Bella vs. Buffy

I have started to wonder if there comes a point when a person cannot reasonably comment on a cultural phenomenon because of her age. Maybe I am getting old, but I seem to be missing the point, or not sharing in the enthusiasm of the latest Vampire Craze. Now, lest you think that I am anti-vampire or something, I understand the allure of the whole Young Woman in Love with Good but Tortured Vampire. Heck, I watched the entire Buffy the Vampire Series and (with less enthusiasm) Angel. The attraction and following of the Twilight books and movies, however, leaves me in confusion.

I must confess that I have not read any of the Twilight books. I have, however, watched the first half of the first movie. Our cable is running a special where we can have free access to Showtime on demand and the movie is available there. I was curious to see what all the hubbub about it was and I began watching. First, let me say that everyone is very good looking who is in this movie. It is also a very blue movie. I understand that is the point of the plot; it all takes place in an area of Washington State where the sun does not shine much. Kristen Stewart may be a wonderful actress and I have seen a couple movies in which she has done a good job. (Speak in particular is very well done.) She will be in the upcoming movie about the Runaways, playing Joan Jett and I bet everyone will love it. She seems to do the waifish, sad, and withdrawn girl very well.

When these books and then movies started appearing, I heard things that suggested that the character of Bella is a strong female figure, one who does not get pushed around, so forth. And in a world where we like strong female characters, I thought, "OK, so it seems to be ripping off Joss Whedon and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but maybe it will be fine." As I was watching the movie, what struck me however was that Bella was no different than any other girl captivated by a trouble and brooding boy who ultimately is bad for her. After I suffered (yes, suffered) through about half of it, I turned it off. The dialogue was painful; I saw no reason why these two individuals liked each other, or were drawn to each other. Nothing was made clear as to why the "good" vampires were in fact good and why they chose not to kill people. Now, maybe the book explains all this better. That happens when a book is made into a movie. Things get lost in translation. There was an inordinate amount of long, soulful stares with mouths half open. No one smiled. Well, if they did, not for long.

Not everything has to be a lesson (or chipper) and not all female characters have to be strong, but I get a little flummoxed when critics or commentators make claims that the central female character is a role model, when one is really not. I hope I do not sound like someone who says, "in my day," but Buffy was a truly good series that made room for character exploration and development. It used the whole fighting demons thing as a means of exploring typical high school and then young adult issues. The relationship with the over 100 year-old vampire was in fact doomed and that is how it played out. The show examined real issues of pain, loss, family, friendship, and love, but it also had a sense of humor. Occasionally the sun shined. I am sure all this was possible because it was a television series that lasted for seven years. The Twilight saga (yes, saga) deals with, I assume, a much briefer period of time. I can put up with some bad movies. My devotion to the Lifetime and Hallmark movie channels is a testament to that. But, the attraction to this story, by more than a cadre of twelve-year-old girls, confuses me. So, maybe I am getting too old to appreciate or understand the attraction.

March: Women's History Month

It's Women's History Month!!!

Being in the business of women's history, I am aware of this month's celebration. I was curious what was "out there" for Women's History Month and the first result of my Google Search was the National Women's History Project. Their slogan is "Writing Women Back into History." This is an admirable endeavor and not to mention complicated. The organization established in 1980 works to celebrate women's achievements in history and they make a concerted effort to have a multicultural approach. They also have programs for educators. All good things. The Library of Congress also has a site devoted to Women's History Month. This is nice, because it is the LoC and there are tons of links to historical documents and images to explore.

(Do you feel a but coming on?)

The methodology of "writing women back into history" bears a resemblance to the early women's history approach of finding women' worthies, such as early biographies of Jane Addams and Ameliea Earhart. These women were noteworthy because they appeared to do things as feminists and that only men did. They competed successfully with men. (OK, sure, Earhart died in that pursuit, but she was successful before then.) This type of history was popular in the early days of women's history as a discipline (1970s and 1980s). Since that time, the field has moved on, broadened its approach to include all sorts of methodologies, including gender analysis and new periodization among others. This makes me think of the recent post by Notorious Ph.D. Girl on her encounter with women's historians of another country with a different methodological approach, which she and her fellow scholars had moved beyond. Another post at Historiann discusses revisionist history and whether the concept still exists. These discussion on the state of the discipline and how we as scholars relate to one another, plus the idea of celebrating women in the past, made me think of about how historians relate to the wider world.

While the above two posts deal with a specific field of history and tribalism, the thing that strikes me is that Average-Jane and John-on-the-Street have not moved on from 1980. Each semester I teach American women's history and each semester I have to introduce my students to the women worthies of history. They do not know who Jane Addams was. They are unfamiliar with when and how suffrage was won by women. This was one of the big events of women's history and they do not know when this happened or how. They do not know who Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, or Alice Paul were. (Depending on their age, they might have heard of Susan B. Anthony because she is on a dollar coin. One student remarked, "Isn't she that chick on the money?") The average person outside the field of history know very little about the past or how historians think about the past.

So, when I think about what the National Women's History Project people and others like them are doing, I am of two minds. One part of me says we have to stop looking for great women and discover more about how women lived in the past. The other part of me says every little bit helps. So, I say, you go girls! Now, I will go back to reading my feminist methodology and being cranky.

