Broadsheet

Boobs, bulimia and breakups

Have you heard? According to a recent article in the Guardian, there is a “new and very weird” genre of writing on the rise. This is called “female confessional journalism.” To diagnose the troubling trend, writer Hadley Freeman marshals as evidence a Daily Mail article in which the author chronicles the vicissitudes of her fake breasts (the result of botched surgeries and several "encapsulations"), and another article, also from the Daily Mail (a publication Jezebel has cleverly dubbed the “Daily Fail”), in which the author writes with commendable if discomfiting honesty about her pathological obsession with thinness. (Anna N. of Jezebel, in a post praising Freeman’s “very smart piece,” fills out the trend by adding playwright Zoe Lewis’ recent lament at having chosen career over family, and Lori Gottlieb’s now-infamous exhortation to settle for a less-than-perfect man.) “A female journalist describes his or her obsession with her weight/breast/ageing face/food or alcohol problems/inability to have a happy relationship,” writes Freeman. “These are tales of daily woe. It concludes with the writer still sufficiently unhappy to be commissionable for another very similar piece.”

Journalism of this stripe supposedly makes women appear "self-hating" and "self-obsessed." But why should a female journalist writing an essay be required "to open a window into what life is like for women today?"

In what universe is the phenomenon of women writing about themselves a new genre? Remember Kathryn Harrison’s "The Kiss," her tale of her incestuous relationship with her father, or "At Home in the World," Joyce Maynard’s painfully detailed account of cohabitating with J.D. Salinger, or "Prozac Nation," Elizabeth Wurtzel’s seismographic charting of her depression? These memoirs were published more than a decade ago. While, in the realm of journalism, there are indeed numerous recent examples -- Emily Gould’s ambivalent mea culpa for blogging her life, Sandra Tsing Loh’s dissection of her divorce -- there is also plenty of precedent. Lauren Slater has written of her mental health, her ailing marriage, her tendency to prevaricate, her lack of desire. Katha Pollitt has admitted to “Google-stalking” her ex and her inability to drive a car. Way back in 1996, Daphne Merkin told of her predilection for spanking. Further back, in the '70s, there was Joan Didion, who, if she didn’t pioneer the genre -- Bernarr MacFadden founded True Story magazine in 1919 -- she arguably perfected it, with her memorable rendering of her neuroses and her migraines, with lines like “We are here on this island in the middle of the Pacific in lieu of filing for divorce.”

Of course, confessional writing has never been the exclusive province of women. Men have penned their own “tales of daily woe,” chronicling depressions and breakdowns, struggles with alcoholism, and bewilderment about women and sex -- see William Styron’s "Darkness Visible," say, or Frederick Exley’s "A Fan’s Notes." The term "confessional," in fact, was first employed to describe the autobiographical poetry of Robert Lowell. Journalistically, too, there is no shortage of examples: Harold Brodkey’s “I Have AIDS” essay for the New Yorker; Andrew Solomon, in the same magazine, describing a melancholy so deep he could not rouse himself to urinate; Andrew Sullivan writing, in the New York Times Magazine, about his medical use of synthetic testosterone. More recently, the Michaels -- Chabon, Lewis -- have explored the bemusements of fatherhood, and Christopher Hitchens has recounted his adventures in waxing for Vanity Fair. True, men don’t often flay their own bodies with surgical precision, but they do write about preoccupations personal to them. “The Men -- Mailer, Updike, & Roth Inc. -- can natter away all they want about cunts and orgasms and the humiliations of desire,” Daphne Merkin wrote several years ago, in a discussion of confessional writing published in Slate, “and no one takes that to be the sum of their parts.”

No one takes them to be mentally unstable, either. (Or, if they do, this is considered part of the job description. When have writers ever been models of mental health?) No one worries that they “need help” and should get it instead of writing. Was anyone concerned that the New Yorker was exploiting Harold Brodkey by publishing his pieces chronicling his slow death from AIDS? Many thought that his own egotism got the better of him, not that his editors did. It’s believed that men confess because they want to -- this is the piece they choose to write -- not because it has been extracted from them by a “misogynistic” boss. And if their writing makes them appear as “needy, helpless, childlike narcissists,” to quote Freeman on female journalists, this doesn’t perpetuate any “offensive stereotypes” about men, nor does it set any cause (like, um, feminism) “back by about 50 years.”

