A tribute to Yvonne Craig

Source

I don't know if I can express how much Batgirl means to me.  (I've been stuck in the planning stages of a Batgirl cosplay for months now.)  Batgirl is strong, beautiful, and kicks butt.  We talk a lot about the pressure on women to be everything but there is something to be said for the idea that a woman doesn't have to give up girly and pretty to follow her dreams.  Or to fight crime.  Batgirl was Nancy Drew in a cape and you know how much I love Nancy Drew.  My first experience with the character was through Yvonne Craig's portrayal of her in the 1960's Batman series.   Okay, the show was outright nuts and very sexist but Batgirl!  Plus there's something to be said for a "spinster" librarian who can solve crimes, kick ass, and keep Batman/Bruce completely in the dark about her secret identity.

Of course there have been other Batgirls in both the comics and movies but Craig was my first.  Her Batgirl gave me something to aspire to.  Someone to look up to.  Sure, she's fiction - but everything is fiction until it's fact.  Craig did her own stunts and gave young girls a role model for almost 50 years now.  Craig may be gone but her legacy will continue with all the women who, thanks to her, grew up knowing they could be their own heroes.

Here's to Craig.  May she and her Batgirl be an inspiration forever.

The Shallow end of the Lipstick*

Source

I was reading this post (do read it, it's very good) the other day and while I know better, I still scrolled down and read the comments.  Some were actually quite nice, others reminded me of something that seems to keep popping up in my life lately: negative attitudes about women who wear makeup.

First, a confession:

In my younger days I did have a negative view of makeup.  No doubt part of it was because I didn't want to be thought of as "vain" or "shallow" - two of the most common words used to describe women who wear makeup.

I’m sure my thoughts were media influenced.  How often do we hear that truly beautiful people don’t care about looks?   How many times have we seen the deep, smart girl who doesn’t wear makeup pitted against the shallow, vapid girl who wears too much.  (Of course in the entertainment industry even “natural” beauties have to wear makeup.)  Then there’s the old classic of the insecure girl who wears “too much makeup” becoming prettier by taking it off - usually at the behest of her beloved who likes her better without. I know it's usually presented as a "He loves me just as I am" but if he truly loved you just as you are he wouldn't be telling you to change.* 

All this got into my head.  I had no desire to flaunt my insecurities or give people the impression that I was shallow enough as to care about my looks.  I’m not going to lie, I do I want to be pretty - but intelligent and talented has always out ranked that. And, of course, this was at a time when I still cared about how other people saw me. 

Now I wear makeup all the time.  Nearly every day.  I think the shift began when I started hunting for the perfect vintage red lipstick.  As part of my hunt I did a lot of research on both historical and modern makeup.  I also started trying different brands and got more savvy at application.  I found I enjoyed the creative aspect. As it became more a part of my everyday life I began to reevaluate my views on makeup.  I realized that wearing makeup cannot make a person "vain" or "shallow" anymore than not wearing makeup can make them deep. 

Back to the article:

When I read about women who went through years of deprivation, worked hard (and sometimes dangerous) manual labor, were bombed out of their homes, volunteered for the war effort, kept families fed, clothed, and alive as best they could while missing family that was either dead or far off and in serious danger the last word I think of is “shallow.”  These women gave up so much that it probably was a relief to know that their country wasn’t going to judge them if they still cared about their looks.  In fact, their country wanted them to go on as they always had and to maintain as much normalcy as possible.

Anyone who considers a woman shallow for putting on lipstick during wartime is probably either an idiot or has absolutely no concept of what World War II was like. I’m not saying I truly do know, nor that I would have been capable of half the amazing things these women did.   What I do know is that the war went on for years.  Despite missing family members and bombings and shortages - people still had to live their lives.  Do the people who consider the women of World War II shallow think that every single person gave up all joy and creature comforts for the duration?  People still made art, sang, danced, fell in love, dressed up to go out, and laughed.  Everyone does all these things in wartime - they have to do them to remind themselves why they are fighting and sacrificing. 

You might as well say the men of World War II were shallow and vain for still shaving.

