Has Liz Lemon Jumped the Shark?

Back in the day, Tina Fey aka Liz Lemon aka Sarah Palin was in her element alongside Amy Poehler aka Leslie Knope tearing it up on “SNL” with her weekend updates. The comic duo were sassy, sharp, and never missed a punchline. They represented a new prototype of feminist - they weren’t your mom’s brand of feminist whose extremist tendencies of either too traditional or too workaholic repelled you from the whole notion of “women’s lib.” Poehler & Fey proved that funny, smart, and confident with a hint of vulnerable could work and moreover, women could be successful at this shtick.

So imagine my disappointment this season as I watch Liz Lemon on “30 Rock” pathetically whining, mooning over past loves, and contemplating the concept of settling for the dreamy Michael Sheen over going at it solo. Her cynicism reaching new heights, Lemon’s once empowered femme drole is merely a shred of her former hip lady self. The compelling storyline involving Liz’s desire to adopt a baby (something many single, career-minded women in their late 30s might be able to relate too) which was ongoing for the past few seasons has all but vanished with her character shifting into more of a slapstick sidekick providing occasional comedic relief for the venerable Alec Baldwin. On a side note: Do I really care if Jack chooses Julianne Moore or Elizabeth Banks? Just bring Selma Hayek back! Note to network television: In case you didn’t notice from the ratings success of “Modern Family,” Latina relief is the only thing working on sitcoms these days…

On the other hand, Amy Poehler has managed to transform Leslie Knope, a rather plain yokel and no doubt the anti-Liz Lemon hipster chick into a comedic heroine by steering clear of the “SNL” footfalls of vitriolic NY-bred humor - the type of bagel humor that might have worked with “Seinfeld” 15 years ago but doesn’t do it for the iGeneration. In contrast to Liz Lemon, Leslie is kind and giving to a fault and like Liz, she is not without her ambitions and her desire to win at all costs. The difference is Poehler’s affable delivery - it’s her refreshingly candid demeanor that endears her to us and also at the same time represents a true shift in in what we want our female role models to look like.

Today’s Mary Tyler Moore doesn’t need to wear black, live in the 100- zip code, walk around all day muttering “oy vey” under her breadth, and sip soy lattes while dreaming up the wittiest retorts in preparation for their next rendez-vous. They can date park rangers, go hunting with the boys, and put it all on the line for a friend in need. They don’t need to arm themselves with sarcasm to shield themselves from being vulnerable or self-deprecation as a means to communicate with others for fear of actually conveying any shred of authenticity.

Today’s lady can be geeky, socially responsible, single, self-aware, and sassy. Welcome to the ’10s ladies. It’s a bold new world and you, too, can be cool in this one - even in NBC’s impossibly hip Thursday night line-up.

Btw, contrary to rumors Amy’s impending baby mama status is not the cause of “Parks & Rec” push back to NBC’s Thursday night mid-season 2011 lineup)

Ilana Donna: iPhone Of The Sexes

Ilana Donna is back in a new video. What is the big deal about the iPhone? Was it really worth waiting in line for? Find out how both sexes feel the iPhone will change their lives in Amaldo.com vlogger Ilana Donna’s latest video.

Pretty Betty

Two days ago I posted a piece responding to The New York Times commentary on insecure, self-doubting women as depicted on television. I alluded to the show “Ugly Betty” and its status as the critics’ darling.

As much as I can appreciate what “Ugly Betty” executive producer Salma Hayek is trying to convey with the “dowdy is beautiful” message, it just feels so shallow and contrived. Not to mention borrowed material. But what gets me is the attempt to glam up Betty’s appeal (as evidenced by ”Ugly Betty” star America Ferrera on the cover of W Magazine striking a seductive pose with the words Hot Betty) both onscreen and off.

It’s no longer acceptable for her to be walking around with unstyled hair and a Guadalajara poncho because now that viewers “like” her and can see her “instrinsic” beauty (not to mention her love life kicking into high gear), Ugly Betty doesn’t have to be so frumpy anymore.

