHET, A GIRL SCREAMING AND SOME GUY IN A HOOD. THESE MOVIES ARE JUNK AND GIVE THEM A PASS.

Gene Siskel:
WE WILL SEE YOU AT THE MOVIES.

Ignatiy Vishnevetsky:
I MEAN I HATE TO DEFEND A FILM THAT ISN’T ALL THAT GOOD. I THINK ROGER IS BEING UNFAIR TO “I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE.” IT’S A FILM ABOUT A BRUTAL ACT.

Christy Lemire:
BUT HE’S APPALLED BY THE ORIGINAL, AND “LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT” WHERE THEY LANGUISH OVER AND FETISHIZE THE RAPE IT’S NOT JUST ALLUDED TO. THEY SPEND TIME WITH IT NEEDLESSLY AND THERE’S THE WHOLE TREND OF MOVIES LIKE “HIGH TENSION” WHERE THE WOMAN IS A VICTIM IN THE BEGINNING BUT SHE GETS HER REVENGE IN BLOODY, GORY WAYS.

Ignatiy Vishnevetsky:
MANY OF THESE FILMS WHERE WOMEN ARE QUOTE/UNQUOTE VICTIMIZED OR PUT IN DANGER ARE WHERE WOMEN TRIUMPH OVER DANGER. HORROR IS THE ONLY PLACE WHERE YOU CAN FIND A FEMALE PROTAGONIST.

Christy Lemire:
JAMIE THREE CURTIS “THE FINAL GIRL.”

Ignatiy Vishnevetsky:
SHE LASTS THROUGH THE ENTIRE FILM WITHOUT GETTING KILLED. JOIN US NEXT WEEK FOR ANOTHER LOOK BACK AT SNEAK PREVIEWS. YOU CAN FOLLOW THE DISCUSSION ON FACEBOOK AND ON TWITTER. UNTIL THEN, THE BALCONY IS CLOSED.

American companies that once looked to places like Mexico and China for cheap labor are bringing those jobs back to the U.S.  Why? Because prison labor is much, much cheaper.  Paid between 93¢ and $4.73 per day, and collecting no benefits, prisoners are a cheap labor source for about 100 companies (source).

What does this have to do with you?

If you have insurance, invest, use utilities, have a bank, drive a car, send a child to school, go to a dentist, call service centers, fly on planes, take prescription drugs, or use paper, you might be benefiting from prison labor.

If you’ve bought products by or from Starbucks, Nintendo, Victoria’s Secret, JC Penney, Sears, Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Eddie Bauer, Wendy’s, Proctor & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, Fruit of the Loom, Motorola, Caterpiller, Sara Lee, Quaker Oats, Mary Kay, or Microsoft, you are part of this system.

When prisoners are in state and federal prisons, the U.S. taxpayer is subsidizing low wages and corporate profits, since they are paying for prisoners’ room, board, and health care.  When prisoners are in private prisons, prison labor is a way to make more money off of the human beings caught in the corrections industry.  In other words, prison labor is an efficient way for corporations to continue to increase their profits without sharing those gains with their employees.

For an extensive list of the companies contracting prison labor, click here.  You might also find interesting the video clips, embedded in this news story, of promotional videos by prison corporations that attempt to sell the idea of prison labor to companies:

In an article titled “Egos Inflating Over Time,” psychologist Jean Twenge and her colleagues show that rate of narcissism among U.S. college students has risen significantly. Narcissism is a “positive and inflated view of the self.” Narcissists are attention-seeking extroverts who have a high opinion of their value, importance, and physical attractiveness. They feel entitled to admiration from others and may act aggressively if they don’t receive the attention they feel they deserve.

Twenge and her colleagues found a 30% increase in narcissism between 1979 and 2006; almost 2/3rds of college students in the mid-2000s were above the mean score reported in the early ’80s.

I can’t help but think of her research every time I see a current commercial for the iPhone 5. What strikes me is the message that every moment of our lives is so amazing that it would be a horrible shame to not share it with everyone:

We can share every second… a billion roaming photojournalists uploading the human experience, and it is spectacular…

And that we should feel entitled to the technological ability to share ourselves:

I need to upload all of me.  I need — no, I have the right — to be unlimited.

Wow. I mean, that’s some pretty serious self-importance there.

Twenge and her colleagues argue that the increase in narcissism is related to the fact that American culture has increasingly celebrated individualism.  This is exactly the kind of message that they might point to as reflecting the cultural dimension of this personality shift.

Cross-posted at Asian-Nation and Racialicious.

As an undergraduate majoring in linguistics, I was fascinated with the concept of endangered languages. Colonization, genocide, globalization, and nation-building projects have killed off untold numbers of languages. As linguist K. David Harrison (my undergrad advisor) tells NPR, speakers of stigmatized or otherwise less-favored languages are pressured to abandon their native tongue for the dominant language of the nation and the market (emphasis mine):

The decision to give up one language or to abandon a language is not usually a free decision. It’s often coerced by politics, by market forces, by the educational system in a country, by a larger, more dominant group telling them that their language is backwards and obsolete and worthless.

These same pressures are at work in immigrant-receiving countries like the United States, where young immigrants and children of immigrants are quickly abandoning their parents’ language in favor of English.

Immigrant languages in the United States generally do not survive beyond the second generation. In his study of European immigrants, Fishman (1965) found that the first generation uses the heritage language fluently and in all domains, while the second generation only speaks it with the first generation at home and in limited outside contexts. As English is now the language with which they are most comfortable, members of the second generation tend to speak English to their children, and their children have extremely limited abilities in their heritage language, if any. Later studies (López 1996 and Portes and Schauffler 1996 among them) have shown this three-generation trend in children of Latin American and Asian immigrants, as well.