This points to the most galling aspect of the Guardian article: its paternalism and reductionism. Freeman not only frets about the women who write confessional journalism, but she also frets about the women who consume it. These are “vulnerable readers” for whom sentiments about disordered eating “are surely just as dangerous and potentially influential as the photos of the skinny models the journalist professes to abhor,” to quote Freeman. Journalism of this stripe supposedly makes women appear “self-hating” and “self-obsessed.” But why should a female journalist writing an essay be required “to open a window into what life is like for women today?” Why can’t she write a singular account of herself, and expect that readers will recognize it as such? Why not trust that they will perceive what is useful or interesting or even damning about an article? How boring if all pieces of writing were made to meet some standard of exemplary behavior and thought. I say, if some women want to write about their miseries, let them. And let readers judge for themselves. 

Quote of the day

Until yesterday, gays in India could receive a 10-year prison sentence as a result of their sexual activities. All that changed today as the New Delhi High Court decriminalized homosexuality. 2009 might seem rather late in the day for such a decision, but let’s not forget that the U.S. only repealed its own laws banning sodomy (in the Lawrence and Garner v. Texas case) in 2003; up to then sodomy remained a criminal act, astonishingly, in 13 states.

For a snapshot of pure joy, it's hard to beat this picture of men and women flooding New Delhi’s streets to celebrate. As Aditya Bandyopadhyay, a lawyer and gay rights activist told the BBC:

“We are elated. It's a path-breaking judgement. It's a historic judgement, it's India's Stonewall.”

 

Zombie rape flick: Horror, porn or both?

Word is that "Deadgirl" is the hottest indie horror flick of the year. It's said by some to be one of the smartest and most original American thrillers in recent memory. So, when I heard that the extended trailer had been leaked to the Web, I eagerly took a peek and found that the ingenious concept being heaped with so much praise was ... zombie rape. As in, two high school losers find a girl zombie chained to a table in the basement of a deserted mental institution and decide to rape her repeatedly, mutilate her body and pimp her out as a sex slave. I guess the five-film Saw epic and two Hostel installments weren't enough to satisfy the demand for torture porn?

As much as I'm inclined to rant about the sickness and depravity of this stuff, I'm not sure I can write off this film outright. Horror films have always toyed with arousal and fear, those two easily-confused feelings. Increasingly, porn is following the same formula -- just consider the viral genre-merger of 2 Girls, 1 Cup. The goal in both porn and horror flicks is often to illicit an extreme, adrenaline response and force us to confront our baser, animal selves. Based on online reviews, that is very much part of the movie's storyline.

Broadsheet contributor Mary Elizabeth Williams e-mailed me to say that she's seen the movie and thinks it "says something at times powerful about masculinity." As she put it, "The boys are picked on, they're the bottom of the food chain. They have no future or power. So you get why they're drawn to this literally underground world where they're in control. It's very much about anger and helplessness, and taking it out on someone even more helpless" -- until she escapes and eats their braaains -- "and it's really not far off from stuff that does happen."

» Continued

Go to her already, Mark Sanford!

Week two in the saga of "The Thornbirds of Argentina" is upon us, and the shambling, lovesick, undoubtedly soon-to-be-former governor of South Carolina has all the pundits shaking their heads. "What is he thinking?" asks Fox News, noting that the governor has "thrown out the manual" from the politician's school of adultery  management -- confess, repent, slut-shame -- and instead seems to be "trying to reveal so many details that there is no more muck left to rake." But it's high time we recognize our Christian troubadour for who he truly is: A political operative of the most canny sort.

From every corner of our nation, a chorus is rising as one to say: "To your lover -- go!" Just leave us the keys to the governor's mansion, OK? And remember to visit the kids. Now when was the last time you remember anyone giving a 49-year-old, married, Christian, Republican civil servant and father of four explicit permission to quit his stressful day job and follow his loins and his heart to a warm, sunny place?

Reviewing the now copious wealth of evidence, it's hard not to conclude that this was the wily governor's scheme all along. From every corner of our nation, a chorus is rising as one to say: "To your lover -- go!"

» Continued

Too hairy for high school

Is there anything more humiliating than having your burgeoning secondary sex characteristics pointed out to your entire high school? Well, how about being punished for them? That's exactly what happened to 14-year-old Akaash Iqbal, a secondary school student at England's Manchester Academy. As a photo accompanying the Manchester Evening News story shows, the boy recently sprouted the first shadowy hint of a mustache. And for that, a faculty member sent him home. "They've embarrassed me and they've embarrassed my family," Iqbal told the newspaper. "I was walking down the corridor to registration and one of the teachers took me into a room. I was made to stay there for an hour." He was told to shave before returning to school -- but since Iqbal (with the support of his father, Asif Mahmood) refused, the academy has declined to readmit him.