In fact, it’s not a “beauty in the eye of the beholder” tranformation that’s taking place but a deliberate glamming up of the character. And doesn’t this go against the very intent that’s being incited in the first place? If Hayek’s message was to get America to stop looking and assessing people skin-deep, then why bother with the Betty’s wardrobe/make-up change? Is this a trend? Is the fate of the loveable, better than average-looking, smart, likeable protagonist/heroine on successful shows to have to pretty herself up? Tiny Fey’s character on “30 Rock” has fallen victim to a similar phenomena. Each week, her hair is a little bigger, her cleavage a little more exposed.

Is what we’re saying through these otherwise “flawed” women is that in today’s society, less than perfect might get you in the door, but less than pretty won’t keep you happy and employed for very long?

Female TV Characters Need To Stop Their Kvetching Already

I used to watch Grey’s Anatomy and it would always leave me with that feeling akin to the after-effects of eating Chinese food. I couldn’t get enough of it, yet it always left me feeling empty and with achy, shallow pit in my stomach.

Upon reading Alessandra Stanley’s piece on women in TV I know I am not alone in my sentiment, but I question when the transition happened when professionally successful women on TV became hapless neurotic balls of emotional insecurity. When did we become such a captive audience to their self-absorption? And furthermore, why do any of us care about these characters?

I used to know a woman who was in love with Grey’s Anatomy. I imagine in the 90s she was the type that jumped on the “Ally McBeal” bandwagon too because she could identify with such a woman (she loved to talk about herself) and presently, she’s evolved into “Desperate Housewife” because it reflects the current period of her life. In each of these scenarios, she’s molding herself to the status quo pop culture-wise as portrayed on TV. Whatever is socially acceptable and moreover desirable for women becomes de rigeur.

I imagine a lot of women think this way. In the same way I used to watch my former female roommates moon over “Sex & The City” and SJP’s fashion choices. The women on these shows take on iconesque proportions for the average woman. And as affable as the “Ugly Betty” mode of woman might be (and as much as Golden Globe critics can shove her down our throats), she’s not the type of woman that’s sweeping American women off their feet. Her love life/fashion choices are the not water cooler talk on Friday morning.

So what’s the appeal with this type of rather unlikeable woman? In part, women don’t envy the plain, happy girl. They model themselves after the photogenically enhanced self-absorbed bitch. Why? Because she holds more power in that she commands more positive attention from her male co-workers and from the world, in general.

There’s something alluring about watching someone else’s life hang in the balance (especially if she’s pretty), witnessing them at their most vulnerable, and the power we attain from our front row view. It gives us reassurance that maybe our lives aren’t as pitiable or maybe they are, but if our feeble, flawed heroine Meredith can cry at the end of each episode of “Grey’s Anatomy” and Meredith’s gal pal, the formidable ice queen Sandra Oh can shed a tear from time to time, maybe we can break a little too. And on a superficial level, the average American woman will resonate with this message and it’s not entirely harmful one.

It’s important to provide entertainment that mirrors reality for women, but I’d also argue that there’s more value in watching films like “Volver” and seeing images of strong, capable, flawed women who also own their flaws and their insecurities and move on.

We Need A Makeover, Not A Code

Censorship in the media, on radio and in the blogosphere is the hot topic du jour. No one can stop talking about Don Imus, the senile radio personality with the obnoxiously loud voice (Ever notice that men more often tend to raise their voice to get a point across as opposed to using their words? Disclaimer: My husband is the exception in this case. I’ve never met a more verbal male. He speaks like two languages well and two others proficiently and his biggest dream is to master every language known to man and woman. )

But back to Imus and his racially charged comment and the fact that the radio only demanded some course of apologetic action when there was a public outcry. Why are we taking this man’s words seriously when they are being uttered from anything remotely attached to that coif? Isn’t the onus on us to carefully evaluate our sources before attaching any credibility to them? Sure Imus is a dipshit, but so are we for creating the guy.

Gender as pertains to blogging is a very personal affair for me. As I posted on Jewlicious today:

Female bloggers are more often left comments that are more personally slanderous and potentially hateful because of their personal nature whereas male bloggers are usually disputed on more philosophical and/or abstract terms that are far less personal.

