Chicks flicked

This was sent to me by my friend and colleague Linda Barnard, the Star's movies section editor. Can't find  it online so I'll just post the whole thing here.

          Report: Women Underrepresented in Film Jobs

By Lee Margulies
(c) 2009, Los Angeles Times

HOLLYWOOD - Women are much more likely to hold jobs as directors, cinematographers and other key creative personnel on independent films than on major studio movies, a new study says. But their employment figures still lag well behind men even there.

The report, released Tuesday by the Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film at California State University, San Diego, looked at employment figures on 906 feature-length U.S. movies that were shown at one of 25 American film festivals between June 2008 and May 2009.

It found that women made up 24 percent of directors, writers, producers, cinematographers and editors on these films, with heavier representation in documentaries than in narrative works.

An earlier study by the center found that women held 16 percent of the equivalent jobs on the top 250 domestic grossing films of 2008.

This is quite confounding considering how women make up at least half the film school graduates but are also half the audience.

But then, it seems as if every film made by women and even about women has to be tested against different criteria.

"Some of the greatest parts for women -- the Academy Award parts for women -- are often in dramas, and this is the worst time for dramas since I've been in the business for the last 10,000 years." More than ever, producer Lynda Obst ("Contact," "The Invention of Lying") adds, the movie business is geared toward the young men who go to movies most frequently. "And by and large that's a comedy audience and an action audience. To get a project greenlit now, studios are requiring more and more what we call 'unaided awareness,' which is where you get this addiction to toys and comics and old titles. And dramas don't live there." 

And neither do women.

The Way It Was

Can't you just imagine the Draper household --  on one of those rare nights Don stays in with the family?

While Don plays Battleship with Bobby, there happily doing the dishes in the background are Betty and Sally.

 

Life was so much simpler then, wasn't it?

Choo on this

Two items of note today, neither of which I am loathe to reward with attention. But a girl's got to do what a girl's got to do.

First up, this unbelievably sexist piece of crap. Columnist Ian Robertson Robinson muses on the differences between women on the left and those on the right.

And why has he chosen this topic? Because clearly he is writing with his pen and not with his keyboard -- if you get my drift -- so besotted is he with Danielle Smith, the new leader of the provincial Wildrose Party.

I cut'n'paste. You decide.

Right-wing women rock.

Not for us the sturdy, honest calves of the New Democrat/Green Party female, honed on eco-tourist rainforest hikes. Those legs are often on unfortunate display, extending from a knee-length tweed skirt as hairy as the legs themselves, and end in a pair of Birkenstocks.

Because, you know, left-women have never heard of wax.

I have yet to see a pair of Birkenstock women's shoes that didn't look like part of the required uniform for police SWAT teams.

<SNIP>

The primary reason our womenfolk are at war with the looming spectre of the nanny state is because you can't buy Jimmy Choos in a socialist paradise.

Oh really? Have you been off the ranch and in downtown Toronto recently?

The only sensible footwear you'll find in a right-wing woman's closet are the Nike cross-trainers that go with her gym membership.

And Robertson Robinson knows this because ... he is in closets a lot?

<SNIP>

Left-wing drabs recycle. Right-wing women shop -- and the government measures how much they shop every month to find out whether we're still in a recession. Basically, the world economy depends on right-wing women buying shoes.

<SNIP>

A right-wing woman wants to get elected, she runs for office.

If she wins, great. If she loses ... well, there's always more shoe shopping.

Because right-wing women don't have careers?

Left-wing women burn enormous quantities of fossil fuels to drive across the city to a farmer's market to purchase virtually the same carrot you can get at the neighbourhood Sobey's a couple of blocks from your house for half the price, all in the name of making the environment happy.

A right-wing woman hits the gym, swings past Sobey's and has dinner on the table by the time you get home ... while her left-wing counterpart is still stuck in traffic listening to Sarah McLachlan on her iPod and feeling morally superior about her carrot choices. 

I could go on but this is making me want to toss my tofu cookies.

It occurs to me that Robertson's Robinson's ideal woman must be Sarah Palin.

So how are those book sales shaping up anyway, Mrs. P?

Meanwhile, over here on the almost left middle-of-Canada, we have the National Post's Barbara Kay who, once again, gives Men's Rights Activists and misogynists a thrill with her attack on the Liberal Pink Book, Volume III. (I plan to blog about this but keep getting distracted.)

Now, are there problems with the Pink Book? As a certain right-wing hottie might say, ''You betcha!''

But Kay uses the book to advance her fallacious agenda which is all about discounting the very real problem of woman abuse, discrimination in the workplace and elsewhere, and the lie about why boys are doing poorly in school.