At first glance, the story sounds silly: Many schools have dress codes prohibiting facial hair, and while we may not agree with them, isn't it simpler to comply than to cause trouble? Besides, as its name implies, Manchester Academy is a private school and has more freedom to set rules than a public institution.

» Continued

"The Daily Show" on the burqa ban

Last night, "Daily Show" senior women's correspondent Kristen Schaal made another hilarious, absurd appearance, this time to chime in on France's controversial proposed ban on the burqa.

"Is Sarkozy right?" asked Jon Stewart. "Does the burqa lower the status of women?"

"That's right, Jon," replied Schaal. "The guy who divorced his second wife and immediately shacked up with a supermodel is right. Women shouldn't be allowed to do things that don't empower them. If Carla Bruni had been wearing a burqa when she did all that nude modeling, the president of France would never have fallen in love with her."

When Stewart points out the fallacy here in Sarkozy's sweeping stance, that some women might actually choose to wear the burqa rather than being forced to do so, Schaal scoffs, going on a tangent about how that's like saying women in America actually want to torture themselves by wearing high heels.

"There's a difference between burqas and high heels," Stewart replies. "High heels are still a choice."

"Yeah, right, Jon, they're a 'choice.' And I don't have to throw up my food every time I eat cause I'm so fucking fat."

Cloaked in satire as it is, Schaal is bringing up interesting points about the absurdities women put themselves through in our culture and the narrow notion of what "empowering" clothes really are. If the burqa is a "prison," what are four-inch Jimmy Choos and nerve-pinching skinny jeans? Oh, right: Those are hot.

I don't want to give away all the punchlines, so please enjoy the video below. Spoiler alert: There's a mayonnaise joke.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Burka Ban
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political Humor Jason Jones in Iran

"Shut up, parents"

What happens when the Mommy Wars and online oversharing collide? Well, if STFU, Parents is any indication, the answer involves a seemingly endless supply of Facebook status updates involving bodily fluids. The blog chronicles some of parents' (and mostly mothers') most disgusting and narcissistic posts. We hear about boogers, tots caught eating dog poop and one child who happened to puke directly into her mom's mouth. (Ugh, I'm still shuddering about that one.) A recent STFU, Parents post shows a screen capture of a photo one parent posted of their offspring dismounting a potty, having successfully, well ... used it. "Look what our big girl did!" reads the caption. A ridiculous quasi-apology follows: "(Sorry if this grossed any of you out ... but we were so proud of her and look how excited she was!)" How considerate!

STFU, Parents is only one of many popular, low-maintenance blogs that use scorn at a particular social subgroup -- goths, hipsters -- to rocket their masterminds to (often fleeting) Internet fame. As such, it finds its bread and butter in extreme examples of parental self-involvement. And it's in these marvels of gross-out narcissism that STFU, Parents really excels. The blog is both a welcome source of catharsis for the childless and an excellent reminder that there really are worse things than friends who constantly post (poop-free) photos of their tykes.

Unsurprisingly, STFU, Parents has already awakened the ire of moms and dads who don't see the humor in the site. "You know what?" writes a woman named Miriam in an e-mail posted on the blog. "If people don't like parenting updates on facebook, they should unfriend that person and get the fuck over it." She goes on to call the anonymous blogger a "bigot" and wonders whether "STFU blacks" and "STFU gays" are on the way.

While I generally enjoy the site, I can see what may be upsetting reasonable parents. (Those who still believe that a hundred or so friends want to know every detail of their child's bowel movements get none of my sympathy.) Simply put, the blog suffers from poor quality control. I don't, for instance, find posts that mock parents for complaining about how tired they are or how little time they have terribly entertaining. And if people want to announce their pregnancies on Facebook, well, that's their business. But I'm interested to hear what Broadsheet readers -- and especially parents -- think. Is STFU, Parents funny, or is it yet another unprovoked attack by the child-free on the child-rearing?

A "mistress" by any other name

As we sift through the wreckage of the Mark Sanford media circus, one thing that's become clear is that the English language is sadly lacking for nomenclature. Specifically -- shouldn't we have a better word for a professional woman who's had a husband and a family and career of her own than "mistress"?

The word, after all, carries old fashioned associations with a "kept woman," and it certainly has no satisfying male counterpart. If Maria Belen Chapur was a mistress to Sanford, what, after all, was he to her? 