En Vogue

I came to the conclusion a while ago that my appearance matters a bit to me (who am I kidding, it always mattered). Let me say, it mattered enough to justify paying for a trip to the salon every six weeks and I continue to go to get my hair done. Or, as I call it, the beauty parlor. I know that no one calls salons beauty parlors any more and I am a bit of history geek for continuing to call them this. I like it the way it sounds and the connotation this label gives about what goes on in them.

When I was a child, my grandmothers went to the beauty parlor and had their hair done. When they were no longer able to go to the beauty parlor, their hair dressers came to them to set their hair for the week. I was always fascinated by this process and the culture of the beauty parlor. My mother took me (and my sister) to her hair dresser when it came time for us to have hair cuts. I remember it was a bewildering place with strange smells (a weird mixture of cigarette smoke, hair spray, fake nail chemicals, and whatever goes into perms). It was definitely a female environment. I do not remember any male clients and there were not any male hair dressers. Women talked about their lives, complained about their husbands, and bragged about their children. Women gossiped and I remember my mother talking in a light, chatty manner, that gave few details, but was not unfriendly or evasive. (We were schooled at a very early age that we did not talk about our business with others, nor did we gossip.)

I was a bit of tomboy as a child and I really had an aversion to all things pink. I was painfully shy and did not engage in conversation well (nor do I now, even though I have overcome the painful part of shyness.) I did not get this beauty parlor world. There were all sorts of magazines with hair styles, both imaginable and strange. Then there were the fashion magazine, like Vogue. Those magazines were so foreign and the women in the pictures were so unlike who I was or could ever be. But, we move on from there, we learn to accept who we are for our good points. Fine. Super. Moving on.

On my last visit to the beauty parlor, I forgot to bring a book. (I always bring a book with me to whatever kind of appointment I have. One never knows when one will have to wait. Books always come in handy. ) Consequently, my only reading material were magazines. I started with Lady's Home Journal or something like that, and then with nothing else nearby, I picked up a Vogue. It had been a while and I was not sorry for that time. This magazine which touts itself as an authority on beauty and fashion puts forward an image of woman that disturb me. Now, the waifish, pouty model with vacant-staring eyes was not invented yesterday, and I was not surprised to see some of it. Heck I came of age when all the models looked like they were on heroin. As I was reading this magazine, I started wondering why all the women looked like they had been beaten, or assaulted in some way? Why did they all stand with their feet turned in and knees slightly bent? Who finds this attractive? Do heterosexual men read this magazine and this is what they want? Why were images of haunted women in next to nothing or thoroughly unpractical and unattractive clothing followed by short stories of heroic women volunteering in places like Africa? My favorite was the extensive article critiquing the fashion industry's obsession with ultra thin models, which was followed by advertisements with images of terribly thin women. Despite knowing that this is not real and those images have no bearing on my life, I do could not shake a negative feeling.

How has the understanding of beauty changed over the last twenty to thirty years? How has the beauty parlor changed? There are still a lot of women there, although men show up too. (We thank the invention of the unisex salon for that.) Women still chat about their lives and gossip. There are still magazines with hair styles. I still feel somewhat out of step with this culture. And it is a culture with language, ritual, and maybe a secret handshake. Definitely the products are neat. And when I leave the establishment, I feel better about myself. The trick is to figure out what it is that makes me feel better, and carry that through the weeks.

Distracted by Frustration

One of the academic blogs I read (well a few of them) discuss from time to time the job market and the process by which people become tenured. The market is dismal. Apparently more dismal than in previous years. Considering the economy, I am not too shocked. I grow increasingly tired of the whole discussion primarily because it is depressing. No, my chances of getting a tenure track job, already pretty pathetic, are getting worse by the hour. I have known since 1990 that my chances of a successful and financially secure life were worse than my parents. I learned this when my aging geography professor in undergrad announced this to the class. I had not at this point made the decision to go on to graduate school. I just assumed that it meant in general things were tough.

Now, after thirteen (yep thirteen) years of graduate work (masters and PhD combined--I switched programs too) later, I apparently have been led astray. Huh? There is a running discussion on this blog which is pretty interesting (and depressing). The author of the blog, Another Damned Medievalist, does a really good job at summarizing the problems and makes a rational statement, which of course bothers the younger scholars who are currently navigating graduate school. They are all upset by the fact that they have worked really hard, and are not getting The Job. I don't have much sympathy for them. I am grossly in debt (never got funded) and will have a really hard time finding the tenure track job. This is the way things are. I have sympathy (sort of) for those shining stars from fancy graduate programs who got funding who are now struggling, but, again, no one forced them into graduate school. Not everyone gets to do what they hoped and dreamed they would do. Not everyone has that luxury.

Yes, academia sucks (pardon my use of crass words). Some people are bullies, others are weird, snooty, socially inept, and hold really extreme political views that have no basis in reality. OK. We chose this life. If it isn't working out, do the responsible and practical thing and find another path.

I thought about adding my comments to the post linked above, but to do so opens me up to the potentially weird and hostile reply. I have no wish to join in particularly when there is no arguing with someone who has made up his or her mind. Another bad trait of academics, by the way. "I believe what I believe is Truth, and you can believe what you believe, but you are wrong. And not only that, you are evil for believing it. I have an open mind. Because you believe the contrary to what I believe, you are closed minded. Oh and evil."