We all have our morale boosters.  The little things that make us feel better when we are down.  The things that help us maintain our dignity when someone else is trying to chip away at it.  For some of us it may be music or poetry.  For others it just might happen to be putting on makeup. 

And if a little lipstick and rouge is all it took to keep the women of WWII going, I kind of think that makes them superheroes. 

*Yeah the title doesn't really make sense but I thought it sounded cool.
* Using heteronormative language here as I haven't seen such things portrayed about same sex couples.

Checking In

Been a bit, hasn't it?  Since I have been too busy to put together new posts I thought I'd just do a little brief on what I'm enjoying right now.

Currently obsessed with this song:

Am quite impressed with "Astronaut Wives Club".   From the ads I expected it to be frothy fun but as a total space nerd I had to at least give it a try.  Sure it's pretty to look at but there is definitely more going on than pretty clothes and great makeup.  I'm quite excited that it looks like they will be dramatizing the hearings to allow women to be astronauts.  It's a bit of space race history that I'd never even heard of until I took a class in college on the history of space exploration.  A class in which I was, oddly enough, the only female student.  It was a small class, but still very strange that I would be the only female.

Anyway, if you aren't watching it I recommend popping in to give it a try tomorrow.

And while I'm promoting things I just saw these guys last week:

They are amazing.  I listen to a lot of "new stuff that sounds old" (you could even say it's my favorite genre of music) and it can be hard to come off as more than a novelty act.    Artists who are so heavily influenced by a much older style sometimes struggle to create a sound that walks the fine line between classic and fresh.  The Nightowls Seem to hit the sweet spot every single time.  They did some awesome covers in their set when I saw them - but I have to say I like their originals best.

Feel free to share anything you're currently digging in the comments.

Top Ten Reasons Why there should be more Angent Carter

source

 I was going to do a "Final thoughts" type thing analyzing the rest of what I hope is just season one of Agent Carter ( I can't find anything that confirms or denies a season two, anyone know anything more solid?) but then I decided I'd rather think about season 2. Spoilers (for season 1) ahead.

1. Agent Carter, Herself

Because TV needs more women like Carter.  And so does Marvel, well they need to start putting them in films and shows more. Not that I don't love Black Widow and Agent Hill, but they don't even get to have a conversation with each other.

2. Moving On

I'm not that bothered that season one was so much about getting out of Cap's shadow but now that Carter has let go of Cap, can the show do it too? Carter has always been her own woman and never the shrieking violet needing saving and she deserves to be seen as the hero she is.  Even if she's not in need of validation, I kind of am.

3. Agent Sousa

While I'm not shipping Carter/Sousa (Carusa?) yet I definitely want to see more of Enver Gjokaj as Sousa.  Plus they have to write the "Stark gives Sousa a new prosthetic and wackiness ensues episode."  They've already teased it!

4. Jarvis

He's already Carter's faithful retainer and it's always funny when he and Carter go "Full British."  Also, we've still got a lot of unsolved mysteries about Jarvis that I'd like to see revealed.  Perhaps his past comes back to haunt him and Carter helps him . . .

5. History/film buff Easter eggs

Considering my occasionally spotty knowledge of modern pop culture it's nice not to have to go to Google just to get the joke.

6. That Radio Show

So, I was reading that if Agent Carter does continue they are talking about doing a podcast of 15 minute episodes of the Captain America radio serial.  I know I said it's good that Carter is out of the shadow of Cap, but to have him not be there at all would be a bit strange.  The serial would be a nice way of keeping him there but out of the way.  Also, if they need someone I'm pretty sure I was born to write a 1940s style superhero radio serial.  Just sayin'.

7. Dotty

Because I'd like to find out if she's Moriarty or  Darth Vader.

8. More female characters

While there were females in season one, Carter wasn't really close with anyone.  (Admittedly they made it clear why she was wary about getting close with civilians.) Carter just revealed herself to her new roommate Angie, so that's a good step.  But I'd also love another female in the office.  Perhaps someone Carter mentors.  We can always skip ahead a few years and have Carter in a more senior position.

