Tagged ‘women’

Watching This is Like Watching Clueless: HBO's New Series GIRLS

Friday, May 4th, 2012

Over the past few weeks, my social networks have been abuzz about the new HBO series, Girls. Girls is the brainchild of Lena Dunham who is currently a media darling after her film Tiny Furniture was received with much acclaim on the festival circuit. The 26 year-old Dunham, who writes and directs Girls, also stars in the show as the character Hannah. Among my contacts, the Judd Apatow produced show has received mixed reviews but I decided to watch the pilot (currently available on YouTube) and give it a chance. This is my take and I would warn you that there may be some spoilers in the following so you may want to watch first and read the rest of this after you watch.

The pilot begins with the character Hannah having dinner with her parents at what appears to be a fancy restaurant. As she shovels food into her mouth, her parents being to slowly reveal that they no longer wish to bankroll her New York City lifestyle. We find out Hannah has been out of college for two years now and is working an internship while trying to finish writing her memoirs. At the time of this writing, I'm just a couple of years older than Dunham as I'm going on 28 years-old in July. When I was two years out of college, I wasn't working an unpaid internship while my parents paid for all of my expenses. On the contrary, I had to work. Immediately following graduation, I found a job. Not particularly well paid compared to some of the jobs my classmates landed at financial firms, but it was a job nonetheless — it paid the bills. In Girls, the prospect of having to try and find a job horrifies Hannah and she spend most of the rest of the scene arguing with her parents and trying to convince them to continue to financially support her. I know lots of twenty-somethings, and most of them don't behave this way.

Later in the episode, we are introduced to Hannah's best friend Marnie played by the stunning Allison Williams. Williams actually feels like the most realistic character. She is portrayed as an ice queen as her boyfriend clearly likes her far more than she likes him. Marnie and Hannah even discuss the possibility of Marnie potentially breaking up with him because he is simply too nice for Marnie. This character is at least self aware as she notes "I feel like such a bitch" for wanting to dump a guy who, as far as we know, has been nothing but doting. However, I have a qualm with this scene: who hangs out in the tub naked with their girlfriends shaving their legs together? I dormed in college and, Judd Apatow, I can assure you this probably happens less often than you'd like to believe! Also, we hear that they watch Mary Tyler Moore together but, correct me if I'm wrong, Mary Tyler Moore was a WORKING GIRL. These girls don't seem to do much of anything, but we'll get to that in due time.

To follow the Sex and the City mold, Girls appears to follow four primary protagonists with Dunham playing the lead (the Carrie role, if you will). The next character introduced, Shoshanna, even makes reference to this. She points out her Sex and the City poster to her new roommate, British cousin Jessa. Shoshanna, played by Zosia Mamet, is over the top in her enthusiasm for the show and which Sex and the City character she most embodies. While I don't think it's a stretch, what should have been a nod with a smirk to a former HBO heavyweight and similarly themed series is instead a long, drawn out, drunken overt surly wink. To say it felt forced is an understatement.

When Hannah's character is at her internship, we meet our first minority — the Asian graphic designer who is apparently more valuable than Hannah because she knows Photoshop! Her scene ends swiftly as Hannah's boss interprets her "I can't afford to work for free anymore" comment as "I quit." This then leads Hannah into the arms of her actor lover with whom we can assume she's had an off again, on again history. They wax poetic about the working world and the lover, Adam, confesses that his parents don't support him — wait for it — his grandma does! Adam's grandma gives him $800 a month towards living expenses so, as he puts it, "I don't have to be anyone's slave." At this point, I'm almost ready to turn off the TV and walk away. Again, I'm not in my 30's — I'm a twenty-something with lots of twenty-something friends. My friends who aspire to be actors work their fucking asses off. Most of them work crappy jobs at Starbucks or administrative assistant gigs that give them the flexibility to go out on auditions and work on their personal projects. It's not easy for them and most of them don't have their grandma's giving them what amounts to rent every month.

The interaction between Hannah and Adam is so awkward it hurts. Hannah can stand up to her parents to try and make them give her money but she's weak and powerless when with Adam? She asks Adam to retrieve a condom before they have sex and he replies "I'll consider it." Later, she confides in him about how her rapid weight gain spurred her tattoos to which he replies, "You're not that fat anymore." All of this seems normal to Hannah; she doesn't bat an eye. And their sex scene is probably the worst of it; I know premium television seems to require them, but in this case it really didn't seem necessary at all.

Finally, toward the end of the episode, Hannah — who is now high on some sort of opium tea — decides to storm into her parent's hotel room and demand that they support her because she has a "voice of a generation." If Lena Dunham's voice is the voice of a generation then it clearly isn't mine. Her voice, which I assume is scattered over all these characters, tells of a breed of entitled bratty little girls. In keeping with the entitlement, Hannah pleads "All I'm asking for is $1100 per month every month for the next 2 years." Wow, what I would've given to have someone gift me $1100 per month! Instead, I had to earn it. And to be honest with you, I probably earned that much working while I was in college full time!