Example:

New ideas include: micro-credit loans of small amounts of money to female entrepreneurs ...

<SNIP>

Why do women wishing to start enterprises deserve government-backed credit more than 
men? Women are as well educated as men in this country, and since they make something like 70% of household purchases, are far better placed to tap into networks and targeted markets than men. Let them get their loans the usual way; if their idea is good, they'll get the loan. If it's bad, why fund hobbies?

Now I know that Kay is old enough to remember a time when a woman could not get a car loan -- never mind a business loan -- without her husband's or father's signature. It wasn't that long ago, believe me.

Sure, we've moved forward since then.

But here's the problem: Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of women have neither work experience, nor property (collateral)  in their name, nor credit ratings. Many of these might be farm wives or stay-at-home mothers or immigrants who were isolated who may have escaped abusive marriages or whose husbands left them or died deeply in debt, maybe from gambling.

You think banks would give these women a loan? 

Hah.

It has obviously escaped Kay's notice that women form the bulk of the poor in Canada -- and, even when they're not poor, they make less than men because they are largely responsible for childcare, eldercare and other domestic concerns. As a result, many work part-time jobs which give them fewer or no benefits, and make it harder for them to collect UI when laid off.

But what would Kay know of any of this?

After all, while she's out shopping for her Jimmy Choos in Westmount, it's unlikely she'll step over any poor lefty women.

UPPITY WOMAN DATE: Some vintage kicks from Pale.

I touch, u score?

Another one picked up at Sociological Images:

This one's about PepsiCo's iPhone/iTouch freebie app that advises users -- men-- on how to ''score'' with one of 24 types stereotypes of ''girls.''

You meet one of them, you classify her (cougar girl? political girl? women's studies girl? oooh and even twins girls!) and then you tap for tips on how to pick her up.

Oh but it gets better.

After you ''get lucky,'' you can add her to your ''Brag List'' and include her name, phone number and ''whatever details you remember.''

And then?

You got it? Flaunt it. keep your buddies in the loop on email, Facebook and Twitter.

Sure, broadcast the score.

And, while you're at it, add her name and number to the bathroom wall, why don't you?

As Gwen at Sociological Images notes,

Women as sex objects? Check. Depiction of sex/relationships as a game where it’s acceptable for men to manipulate women so they can “score” with them? Check. Stupidity? Check.

Oh and let's not forget the part where, as my mother used to put it, he ''adds a notch to his gun.''

According to NPR, Pepsi, which launched the app to promote a new energy drink aimed at young men, was mildly apologetic.

It seems like an odd mistake for a company like PepsiCo. It has a female CEO and major products like Quaker Oats and Tropicana orange juice that appeal to families and moms.

<SNIP>

On Tuesday, Pepsi sent out a tweet that said, "We apologize if it's in bad taste & appreciate [your] feedback." Many men on Twitter defended the humor of the app, and many women said they wouldn't be buying Pepsi products anytime soon.

PepsiCo did not respond to NPR's request for a comment.

The app is still available over at iTunes.

UPPITY WOMAN DATE: How's this for meta?

I was just about to tweet this post when I found this, a Powerpoint slide show on this marketing campaign.

#PepsiFail fer shure.

And seriously, did Pepsi create that #PepsiFail tag?

Who wants to play with who wants to be a millionaire?

Via BuzzFeed, this three-month old video which is suddenly climbing the charts.

All I can say is, ewwww.

Imagine if were Regis with a gorgeous woman contestant.

Ewwww.

Different strokes

This is sports reporting, by the Star's Damien Cox. (I added the link.)

Opening night of the Rogers Cup women's competition at the Rexall Centre last night featured two of the three. Glamour girl Maria Sharapova is working on coming back from a serious shoulder injury at the tender age of 22, while her opponent, Nadia Petrova, is a long-time vet who might well, at the age of 27, have played her best tennis.

Sharapova, in her seventh tournament back from shoulder surgery that put her on the shelf for nine months, was clearly the focus of attention in what turned out to be a rather pedestrian affair on a sultry evening that followed a broiling day of action at York University.

So is Sharapova really back? Is she looking like she might challenge again for No. 1 in the world after tumbling to No. 49?

Well, the answers were at best unclear, with Sharapova's 6-3, 6-4 victory rather less entertaining than the hit-and-giggle event beforehand that including former stars Martina Navratilova and Monica Seles, the brilliant Serena Williams and Canadian ace Aleksandra Wozniak.

Petrova's effort was riddled with errors, particularly with her uncooperative forehand, with the only drama being her pushback from down 5-2 in the third, twice staring down double-match point before succumbing.