9. Witty repartee

Raised on a steady diet of Thin Man Films and screwball comedies I'm a total sucker for fast and funny dialog.  


10. Better Marketing

You know how sometimes there's a great product but they don't know how to market it?  I think that's what Agent Carter is suffering from.  There was the whole "Her hero" stuff and then referring to Agent Carter as a "Female weapon"?  Seriously, who is writing this crap?  If you want to draw in your target audience calling your lead a "tool" isn't helping.

I actually could add a few more things there but will leave it at that, for now.  Most of all I think at least 12 eps for the next season would be a good idea. 

Agent Carter: Thoughts on the Show So Far

Source

Caution: Minor spoilers ahead.

I have been anticipating Agent Carter ever since I heard about the show.  I've also been worried.  Let's face it - the women superheroes still don't get their due in live action media.  I'm not saying Marvel has completely let down it's female heroes - but they sure as hell took their sweet time about giving us a female lead in any of their films and shows.  Someday I hope to live in a world where a female superhero movie is considered bankable.

First of all, I want to make it clear I will not be nitpicking the historical inaccuracies here.  Yes it's the 1940s but it's the 1940s in the Marvel Universe.  This is comic book science fiction and shouldn't be held to the same standard as a traditional period piece or something "based on a true story." 

But moving on.  We have our star.  The woman on whose shoulders the weight of the show rests.  So to speak.  And Atwell does a fine job.  She brings Carter to us as a whole person.  A woman who is strong, smart, and capable.  But also human.  She cries.  She makes mistakes.  She never wishes she were a man.  She may have moments of doubt but she still believes in herself and is rightly pissed that her co-workers don't.  She is keenly aware of what is expected of her as a woman and resents it with every fiber of her being.  She seems to be a wonderful combo of two of my favorite childhood heroes: Nancy Drew and Emma Peel.

Swap the gun for a magnifying glass and it's Nancy Drew.

We have our co-star: Jarvis.  Who actually points out Carter doesn't have to carry the weight of the world alone and indeed Jarvis (James D'Arcy) helps her carry the show quite well without stealing it from her. It's clear she's the hero and he really only wants to be allowed to provide her with support. They seem to be hinting there's a lot more to Jarvis than we've seen so far and I'm interested to find out what it is.  

We also have Carter's female friends.  Civilians,  so she can't really talk about her SSR work with them.  And we lose one of them right off.  Still, I like Angie (Lyndsy Fonseca) and hope that Carter learns to how to balance personal and professional so she can have female friends.  That said, I'm also suspicious of the new tenant.  Is she really a ballet dancer?

As the story progresses I want to get a better picture of the men in Carter's office.  I want to see more of who they are and why they treat her as they do.   Are they really completely unaware of her capabilities?   Do they view her as taking the place of a better qualified man?  Do they see it as a waste to let her in on work that might advance her career when they figure she will probably just retire when she marries?  Perhaps all three?  Will she ever earn their respect or will she have to continue to manipulate and work outside the system to make any difference?

There are great moments through out the show.  When the lone male co-worker who seems to have some respect for Carter defends her she thanks him and tells him not to do it ever again.  Carter doesn't want to be defended.  She doesn't need a hero, she is her own hero.  She was there before Captain America ever existed.  (Am I the only one irritated by the promos that identify Cap as Carter's Hero?) 

source

Another moment is where Carter tells Jarvis she used to have a sense of purpose.  It's a thing which all soldiers face after any war.  To have to return to civilian life and do something ordinary.  She once helped win a war.  She had seniority and respect.  Now she's filing and answering phones.  It's hard on soldiers but can you even imagine how much harder it was on women like Carter?  Women who would have probably married or worked in a shop but because of the war were called into the service of their country?  Who found the opportunity to be someone they never imagined or perhaps imagined but never thought possible.  And then the war is over and where are they?  They are asked yet again to do their patriotic duty and to give their jobs back to the men.  Possibly not even being able to tell anyone about what they did during the war - not because they didn't want to but because their government required them to keep secrets that wouldn't become public knowledge until decades later.  Their silence leaving people to assume that they were no more than a secretary.  Or no more than Captain America's girlfriend.