The level of harassment internet blogger Kathy Sierra faced at the hands of a bunch of people who didn’t like what they read is unconscionable in any society (even if it’s pretty commonplace in Egypt) but it’s also symptomatic of greater social issues that people don’t wanna pay too much lip service to. The fear that stems from such an incident usually spawns a drastic superficial action and a lot of the time, way before people are ready to embrace it. Coincidentally, for every Kathy Sierra, there’s also an Esther Kustanowitz who was ridiculed in a comments thread for her appearance by “drunks” not too far back. Or a Natali Del Conte, a tech blogger at the well-known and revered site TechCrunch who left the site after only three weeks and cited personal attacks and sexism in the form of a comments thread as a motive behind her exit. Having read her posts at the time, I can assure you she wasn’t exaggerating.

We’d rather talk about a blogging code of conduct and censorship police or ban Imus from MSNBC than check people as we go along. I agree with the code of conduct in that it makes people more responsible for their actions and also bestows upon co-bloggers a sense of shared accountability. I can’t tell you how many times my posts have been buried with antagonistic comments and how my “thick skin” felt the edge of the blade graze my skin ever so slightly every time and even more so when no one was “sticking up” for me.

Blogging isn’t for sissies, but it shouldn’t be a playground for bullies either and more often than not it is. Hiding behind the anonymity of the internet by assuming a phony username/nickname much like in that ever-popular game Second Life affords people the opportunity to adopt a different persona. This virtual reality presented in Second Life is a fantasy platform of course and the internet isn’t (well sorta), but since the dawn of internet time people have used the internet primarily for porn and what is porn if not fantasy? What is aggression then without a nice comments thread ripe with daggers and a suitable blogger target to release the tension and anger on some random person we think we’ll never meet.

It’s scary really how Lord Of The Flies primal behavior becomes and the groupthink social dynamic that emerges. But given how the “real” world has policemen, I guess it only makes sense that our microcosmic “second life” follow suit.

Ron Jeremy The Geek: A Freak For Wired Magazine?

As I’m watching the 11:00 News with my husband and his lovely sister this evening (or night, for those of you have to get up for work tomorrow morning) we saw a segment on Ron Jeremy, multi-talented porn actor and recent recipient of a new online tech show. Seems like the celebrity wants to pad his scholastic credibility and/or up the social responsibility ante by engaging in what has become a controversial lecture on pornography at an all-female college in Boston. Jeremy’s Porn Debate Tour kicks off at Simmons College tomorrow night. Jeremy was paid $6000 for the lecture.

Considering the caliber of Jeremy’s publicity as of late, he’s gotta be jonzing for this upcoming gig.

Somewhere Between Wonder Woman & Maggie’s Cat On A Hot Tin Roof

As a little girl I was obsessed with female icons. Not so much Wonder Woman as Belinda Carlisle of The Go-Gos. She looked like she was having so much fun on those jet skis in that “Vacation” video. Indeed, she and her bandmates were to the point of excess, indulging themselves. After I learned of this, I no longer looked at the band in the same way, but I still dug what they’d managed to accomplish. They were chicks doing their thang, or rather the “guy” thing. They didn’t take any shit, lived fast and furious lives and had, what looked to be on the surface, a whole lot of fun in the process. They weren’t subjecting themselves to archetypal 60s female folk roles of the”girl out there with love in her eyes and flowers in her hair.” They were playing in an industry long dominated exclusively of men and saying, “Look, we’re women and anything you can do, we can and will do better.” I loved that they exuded this energy and I was beholden to it. I realize that the Wilson sisters were rockin’ out long before The Go-Gos but I’m not a classic rock gal and I never will be even when I begrudgingly succumb to my husband’s weekly quota for Led Zepellin on our car rides.

So over the last few days I’ve been preoccupied with female role models and the need for young women to hear encouraging, supportive feedback as youngsters or at the very least someone (preferably, a mentor) to tell them, “It’ll all be alright” and really mean it.