The languages that most immigrants to the U.S. speak are hardly endangered. A second-generation Korean American might not speak Korean well, and will not be speaking that language to her children, but Korean is not going to disappear anytime soon — there are 66.3 million speakers (Ethnologue)! Compare that with the Chulym language of Siberia, which has less than 25.

Even if they’re not endangered per se, I would argue that they are in danger. While attitudes towards non-English languages in the U.S. seem to be improving, at least among wealthier and better educated people in some more diverse cities and suburbs, the stigma of speaking a non-English language still exists.

How many of you have:

• been embarrassed to speak your heritage language in front of English speakers?
• been reprimanded for speaking your heritage language in school?
• been told to “go back to [country X]” when someone overhears you speak your heritage language?

I’ve heard innumerable stories about parents refusing to speak their native language to their children. Usually, the purported rationale is that they do not want the child to have language or learning difficulties, a claim that has been debunked over and over again by psychologists, linguists, and education scholars.

I’m sure that these parents truly believe that speaking only English to their children will give them an edge, though the reverse is true. What I wonder is how much this decision had to do with an unfounded belief about cognition and child development, and how much it had to do with avoiding the stigma of speaking a language that marks you as foreign, and as “backwards and obsolete and worthless”?

Calvin N. Ho is a graduate student in sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles studying immigration, race/ethnicity/nationalism, and Asian diasporas.  You can follow him at The Plaid Bag Connection and on Twitter.

TODAY WE HAVE THE BEST NEWS EVER!

Sociological Images founder and author and, more importantly, my Best Friend is now tenured!  Congratulations Gwen Sharp!  You are a genius, a damn good person, and you make people laugh.  Nevada State College is incredibly to have you.  Everyone else should follow you on Twitter!

SocImages News:

Tomorrow we’re launching a competition for a new logo.  The top five sketches will receive $50 each and the winner will be invited to work with us to design a polished logo for $500. We hope you can help us spread the invitation far and wide!

Someone liked our post on high heels as a marker of distinction among women enough to cross-post it at Alternet.  Us?  We’re just happy to spread the word of good ol’ Pierre Bourdieu.  In any case, we hope it’s the first of many!

I’m quoted, starting with the phrase “Let’s be frank,” in an article at Bitch about an administrative reluctance to take steps to improve the sexual assault policy at Occidental College and the ongoing efforts to make us a leader in this regard.

Speaking of sex at Oxy, a video recording of my talk on hook up culture at Occidental College is available here.  The sheer enthusiasm of our wonderful students makes up for the bad lighting.  You’re the greatest y’all!

Thanks to PolicyMic, the Huffington Post, and Jezebel for featuring our posts on everything from data on porn stars to vintage baby cages and our fight at Oxy.

Updates on Image Guides:

Sociology doctoral student Calvin Ho put together a set of his favorite SocImages posts about Asian and Asian America.  It’s a great collection and we’re hoping he’ll revise it into an Image Guide.

I organized our a selection of our vintage stuff for Women’s History month and have published it here.

If you are a graduate student or professor who would like to make an Image Guide, we would love to hear from you!  It requires picking a topic, browsing our archives, pulling out the most compelling posts, and arranging them in ways other instructors would find familiar and convenient.  The guides can cover entire courses or be designed to help illustrate a theory, article, or book.  Only the most fabulous sociologists do it.

Upcoming Lectures and Appearances:

The semester is starting to wind down and I enjoyed giving campus-wide talks at Harvard, Queen’s University, Pomona College, and my own lovely Occidental.  Just two more before the semester is up:

• Apr. 2 — Citrus College — “The Promise and Peril of Hook Up ‘Culture’” (11:30am Handy Campus Center East Wing)
• Apr. 19 — University of Akron — “Anatomy of an Outrage: Female Genital Cutting and the Politics of Acculturation”; AKD Induction Ceremony Speech

I go on sabbatical next year to write in earnest, but I’d love to use my flexible schedule to do lots of public speaking as well.  Visit my website if you’d be interested in having me.  I have great talks on the value of friendship, the biology of sex differences, the politics of genital cutting and, of course, hook up culture.  For Akron this year I’m doing an AKD Induction Ceremony Speech.  Who can think of something nice to say about sociology? I can!!!

Tweets that Make Us Blush: Thanks Cassie!

Also, may we take a minute to have a giant nerd crush on Shankar Vedantam? He tweeted us twice this month!  TWICE!

Social Media ‘n’ Stuff:

This is your monthly reminder that SocImages is on Twitter, Facebook, Google+, and Pinterest.  Lisa is on Facebook and, sigh, Google+.  Most of the team is on Twitter: @lisawade, @gwensharpnv, @familyunequal, @carolineheldman, and @jaylivingston.

In Other News…

Gwen Sharp has decided to use the new protection of tenure to start the Cockroach Liberation Front (CLF), dedicating to refurbishing the invertebrate’s image and fighting for their equal rights (recognition and redistribution).

The CLF’s first mission is to oppose the use of the cockroach in scientific experimentation. To that end, they staged a protest at the laboratory of a biologist at a local college, publicly exposing the senseless torture of these sensitive and complicated creatures.

Sociological Images stands with the CLF. Anyone who likes TV shows and cake is a friend of ours… and they should be a friend of yours too.

Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.