Salon's Mike Madden notes that the Spanish-language press appears to be less conflicted on the whole thing. He writes that "'Clarín', an Argentine daily, is using 'amante,' Spanish for 'lover,' to refer to both of them." But in English, "lover" just won't cut it. We have to concur with "30 Rock"'s Liz Lemon that it's a word best left between "meat" and "pizza." NPR this week referred to Chapur as Sanford's "girlfriend," a term that's fine for a prom date, but less satisfying when it comes to someone who's been involved with a United States governor. Which leaves us with what? "Companion" is too dry; "flame" is too overheated. "Doxy" has a nice ring, but it hasn't been popular since the crusades. Side girl? Paramour? Homewrecker? Appalachian Trail? 

Maybe the lesson is that it's pointless categorizing anyone in the context of her affair. Until we land upon the perfect word to describe the woman Sanford called a "soul mate," try referring to Maria Belen Chapur, as we do Mark Sanford, simply by her name.

 

Never mind the DNA: Is Debbie Rowe the mother?

Now that we've all spent nearly a week reading sentimental tributes to Michael Jackson, listening and re-listening to Thriller, and watching old YouTube videos of his performances, it is, of course, time to go back to speculating about whether his life was even more unconventional and/or screwed up than we realized. The latest news has "multiple sources" confirming that an L.A. dermatologist is the biological father of Jackson's oldest 2 children, and just to keep things interesting, there's also a rumor that Debbie Rowe is not their biological mother. Rowe's lawyer firmly denies the rumor, calling it "particularly hurtful and insidious," but the mere idea of it raises some interesting general questions about our image of motherhood.

» Continued

Burqa battle: France vs. al-Qaida

Nicolas Sarkozy must have expected his comments last week about outlawing the burqa in France to ignite national debate -- but, oh, how fast news travels in our digital age. Before long, the North African arm of al-Qaida issued a response on various Islamic Web sites, vowing "vengeance," and calling for followers to "respond to this hate" and defend "the honor of our daughters and our sisters." Now, says Foreign Ministry spokesperson Eric Chevallier, the country is exercising "very great vigilance" toward the threats and is determined "to fight terrorism."

The terrorists behind "faith-based suicide attacks on our civil aviation ... have not been caught wearing crucifixes or Stars of David around their necks"

Well, this is unfortunate, to say the least. Just about the last thing needed in France's debate about banning the burqa is a threat of terrorism from Islamic extremists. The chances of a fair, levelheaded conversation about the issue already seemed slim, now it seems damn near impossible. Here we have an illustration of exactly the kind of black-and-white, good-versus-evil reactionism that almost always undermines conversations about Islamic garb. And, as always, the battlefield is women's bodies.

On a related note, Christopher Hitchens belligerently argues today in the New York Daily News that the U.S. should consider a burqa ban, too. He compares the veil to "the compulsory growing of beards for men," arguing that they are are a symbols "of a denial of rights and the inflicting of a tyrannical code that obliterates personal liberty." Yet, he doesn't seem concerned with outlawing Sikhs or Orthodox Jews from leaving their beards unshaven. Maybe that's because, as Hitchens argues, the terrorists behind "faith-based suicide attacks on our civil aviation ... have not been caught wearing crucifixes or Stars of David around their necks." In other words, we should ban Islamic garb because Muslims have a corner on terrorism in this country? Tell that to all the abortion providers whose clinics have been bombed by Christian extremists. 

One can only hope that the French commission charged with considering a burqa ban will rise above the xenophobic hysteria.

This is not a trick post; you are beautiful
A new viral campaign has a simple but powerful message for women: Your body is just fine
In praise of empty nesters
The Obama administration is full of women with grown children. But what does that mean for the next generation?
Anorexics: Jackson is one of us
The eating disorder community guesses at what killed the King of Pop
The baby's a...we're not telling!
Parents of 2-year-old refuse to reveal child's gender

Recent Posts

Quote of the day
There's celebrating in the streets as India overturns a ban on gay sex
Zombie rape flick: Horror, porn or both?
People are abuzz over a film about an undead hottie who becomes a sex slave to teen boys
Go to her already, Mark Sanford!
The nation urges a middle-aged Christian man to follow his heart. Is this romance -- or shrewd political strategy?

Full Archive

RSS Feed

Posts by date

July 2009
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031

Tips or Comments?

E-mail us at broadsheet@salon.com.