I also love the radio show.  It's ties in quite well with the underlying themes of perception and assumption.  It's a good reminder when most people look at Peggy Carter they don't see an Agent.  Not only because of her (assumed) history with Cap but because of her gender and looks. Which can be frustrating for her but also an asset at times.

I think it's not at all surprising when Stark asks for her help Carter jumps at the chance.  She's bored and wants to do something important again. Stark is part of a good time in Carter's life.  Oh yes, it was the war but she had purpose then.  Carter is also under the impression that Stark respects her - something that her male coworkers don't.  Of course if Stark really did respect Carter, then wouldn't he have told her the whole truth?  Whatever that might be?

I'm impressed so far and have high hopes for the rest of Agent Carter.  I also hope other Marvel (and DC for that matter) women finally get their due in quality shows and movies.  

Manh(a)ttan

Source

I've been watching the show Manh(a)ttan since it started.  I know anyone who knows me wouldn't be too surprised as clearly it's the sort of thing I will watch. It also has some of my favorite actors in it (Olivia Williams, Harry Lloyd, and Daniel Stern!) and it's set in New Mexico.  Which, duh!  But still.

And I do enjoy the show.  I'm not ranking it top ten of all time but it's a nice cap to Sunday night, but . . . 

Okay, I'm not saying you have to be 100% accurate when you make this sort of thing.  It's a drama and if you play things out as they actually were no one would believe it or it might just be kind of boring.  But I do think you need to fall in the realm of what actually happened.  There were real people that worked on this project.  Some who still live.  And some of the liberties being taken aren't very respectful.

Now it just so happens I'm reading a book about women in the U. S. military and I'm smack dab in the section on World War II.  There's even a part about WAAC/WACs who were stationed at Los Alamos.  I've read a lot on this subject and I have infinite respect and admiration for all these women went through just so they could serve their country.

The book I am reading right now, A Few Good Women,  takes a few pages to describe the experiences of WAAC/WACs who worked in the Manhattan Project in New Mexico.  These women were told they would be going overseas so when they arrived in the middle of the New Mexico desert it was a shock.  It was considered a security risk to inform the women before their arrival.  The women themselves could not tell family where they were or what they were working on.  They couldn't even talk to their roommates about it if they didn't happen to work in the same area.  Many had degrees - even doctorates.  They were a vital part of helping win the war.  These women were and are heroes who worked hard and made sacrifices for their country.

Source

So, you know this is show is a huge opportunity to educate and pay tribute to these women.  Except the only real plot line to involve a WAAC/WAC at this point involves her charging for sex.  In fact, it's implied that all WAAC/WACs on site are prostitutes. Wait, what?

The irony here is there was a campaign by men in the army and their families to smear the WAAC/WAC organization so badly that women wouldn't join.  The U. S. Government thought it was probably Nazi's spreading rumors so imagine their surprise when they found out it was their own men.  You see the campaign for the WAAC was "Free a man to fight" - women could take over military jobs that didn't involve direct combat so the men who used to do those jobs could be on the front.  Not every man or man's family was happy with that idea.

So what was the smear campaign?  Well the usual stuff: women who joined were lesbians, loose morally, would end up pregnant ( according to the statistics in the book women in the military were actually much less likely to become pregnant than civilian women at that time) and, of course, the real job of the WAAC was to keep the men happy by having sex with them.  It was actually pretty clever - it played on the fears that women, away from their families and left to their own devices, would suddenly behave in ways that went completely counter to how they had been raised.  Yes the smear campaign is a pretty nasty bit of history, but to me it's almost more upsetting that so many people believed it.  That so many people just accepted the idea that the only thing a woman could offer to the military would be her body and not her brain.

Of course none of it was true.  Sure, there were a few lesbians, some women did get pregnant, and maybe there was the odd WAAC/WAC who did trade sex for money.  But it certainly wasn't common.  The fact is most women were too busy with important war work and fending off rude remarks from those who bought into the smear campaign to have time for much else besides a little sleep  and maybe a beer every now and then.  For most WAAC/WACs what they were doing for their country was far more important than risking getting in trouble of any kind.  And you can bet that trading sex for money would definitely have got them in a world of trouble.

