« December 2006 | Main | February 2007 »

January 17, 2007

Japanese-style feminism

Just after the new year, I interviewed journalist and novelist Veronica Chambers about her new book, "Kickboxing Geishas: How Modern Japanese Women are Changing Their Nation" (try not to judge this book by its Westerner-in-whiteface cover photo, or its silly title). Given my (somewhat obsessive) interest in Japan and my own discussions with Japanese friends, I was really excited to talk to Veronica about her research.

Veronica told me that while in Japan for a media fellowship in 2000, she sensed that women were frustrated with their situation, and she suspected that the country was on the brink of widespread social change. She spent three years talking to over 75 Japanese women about work, family, ambition, autonomy. Seventy-five may not sound like a lot, but many of the same themes kept coming up. I was impressed that Veronica, who speaks and writes some Japanese but isn't fluent, was able to get so many women in this famously private country to speak candidly with her--a total stranger--about such personal topics. The perspectives she recounts here bring color and commentary to the recent news stories to come out of Japan, like how that country's birth rates and marriage rates have been steadily plummeting.

However, I think Veronica gives her subjects a little too much credit.

First of all, Veronica makes sweeping generalizations about women in Japan based on the iconoclasts and barrier-breakers that she sought out and interviewed. For every high-powered female exec who refuses to pour tea, I'm sure there are ten dozen others stuck holding the teapot. At the same time, she doesn't include many numbers or stats on working women, so we're left thinking that all women in Japan are either old-fashioned office ladies or creative-thinking entrepreneurs, overlooking the vast number of mid-level clock-punchers in between.

Veronica is a smart and accomplished writer, so I'm sure she's aware of the sociological and economic data available on Japan, but she doesn't include much of it, preferring to let the women speak for themselves. For example, she repeatedly asserts that women are driving up the increasing number of entrepreneurs in Japan, and interviews a few who are, but doesn't have any numbers to quantify the rest of them. Focusing myopically on her sources, she also ignores the crucial external factor of the economy. How can we talk about working women without talking about the economic conditions of the country they're working in?! Perhaps some readers would have found an economic analysis tedious, but I would have appreciated it, and I think it would have strengthened some of Veronica's points.

But most importantly, based on stories about opting out of the corporate world, opening businesses of their own, reinventing their roles at traditional corporations, and eschewing marriage and motherhood, Veronica decides that Japanese women are talkin' bout a revolution. I didn't necessarily get that sense, and even if that is that case, they really are all talk. Her subjects are certainly doing cool, notable stuff, but for the most part, they're acting totally independently, in their own private bubble. There's no widespread movement, no organized push for revolution, and it doesn't sound like feminism is something women are even discussing amongst themselves. I'm not suggesting that Japanese women should take to the streets and stage their own 70's-style revolution, complete with consciousness-raising groups, marches and rallies. I realize that's not culturally appropriate for Japan. However, I also don't think that a couple hundred women acting in their own personal self-interest and not reaching out to anyone else is really going to do a damn thing to improve the situation for women in Japan. On second thought, what would be so bad about Japanese women getting together to talk about orgasms? And equal pay (they currently make half of what men do)? And maternity leave (from what I understand, it's not mandated by the government)? And doing something about all of it?

Side note: my frustration with this issue isn't limited to Japan. I find I'm always having conversations with my American friends about the personal vs. political approaches to achieving equality.

While I love the sound of Veronica's assertion that Japanese women are changing their nation, I don't quite buy it. Call me a pessimist, but I think Japanese women--and men--are simply responding to economic and social realities of their near-inhuman, untenable labor system by acting in a rather passive manner. Women there aren't demanding that companies get with the times, or better yet, elbowing their way into positions that allow them to enact feminist policies at their companies; they're quitting their corporate jobs. They're not educating their husbands on women's rights; they're divorcing them, or not marrying at all. They're not creating policies that benefit working moms; they're just not having kids (or, not working). They're not running for office or trying to raise the profile independent women in Japan; the more independent, progressive-minded women among them are moving abroad. But I suppose that doesn't make for a very catchy book title: "No Sex, No Kids, No Job, No Problem: How Japanese Women's Passive-Aggressive Behavior Isn't Really Changing Their Nation."

Veronica Chambers clearly respects and admires Japanese women, and I respect and admire her efforts to portray these individuals accurately and empathetically. "Kickboxing Geishas" is a valuable contribution to the discussion of Japanese (and global) feminism. But it should be viewed as a series of comments on the subject rather than the definitive last word.

