Feminism isn't a dirty word.

"In terms of the word feminist, a radical proposal seems in order: It's time to stop fighting over it and retire it as the historical artifact it seems to have become, because whichever side of the definition-debate you're on, it's unlikely your mind will be changed. How abouot we call someone who's a believer in equal rights and respect for personal choice something like a feminine-ista. Kinda like fashionista! A feminine-ista believes that women can work and/or stay at home and rise kids and/or run for president - i.e., make her life as full and gratifying as she can in any way she chooses, all while delighting in her "femininity". Lacy bra wearers unite! -Elle (Sept. 2011) Editor's Letter

As much as I enjoy a good lace bra or floral pattern, I don't expect all women to see the world the same way. It's great that feminine figures and aesthetics have joined the feminist creed in post-feminist ideology, but that does not capture every woman's goals. It's a disturbing trend that as the right goes further right, the perceived middle goes too. They've taken scientific theories and turned them into opinions, helped along by American journalism's propensity to fairness (equal time for two sides, but every story has more than two perspectives). Given science's goal of progress, theories do change (flat Earth, etc.), however they are closer to fact than opinion on the opinion-fact spectrum. What's the point of taking away the word "feminism"? Instead of changing the word, it would be more productive to the cause of equality to change the perception of the word.

You can identify as feminine and be a feminist. You can be masculine, gender-neutral, wear high heels or live in sneakers. The outside of a feminist shouldn't matter. It's the fight for gender equality, and the ability to create yourself as you see fit, whether born man or woman or something else.

As long as there's a sizable population that feels women need to be protected, there is a reason to have feminist counterpoints. Anderson Cooper retweeted a message the other day about the irresponsibility of sending women journalists into dangerous war zones (Libya), in which he replied, "men too?" (or something to that effect - I would link it, but I can't find it). People who think women are just as capable, but shouldn't be placed in danger like a man place us back. There can sometimes be a fine line between generally being polite, and being paternal.

Other reads: Feminists aren't sexist

Looking back by The Man

There's a book released this summer entitled Retromania by music critic Simon Reynolds. I haven't read the book, but I've read reviews. Apparently, we're going through a bit of a nostalgic walk to pop culture past for new material, which is not a new phenomenon, but with the ease in collecting past influences, we've somehow lost the ability for originality. This post isn't really about that, or music, but it did get me thinking about, what I'm going to call, neo period pieces/shows.

The Mad Mens of the television world. Next season we have Playboy and Pam AM to look forward to. I do watch Mad Men and I watched Boardwalk Empire this week. I love both, and I'm planning to watch Pan AM (not sure about Playboy - it's in the realm of possibility). I also watched Downton Abbey pilot this week too, and excited to start The Hour sometime soon (both are British shows). I've never been a huge fan of period books, film, or shows. I never swooned over Mr. Darcy, or appreciated the outdated gender roles.

One troubling aspect that is often ignored with period pieces is casting and the lack of complex roles for minorities. (Not to say that contemporary shows do a great job, but there are different obstacles in writing for a diverse cast with the intricacies of humanity when the races were more segregated and Hollywood just wants to tell the tale of the good ole' white man. For more on minority representation in movies here's a post.) Or at least, it shows an even more hierarchical representation of race, if there are other races at all.

The excuse that it's just entertainment can only carry you for so long. Entertainment is a way of representing the world , and for the most part, it's the world inhabited by white men (usually good looking, usually heterosexual) with people of color and females as their supporting characters. This world isn't post-racial, it isn't post-gender, and it will never be perfect, but as they say, it can be perfected. Every new movie, every new story is another block in how we see ourselves, and how history will see us. By looking back so often, it excuses the responsibility to incorporating racial diversity into the story in meaningful ways. There's the black maid, or another subservient character. Mad Men is incredibly infuriating in this way because even though it takes place in the middle of the civil rights movement, they have decided to overlook this milestone in American history to tell the story of the misunderstood ennui of white middleclass at the time (both male and female). A prime critique of second-wave feminism is its focus on white women's problems and ignores both working class and minority struggles.