And then boom, I look at the front page of the Sunday New York Times today and the cover piece is devoted to Newton North High School and the female over-achiever. It documents the lives of a few of the “perfect” girls who go to school there and all the extra-curriculars they engage in along their quest to be the best or die while trying to live up to their parents’ expectations. You get the feeling from the article that none of these girls has particularly high self esteem (the cover girl frequently complains she is “no athlete” and is haunted by this deficiency) and moreover may suffer from what her mother calls “anorexia of the soul.” This anorexia of the soul manifests itself in the desire to succeed at all costs but with little grappling over where this drive stems from.

I’m well acquainted with Newton North and its social milieu, the yuppies that shop at the Whole Foods Market which is in close proximity to the 4 Starbucks, 2 yoga studios, and 3 SAT prep centers all in a radius of a quarter of a mile. It’s a generic affluent Northeast suburb and might look like any other in such an area. It manufactures similar kids, ones that are destined from birth to over-achieve because their parents ingrained in them the importance of excelling and because engulfing their every move is the latent pressure cooker reminder of failure not being an option.

From this article, I should be impressed that Colby Kennedy practices a gazillion hours a day on the piano (i myself know what it’s like) or that Esther Mobley reads and can actual digest Nietzsche and Kierkegaard or that another of their classmates is trying desperately to balance all her AP courses and a starring role as Maggie in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. These girls are undoubtedly dedicated and hard-working and should be celebrated for their accomplishments, but I can’t help but be concerned for their futures. Perhaps because I too suffered from this mindset in high school and in my early 20s nearly fell into an emotional abyss.
If we’re instilling in our girls the proper instruments and tools to learn and succeed are we also making time to teach them about how to laugh, smile, and have a bit of fun from time to time? Are we checking in with them emotionally on a regular basis? Or are we trying so hard to convince our girls that the fun will come later because we’re still waiting for it to emerge or trying to remember what it was like to once live a stress-free life.

To witness Belinda Carlisle’s face transform into a grin as her jet skis splashed water over camera lens, ever so innocently, was for me as a child one of the first images I associated with elation. For this I am indebted to my Go-Gos. If only vicariously as a child, they taught me to be cognizant of what bliss looked like so that later in my life I could identify those exact emotions and know how to embrace them.

Seriously, Girls?

Wake me up when women aren’t assessed first and foremost for their outward appearance. I caught a clip of “Regis & Kelly” while watching the late night news. The pregnant-by-Tom Brady (it’s so trendy, there’s a whole genre of them now) actress Bridget Moynahan had been interviewed that morning on the talk show and was bragging about how she could still fit into her favorite pair of jeans even after X months of being pregnant. She was there to plug that awful ABC melodrama she’s on that’s been renewed after ratings fell so low this Fall that they were forced to go on hiatus. Will ABC ever be able to repay the debt of shelving “Twin Peaks” after only one season?

Back to Moynahan and her pregnancy glow. I couldn’t help but be concerned that I didn’t even know why the actress was on the show since all the only thing being discussed in the short clip provided by the news station was how beautiful she was. Of course, the news anchors smiling with their vaseline coated teeth was distracting as well, but then, they too were gushing with pride about Bridget’s appearance. Local hometown girl pride aside (Bridget was born in Western, MA), even I felt a bit like gagging.

And then I read this piece produced by the IJWC (International Jewish Women’s Council) about putting a stop to low female self-esteem and how young girls have such idealized notions of beauty that low self esteem is inevitable. The jargon is nothing new, mind you. It was simply ironic that I came across the piece just after the Brady-Moynahan gag reflex set in. And because seeing a picture these days of Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, Nicole Ritchie, or Paris Hilton for that matter, doesn’t exactly equate with “idealized.” More like, run from stardom/”fake beauty” as fast as you can so that you never end up like them. If anything then, the paparazzi has helped bring these stars down to a level that not only humanizes them, but actually makes them less appealing.

I’m not encouraging the paparazzi to stalk stars. Simply stating that the need to celebrate Dove’s Real Beauty campaign, as ICJW is doing, is just as superficial in its own way. It’s simply emulating a different cult of beauty and one that falls more in line with the women who promote it. We shouldn’t have to look to beauty campaigns to find “real” beauty.