So, it's 2014 and we still believe the WAAC/WACs were prostitutes?  Who is researching this thing?  Why would you make that choice?  Couldn't you think of a better way of including a WAAC/WAC in your storyline?

There isn't anything inherently wrong with sex work in my eyes.  It's the circumstances surrounding it that are the problem (abuse, not having a choice in the matter, unsafe - among others) and not the work itself.  But WAAC/WACs weren't prostitutes.  Portraying them as such is not only a lie but it totally ignores the important contributions these women really made to help end the war. 

These women are heroes.  They served their country bravely and well.  They gave up a lot so they could do their patriotic duty.  They also had to put up with a lot of crap male soldiers never had to deal with as part of their service.  And, apparently, they are still having to put up with it.

Are Diamonds really a girl's best friend?

"Diamonds are a girl's best friend" is one of those songs.   A song that most people view in certain light that I see differently.  Ask around and most people will say it's about a woman professing her love of material possessions.  Or maybe they will say it's about a woman picking money over love.  There are songs about that but when I hear "Diamonds are a girl's best friend" I don't think it is one of them.

If you haven't heard it in awhile  you might want to take a moment to listen:

I like to view this song as advice.  From a more experienced woman to a woman just starting out.  She's telling her to remember that looks fade and men leave.  To not get too swept up in romance because it's not going to keep you fed or a roof over your head.  She isn't saying love is bad or to avoid it.  She's just reminding women to be practical.

When Marilyn sang the song it was 1953.  At the time women were expected to fall in love with and marry a man who would provide her with financial security - in that light this is some revolutionary stuff.   (I am over generalizing here as I know this isn't how things really were - both my grandmothers worked after marriage.  I am referring the fairy tale being marketed to society at large.) Admittedly, the song is being sung by a woman who is having affairs with married men but isn't the advice practical to all women?  Wouldn't it be better to still be able to pay the bills if your husband runs out on you?  I'm not saying money makes it better but it sure makes it easier.   I'd rather be nursing a broken heart with food and shelter.  Am I alone in this?

Yes, love is grand and I'm not trying to knock it.  But I think it's better when love and security don't get all mixed up with each other.   Now I'm not trying to say that it's wrong for a woman to make a choice to raise the kids and keep house while her husband supports her.  In an ideal world we would all have the privilege to make that choice.  I just think all women (and men) are better off when they have the skills or 'diamonds' to make it on their own, should circumstances change. 

So fall in love.  Fall hard.  Get your heart broken.  But make sure you have a 'diamond' or two set aside.  They may not really be "a girl's best friend" but they sure are handy when the rent comes due.

You know I can starch and iron two dozen shirts 'fore you can count from one to nine.

In the latest issue of Bitch magazine is the article "What Happened to Home Economics? : The Rise and Fall of a Contested Discipline" by Christen McCurdy.  After reading it I started thinking about my own perceptions about such classes and the skills they teach.

I never took any class called "Home Economics" or anything that taught me domestic skills of any kind.  I'm certain these kinds of classes were offered but despite my interest in the skills they would have taught I never even considered taking such a class.

In my younger days I am certain I was guilty of spouting some narrow minded and derisive remarks about Home EC.  At the time I had the desire to move myself as far away from the sphere of wife and mother as possible.  I didn't know for certain what I wanted to be but I knew I wasn't going to marry, have kids, and keep house.  Not for me.

It would be a funny story to conclude with "I am now a happy wife and mother of three".  Except I'm not but I have changed a lot since then.  I realized my negative attitudes towards traditionally feminine roles and skills were doing no one, male or female, any favors.  It was narrow minded of me to be so negative towards something simply because I didn't think it was for me.  It also wasn't in the least feminist.  Parenting is one of the toughest jobs out there and I have great respect for those who show up and try.  Running a house is no less difficult than running a business and I understand that now.  I certainly would never make snarky remarks about a woman or man choosing family over career.