This is sexism, by the Sun's Mike Strobel. (I added the boldface.)

It's sex. Game, sex, match.

Take a gander at the promos for the women's Rogers Cup this week.

Maria Sharapova, the world #49, is usually in the foreground.

Or at least her derriere is.
   
There's a "backhand me, buster" glint in her eye.

Defending champ Dinara Safina slouches saucily.

The Williams sister pose like they just busted your racket and chewed up your headband.

What are these women offering? Overhand volleys? Or a lapdance?

There is nothing wrong with this, of course. Especially if you are a male with a pulse.

In fact, it's a refreshing change from the dark ages of uber-feminism.

Now that men and women are equal, we can all get back to ogling each other.

Once upon a time, you were lucky if women tennis players bothered to shave their legs.

They wore spinster white and spectacles and had names like Billy Jean and Margaret.

Oh, they were good, all right. Just no sizzle.

Because women athletes have to titillate? Because multi-grand slam winners and world champion players, born before people started naming their kids after soap opera characters, sucked because of their names? Because tennis whites were tennis whites -- or you got kicked off the court?

Look, I get that sometimes a guy has to squeeze a column out on a slow news day. And I also get that Strobel is riffing on promotional posters rather than the actual matches. And I have no problem with sexy puns or references.

But demeaning world-class athletes with ''lapdance?''

''Backhand me buster?''

Where are the feminists men's rights activists?

H/t to my Tweeps @OntarioRebELLES and @HarpeGirl.

UPPITY WOMAN DATE: I just had a good look at those posters again. There is nothing overtly sexual about them. They show women with strength, confidence and attitude. Just the kind of poses we would see male athletes strike.

But these are supposed to be come-ons?

COME ON.

(And yeah, I got the double entendre.)

Board Games

Just out, a University of Exeter study of how companies fare when women are appointed to their boards.

Why, profit-wise, they do just great, thank you very much. Just as well  -- if not better -- than companies with all male boards. But, when it comes to stock market performance, these companies are systematically undervalued. (All boldface added by moi.)

The research suggests that shareholders respond negatively to women being appointed to their boards, causing share values to decline. This is consistent with other recent research that has examined responses to the appointment of female CEOs in the United States.

The team from the University of Exeter's School of Psychology and Business School conducted a comprehensive analysis of performance data from all FTSE 100 companies between 2001 and 2005. This found that companies with all-male boards had a market valuation equivalent to 166% of their book value, while companies with at least one female board member had a market value equal to just 121% of book value.

However, the research also showed that appointing a woman to a company board does not compromise objective measures of financial performance, specifically, Return on Assets and Return on Equity. In fact, within the data set as a whole there was evidence that companies with women on their board were a far better investment than those without.

This suggests that shareholders systematically over-value companies will all-male boards, while being unenthusiastic about the appointment of women to senior positions. This is despite there being no evidence that women's appointment has an adverse impact on company's performance.

The findings also fit with previous research from the University of Exeter which has shown that women are appointed to leadership positions when a company is in crisis. Dubbed the 'glass cliff' phenomenon, this trend involves women being placed in precarious positions when there is a high risk of failure. This has led to women being associated with weak performance.

Get this:

Lead author Professor Alex Haslam, a psychologist at the University of Exeter who developed the ‘glass cliff’ theory with his Exeter colleague Professor Michelle Ryan, said: “Our study shows very clearly that shareholders tend to devalue companies with women board members and to chronically over-value those with all-male boards. What is not clear is whether this is because shareholders feel that women perform less well on boards than men or whether they see a woman’s appointment as a signal that the company is in crisis. Whatever the reason, it is clear that this response is unwarranted, because there is no objective evidence that having female board members damages a company’s performance. If anything, the opposite is true.”

More:

The Exeter study comes just a week after a study by academics at the London School of Economics and Political Science found having more women in the boardroom can have "a negative effect on financial performance''.

While companies with more women on their boards tend to have better corporate governance, they are less profitable and have a smaller market capitalisation, according to the LSE paper.

Which makes sense, when you think about it. Men tend to be bigger risk-takers -- and that's not necessarily a good thing when it comes to high finance. Many have theorized that, had more women been in the investment banking business, there would not have been all that crashing and burning we saw last year.

But don't you just love these sexist terms??

Employing more women in the boardroom can wreak havoc on the financial performance of companies, fresh research suggests.

Two academics found that female directors were more likely to 'meddle' with boards and get rid of male chief executives who are not up to the job.

However, their more ruthless approach could produce unexpected results and be 'bad for a company's coffers', the study found.