As an Asian American female, I can't say I see many images that look like me. I barely see any female characters in general that behave like me. (I suppose I could watch more foreign language films from Asia, but the Vietnamese entertainment business isn't very productive, and I don't relate to the Japanese or Korean image at all, plus I'm not surrounded by Asians in my real life. Just thoughts.) But thus far I haven't seen any Asian characters in these recent period pieces. It's probably more problematic for many British pieces since they have a longer history to look back on, much of which lacking any racial diversity with limited, or no, immigration.

Reviews: Pop Matters, The Atlantic, Salon

Clarification on 006.

The original thesis to that mess of a ramble was that there is an excess supply of performers and a shortage supply of other workers today. We hear "follow your dreams" and often times, dreams are linked to the entertainment business, are more connected to the aesthetics of life than the actual running of social and technical infrastructure.

I am a proponent of arts education, and I don't mean to say that the arts have no place in this world. Of course it does, but so does math, english, computer science, economics, finance, scientific research, even politics and government.

We become so enamored in all things arts (and the celebrity that sometimes comes with it) that we lose track of some of the more necessary jobs in the world. With the croppings of non-competitive reality shows and tabloid culture, I feel like entertainment for some is less about escapism and more about aspirations.

More likely, I'm just a cynical jealous person in front of a computer.

006. Entertainers rule the new frontier.

How has it been a month since I last posted? Time slips away when you're enjoying zero responsibility of being unemployed and living at home. (Though I have been working on job applications so that I can no longer be living at home and visiting friends in the vicinity.)

For the past few weeks I have been enamoured with show business, both in front, and behind, the scenes. I'm the type of person who becomes very interested and moves from topic to topic, though they come in political/current event, culture/entertainment, and sometimes fashion blocks. Right now I'm in an entertainment block, mostly television, so take that what you will.

I started this post as a second-part to my last post about meeting celebrities (but really, what does one say, even at an event specifically created for meeting said celebrity) because I find our (me included) fascination with the entertainment (and athletic for some) world takes from the productivity of the overall globe. You can say that productivity is a loaded term that only makes sense in a consumption-based mentality that is not natural or healthy, however there is more to the world than art and sports.

It's a pet peeve of mine that entertainment is the most promoted industry, and thus the most admired. Not to belittle the profession, but they are merely reflecting the hard work that the rest of the world endures and get all the credit.

The majority of us are anonymous beings, bringing whatever our skills are, to the world, one bit at a time (no pun intended, computer people). Mostly, the people outside our localities we see are actors, maybe musicians or athletes, and lately they've been reality television stars or the new royal couple. We see prodigies, and feel a sense of failure for the lack of accomplishment at such a young age. We're enticed by snippets of a life we've conjured up from half-truths of interviews and scenes.

I am part of the problem, but I do think we should aspire to value academic achievement in more than just words. I understand why our cumulative attention is focused on entertainment and athletics. Evolutionarily speaking, we aren't built for so much knowledge about people outside the community circle. Now the community is global, and the people we see on a regular basis, whether it be on television, film, or at the game, become part of our mental community. They become our heroes.

The topic has gotten away from me, which is what I get for sitting on this post for a month.

We know because of our culture's negative attitude toward nerds, our kids are discouraged from being bookish from an early age. We also know that there is a high drop out rate for college students in nerdy subjects such as science and math, which in turn affects how the country competes globally in fields such as medicine and engineering. So to me, there can be no innovation and job creation talks without talking about education.

They see the loudest applause is for the kids on the field. They know teachers are paid poorly and don't drive fancy cars. They know people plan Super Bowl parties but mock the National Spelling Bee.

Why I'm raising my son as nerd (CNN)

Links.

Michel Schur, Parks and Recreation executive producer, walks us through season 3.

I adore this show, and this four-part interview has only solidified by love. Mike talks about how he researches the political aspects of this half-hour comedy, remaining true to the characters instead of 'selling out' for ratings, and other breeds of politics and tv writing that makes me want to walk a day in his brain.