January 15, 2007

Is God a member of the Hollywood Foreign Press?

Because that's the only reason I can think of to explain why Sarah Paulson was nominated for a Golden Globe award tonight. Paulson, who plays a Christian comedienne on "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip," was up for "Supporting Actress, Series, Miniseries or Movie." She competed with heavyweights Toni Collette and Elizabeth Perkins, as well as relative newcomers Emily Blunt and Katherine Heigl. Fortunately, the award didn't end up in Paulson's undeserving hands (Blunt got it).

Look, I don't want to bash Paulson, who appears be not only a competent actress (she was solid on Jack & Jill), but also a nice person. However, I think she's horribly miscast on "Studio 60." She's got the sexily sweet, pious-but-not-preachy side of Harriet Hayes down just fine. But (and this is a ginormous but) she's not funny! Not at all. Paulson's delivery on the show is painful to watch, and she seems to be shocked when her overly earnest one-liners are greeted with laughter -- even if it's scripted or canned. The idea that this terribly self-conscious, poker-faced everywoman is supposed to be one of America's most impressive comedic talents, one that inspires Matthew Perry's character to write hilarious skits, and one that wins her awards and movie roles, strains the show's credibility. It's not that I hate Paulson on the show, it's that I hate her in this role.

So why the heck was she singled out from a great group of women (Amanda Peet, Lucy Davis, Amanda Peet, Amanda Peet) for an award? It must have been divine intervention.

January 4, 2007

Liz Lemon stole a baby

And she stole the show. TIna Fey was great on "30 Rock" tonight -- I've missed that show! The only reason I'm happy that Christmas is over is that my shows can finally return to TV. Kerry had me watching "Battlestar Galactica" during the network holiday hiatus. Out of the 5 million people that have recommended that show to me, I find it shocking that not a single one has bothered to mention how heart-wrenchingly, soul-searchingly sad it is. The end of the world (or worlds) as we know it is heavy stuff. At the end of every episode, I kind of just want to hurl myself off a spaceship, into the vast, nonjudgmental, unsympathetic nothingness of space...

But now that "30 Rock" has returned, I can smile again. I was so in need of a laugh, I watched tonight's episode twice.

At the beginning of the show, I was a little worried that we were going to digress once more into self-deprecating "poor Liz land." But this time she takes it to the next level. I get bored with the whiny "where have all the good men gone?" talk, but I can never get enough of the family-versus-career debate, especially when it's handled in a funny way. Instead of going on about how she doesn't have anyone to save her if she chokes, tonight Liz pondered the sacrifices she's made for her television writing career -- and wondered if "work and... working" was worth it. As the newly-engaged secretary Cerie put it, "You can always have a career," but there's only a short window of time "when you can be a hot mom." Cerie and her boyfriend (of one month and one week) want to have kids "while it's still hot." She's already got baby names picked out: "If it's a girl: Bookcase. Or Sandstorm. Or maybe Hat, but that's more of a boy's name."

Cerie is right. The biological clock is (sadly) not a myth. Until science figures out a way to stall the aging of women's bodies so that we can birth children into our sixties, there is only a narrow window of when we can become natural mothers, hot or otherwise. And it's also only a matter of time before appropriating random household objects as names for your child will be in vogue; next thing you know, everyone will be calling their kids "Albin" and "Fred."

(Don't you dare laugh. Albin was my grandfather's name.)

So Liz is jonesing for a baby -- so much so that she accidentally walks home with the make-up artist's cherubic daughter! "It was like highway hypnosis," Liz explains once the baby is returned, where you find yourself in your driveway but don't remember how you got there. "Or why there's another person's baby in your car," jokes her colleague.

But I can totally see how this could happen! One minute, you're staring into a baby's sweet little face, trying desperately to keep the darling from crying, making faces and googling in funny voices, jiggling it up and down, patting it on the back, trying to decide if she looks more like an Isabelle, or a Nancy, or a Bookcase... sorry, I lost my train of thought there. There should be a word for the effect that OPB's (Other People's Babies) have on women. Maybe "baby black-out"? Or perhaps it's our "baby blind spot"?

Regardless...the end of the episode shows Liz taking the rest of the day off to figure out the baby/career conundrum. "If anyone can figure this out, I can," she says, before before realizing she stepped into the wrong elevator. Let's hope she finds a good (and funny) solution, and shares it with the rest of us on a future episode.