Couldn't ''decrease profitability'' do? Couldn't ''hold to higher/tougher standards'' or ''question'' do?

That the studies contradict each other doesn't surprise me. Especially since I poked around the much more extensive relevant research on the U. of Exeter's site.

It's all about ''the glass cliff.''

Here's a definition:

 in a study of FTSE 100 companies, Haslam and his team discovered that most appointed women to senior positions only after a downturn in their fortunes, leaving them standing on the edge of a "glass cliff."

"It takes the form of a glass cliff, where women are more likely to be appointed to precarious positions than men," Haslam told the British Association science festival in Exeter.

"What was found was that in all of those cases women had only been appointed after company performance had slumped quite dramatically.

"So women are parachuted into rather hazardous leaderships situations. What is typically happening is that if everything is going well with a company there is no motivation for change; you can carry on with the same 'jobs for the boys' approach."

With failing companies likely to attract adverse media attention, women in "glass cliff" positions are more exposed to public criticism and risk being blamed for a management failure that had already occurred before their appointment, Haslam said.

All of which goes to show, to paraphrase Nicholas Kristof, had there been some Lehman Sisters in with those Lehman Brothers, maybe  the company would not have gone down in the biggest bankruptcy in U.S. history.

Bottom line: No wonder women are still fighting for pay equity. According to this research, as soon as they crack that glass ceiling, they're set up to fail.

Sexist assault

Today's treeware column picked up on this and this about the sexist coverage of Hillary Clinton's reaction when she was asked her hubby's opinions by a Congolese student.

Lest we forget, one of her goals in Congo was to put the spotlight on the appalling treatment of women there. Obviously, with all the news orgs back home focusing on her -- they all but said ''bitchy,'' didn't they? -- reaction, the true issue got a pathetic amount of coverage.

Which is why I am posting this:

Here is today's column, with linky freshness:

It was 1991, at the Banff Television Festival where, as the Star's TV columnist, I was thrilled to be chatting with a journalistic hero, a man whose cred stretched back to the Vietnam War, a network show host, a big man on the small screen on both sides of the border.

I'd been in the job for a couple of years and, if I do say so myself, had made some waves in the broadcast biz with my reporting. Big Man was very complimentary, admitting he loved my insider gossip.

That's when my (now ex-) husband joined us. Big Man and he were acquainted, as my former mate was himself a TV journalist, producer, director and writer of some note.

When Big Man realized who my husband was, he said, dead seriously, "Oh, now I know where you get all your information."

"Yeah, right," I snapped. "My husband really has time to do my homework for me."

Which brings us to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who, despite her education, background, brains, hard work, groundbreaking career and sheer grit in the face of the most persistent and consistent sexist attacks in memory, continues to be the target of media- generated discrimination.

This week, Clinton, nursing a broken elbow while on a gruelling tour through Africa, visiting some of the most hellish countries on Earth, places where thousands of women, children and even men are raped as spoils of war, failed to deflect a question in an acceptably girlie and gracious manner.

At a town hall with Congolese university students, she was asked, in a halting and a supposedly mistranslated way, her husband ex-President Bill Clinton's opinion of the World Bank's and China's dealings in that country.

(Despite initial reports, subsequent analyses reveal that not only was Clinton in fact asked about her husband, a former Congolese basketball star Dikembe Mutombo was also asked for his opinion.)

"Wait, you want me to tell you what my husband thinks?" she replied, incredulous. "My husband is not the secretary of state. I am. So, you ask my opinion, I will tell you my opinion. I'm not going to be channelling my husband."

The subsequent stories and headlines described her reaction as "boiled over," "outraged," "unhinged," "blew up," just about every substitute for "shrieked shrewishly" you can find in a thesaurus.

But watch the video, which of course has gone viral, and you can see, not only does Clinton hesitate nearly 10 seconds before seeking clarification, her response is assertive, forceful.

Or at least that's how it would have been described had she been a man.

But, of course, she would not have been asked that question had she been a man, now would she?

The coverage was so disrespectful one pundit even noted that she was having a bad hair day.

"It had gone all flat and straight, which puts any woman in a bad humor," wrote Tina Brown, former editor of The New Yorker and Vanity Fair.

You mean it wasn't PMS?

True, this media uproar is no more than just another example of the gotcha/trivia journalism all too common today, especially in the U.S.

But, when it comes to Clinton, there is a pattern. Remember how, during her run for the Democratic presidential nomination, her eyes got moist at one event, only to have the headlines describe a woman sobbing out of control?

Of course, because Clinton is taking a different tack from her weak, warmongering predecessors Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, a strategy focused on development and not defence, it's not as newsnet-worthy as "mushroom clouds" and "smoking guns."