And yet . . .

While I would never make fun of or mock others' domestic skills I often downplay or joke about my own.  It might have to do with the societal pressure ( which comes down much harder on women) to remain humble.  I also may be a version of Groucho Marx's remark about not belonging to a club that would have him as a member.  I feel if I'm good at, well it can't be all that hard to begin with.  But then maybe it is that I still elevate other skills above my domestic skills.  I am not saying I don't feel pride in cooking a good meal or knitting a pretty sweater  - I certainly do.  But it's a different pride.  It's not like the pride I feel for my academic and intellectual accomplishments.

Right there, that's telling.  "intellectual accomplishments".  But doesn't it take brains to cook and sew and clean and knit?  Last fall PBS ran The Bletchley Circle about the lives of women in post war Britain who just happened to have been code breakers at Bletchley Park.  Clearly the writers knew what they were doing when they made one of the women a knitter.  What is a knitting pattern but a code to be cracked?

Still, I don't want knitting or cooking to be my legacy.  So am I holding onto outdated notions about women and men?  Probably.  Am I not as evolved a human as I like to think?  Unfortunately the answer is probably "yes".  But maybe part of it is learning to knit and cook, for all the failures and frustrations, came much easier than those "intellectual accomplishments" I mentioned earlier.  Aren't we proudest of what comes hardest?  I am anyway.

I need to stop this.  Stop diminishing my accomplishments - no matter what sphere they reside in.   It's insulting to others for me to say something is easy when it truly isn't.  It's hurtful to them and denies the reality that I've spent years of my life learning to knit, sew, clean, and cook.  It perpetuates the myth (mentioned in the article) that women should just know these things and that these skills are somehow less difficult or valuable because they are traditionally thought of as feminine.

And no, I can't "starch and iron two dozen shirts 'fore you can count from one to nine."  but that doesn't mean I'm not a woman.   I may still have to live in a world with unrealistic expectations about what a woman is supposed to be but I can also choose not to be a participant in the continuation of that culture.

What They're Saying #1

My return to blogging has been a long time coming but this post and this one were part of what made me actually begin.  I've spent a lot of time thinking about what it means to be a modern woman who prefers to dress in fashions of another time and I want to get more into that but the posts also highlight an aspect of dressing differently that fascinates me.  Total strangers approach me all the time and say all sorts of things.   Mostly nice, but I do get strange remarks and bizarre reactions.  I've just been made aware of Cosplay is NOT Consent which to me is a similar situation.  A person's clothing is never an invitation to harassment or rudeness. I want to share some of the remarks and reactions I've encountered due to my style of dress.  Some bother me and some are just amusing.

I've noticed hats seem to elicit comment.

Today I'm going to highlight this remark:
                                            "You were born in the wrong era!"
Okay  . . .  As near as I can recall my response was something along the lines of "Uh,No, I wasn't"  This comment came from someone I know but not  very well so I neither wanted to get into the intricacies of all I found wrong with the comment or say something curt and rude.

I don't believe this comment was meant unkindly or as an insult but then what we intend isn't always what the listener hears.  This was also early in my adoption of vintage style and perhaps the person who said it felt she had to comment on my new look but wasn't sure how to react - which I get a lot.  Some people just don't know how to deal with anything different.

That said there are several things wrong with this remark.  It assumes that because I like the fashion of another era I must like all other aspects of said era.  This is like saying "You love pasta, you should move to Italy!"  Italy is more than pasta and the past is more than a dress or hairstyle. (BTW I am not meaning to slam Italy here - I love the Italy. I'm not so keen on pasta though.)   It implies either she or I are naive and unaware of the realities of history.  That I long for a "simpler time" that never was (I don't) or that I'm okay with McCarthyism, polio, institutionalized sexism/racism, and so on as long as I get to wear a hat and gloves (I'm not).  I am well aware now is not perfect or necessarily superior to any other era but it is my time.

The past is a place I like to visit but I know I could never live there.  So, no, I wasn't born in the wrong era.

Or as my friend put it when I told her about this remark: I like having rights.