And so, rather than report on her mission, and the Obama administration's truly world-changing strategy of focusing on maternal health and women's safety, the media give us reports on how Clinton's work begins at home, with her husband.

Talk about a fail.

Lost in mistranslation

Further to this, it appears that, while participating in that Q&A with Congolese students, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was not replying to a mistranslated question, she was indeed asked what her husband, former President Bill Clinton, thought.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was onstage in Kinshasa, Congo’s shabby capital, in an auditorium packed with Congolese students.

And then came the question, from a young man in a suit.

“Mrs. Clinton, we’ve all heard about the Chinese contracts in this country,” he said. “The interference is from the World Bank against this contract. What does Mr. Clinton think through the mouth of Mrs. Clinton?”

Mrs. Clinton’s answer on Monday has quickly become the No. 1 sound bite from her trip. Her whole seven-nation Africa tour, which has had quite serious intentions, like combating Congo’s appalling rape epidemic and raising her personal profile within President Obama’s administration, may end up being reduced to this:

“Wait, you want me to tell you what my husband thinks? My husband is not the secretary of state, I am. So you ask my opinion, I will tell you my opinion. I am not going to be channeling my husband.”

<SNIP>

After the forum, her aides told the traveling press corps that there might have been a mistranslation, and that the student actually wanted to know the opinion of her boss, not her husband. But that interpretation did not dispel the controversy either, since it gave new life to the nagging question of whether Mrs. Clinton felt marginalized in the Obama administration.

<SNIP>

Later, her aides released the transcript of the question, as it had been translated to English from French, and further inspection of the audio recording of the event indicated that the translation was fine; the student had indeed said “Mr. Clinton.”

You know, because Congo is so great on recognizing women's rights.

More:

Given that it now appears that the question was translated correctly — and that the male student wanted to know not just what Bill Clinton thought of Chinese relations with Congo but also what the former N.B.A. star Dikembe Mutumbo, who was present at the event, thought, too, but expressed no interest in the perspective of America’s female secretary of state — is it possible that Mrs. Clinton has gotten a raw deal from commentators in the United States for her angry reply?

Ya think?

More to the point, while most of the derisive commentary on Mrs. Clinton’s flash of temper contextualized it by noting that her husband had just been lauded for his trip to North Korea, few noted that she was in the middle of a trip to Congo, where the plight of women, many of whom suffered violent sexual abuse during recent fighting, is a major issue. 

No!!!! Really??

I'm shocked. Shocked I tell ya.

Out of the mouth of a babe

Women are equal in the eyes of the law?

Yeah. Right.

Consider the recent influence-peddling trial of Ottawa Mayor Larry O'Brien. (He was cleared.)

Consider how the testimony of Ontario MPP Lisa MacLeod (PC-Nepean-Carleton) was regarded by the court.

Which is to say, hardly at all:

It's interesting that the one woman among the trial's cast of characters, MPP Lisa MacLeod, was asked on the stand about how she coped with her father's illness and having a young child, as if these might have a bearing on her ability to be an accurate witness.

It's even more interesting that Judge Douglas Cunningham seems to have found that argument relevant, at least in part, saying in his judgment that MacLeod had "significant things going on in her life when she gave her statement to police in early May 2007," noting that she had to leave her husband and child at home to go to work. These weren't the only reasons the judge found her testimony to be of "little weight." Still, none of the male witnesses -- all of whom also had busy, stressful jobs, and presumably, family obligations -- were subjected to skepticism related to their personal lives.

Surprise, surprise.

UPPITY WOMAN DATE: Here is the actual decision by Judge Douglas Cunningham (PDF). Scroll down to paragraph 61 where the relevant bits begin.

Note that his reasons for for discounting MacLeod's testimony had more to do with her lack of precision than her femitude. It was defence that tried to knock her down by citing her personal stresses.

UP THE LAZY JOURNALISTIC RIVER DATE: This story began at the Ottawa Citizen -- and then got picked up by the Globe and Mail and CTV -- and then got out of control.

And so, back to the Ottawa Citizen.

The important issue in this instance is that MacLeod gave inconsistent accounts — with difference that were significant in the outcome of the trial — of her conversation with Larry O'Brien ... and Cunningham was positing some possible explanations. If it's simply off-limits to say that very busy people, male or female, might not precisely recall conversations from years ago, then we're left with the explanation that MacLeod gave inconsistent testimony because she's ... what, simply personally unreliable? Is that really better?

No. But would a judge actually cite a male witnesses' personal stresses in quite the same manner?

I doubt it.