The end of the episode leaves a particularly bad taste in my mouth. Hannah's parents check out of the hotel and Hannah wakes up in their hotel room, alone. Her first inclination is to order room service! Yes, room service after her parents explained how they can't afford to, you know, pay for this make-believe lifestyle she leads. Upon finding that the room service tab is fully closed, she decides she should leave before housekeeping comes. On the hotel room desk, she finds an envelope addressed to her with some money. Her parents also left an envelope on the desk for housekeeping. Hannah steals the money left for housekeeping and pockets it before leaving. Oh, and by the way, at the end of the episode we get minority sighting #2; the homeless black man that sings at Hannah as she walks down Sixth Avenue. I thought there were more minorities in New York City, but I guess I'm just mistaken.

One of my friends, who saw this show before I did, described the girls as "vapid" and I can't say I blame her. Girls is a terrible portrayal of elite, entitled twenty-somethings living a fantasy Disney princess life in New York City on borrowed money and/or trust funds. But perhaps I'm not part of the key demographic for this show as I'm not white, I don't live outside my means and I don't have other people footing my cable bill? To be honest, this makes me rather sad. I was looking forward to Girls being an exploration of coming of age as women in a big city where you need to work hard (and sometimes get a lucky break here and there) to survive. Instead, it was a bunch of unredeemable adult characters acting like little girls. But, as the title suggests, maybe that's the point. Though, after that pilot, I won't be sticking around to find out.

Where did all the cowgirls go?

Thursday, December 1st, 2011

I recently read a blog post by Clay Shirky about the difference between how women talk about their own abilities versus men. He wishes that more women would stand up and exert their influence because women are just as talented, smart and capable as their more effusive male colleagues. I wish for this, too.

In fact, many other women wish for this as well. COO of Facebook Sheryl Sandberg has given many a talk aimed at women. She says that women should take a seat at the table and not count themselves out by default because they want to have a family. Sheryl is living proof that it is possible to maintain a family and still be successful; and she acknowledges the challenges that come with that.

However, she also touches upon the big elephant in the room that many who talk about the disparities between men and women fail to acknowledge. A man who goes for the gold is assertive. A woman who does the same is off-putting at best, and at worst simply labeled a "bitch." Often when I say this, people roll their eyes; Sheryl present a famous Harvard Business school study that proves this is not simply "women getting easily offended" or "being emotional" (which, by the way, is another topic for another day).

It's an issue that permeates regardless of industry. In politics, Hilary Clinton was often given that label. Her wardrobe of pants suits and "attack dog" stance during her campaign gave her a harsh exterior in the public eye to both women and men. Tina Fey of Saturday Night Live commented on the whole thing and turned it into a positive with the saying "Bitches get shit done."

I love that sketch because I sympathize. I am good at my job. I get things done. If that wasn't true, I wouldn't now be earning nearly triple what I was offered upon graduation in 2006 (in a "bad economy", to boot!). However, as a result of my focus on process, keeping on schedule, and GSD (getting shit done), I am sure that there are many colleagues, past and present, who think I'm a bitch. In fact, I can name them (and there are, unfortunately, women among them).

And the truth of the matter is, I'm not a difficult person to work with. Despite going to school for Computer Science, I'm self-taught at a lot of things, lousy at some others and definitely still have quite a bit to learn. This invigorates me to learn more but also terrifies me at the same time; being in technology, I sometimes feel the need to know everything and be on the cutting edge. This isn't necessarily true, but motivates me to keep on my toes and at the very least stay relevant in a few things (and, given current trends, looks like my decision not to dive head first into Flash development wasn't so bad after all).

But the point of writing this wasn't to brag about myself. The point is that yes, women need to step up to the plate more to brag and take credit — myself included. Often times, we shy away or defer to others when we know what the right answer is. This is a problem of self-doubt and wavering self-esteem that perhaps everyone has at times but tends to be more evident among women. However, the flip side of that is let's call a spade a spade. When a woman steps up, do we encourage it? Or do we add to this doubt — do we doubt her abilities because of predisposed notions?

A lot of people don't like to hear the "as a woman, it's hard out there…" speech, but it is. I can only speak from personal experience here so I will tell a short story that I think illustrates the point. I remember looking for internships while I was in college. I didn't have a ton of relevant experience but I had done freelance web design/development for some local bands while in high school and could show some of that work if necessary. In addition, my part-time work study job was helping out at a public school in Brooklyn where I become the defacto computer expert as I refurbished and networked together old Macs and Windows PCs that were previously merely taking up space in the back of the fourth grade classroom. So, while I didn't have a lot of experience on paper, I felt pretty confident I could land a crappy internship at a record label for $8 per hour (and most likely consist of lame administrative work).

I went to the interview in midtown Manhattan. The office building was not glamorous (this was a small, indie label that worked on re-releases of older records) and the office itself was pretty rundown. I was introduced to several men in the office. They were all men. I made a note of the fact that I did not see a single woman in their office. I spoke with the man who interviewed me and explained my skills and background. He nodded and didn't seem impressed; I was unable to really tell if he was unimpressed or if it was just a really good poker face. After I finished my talk, he asked me if I would be willing to take a typing test.

"A typing test?" I responded.

He said, "Yeah, we hired a girl before that couldn't type so we just want to make sure whoever we hire can type."

I made a mental note of the fact that he said they hired a "girl" before. I put two and two together but typed out a stupid sentence from the cover of an LP anyway. When I left the interview, I knew, without a doubt, that I would not be offered the position because I was a woman.

Since then, I've seen the "boys clubs" at certain offices. I've seen the quizzical looks or passive aggressive emails when I've (correctly, I might add) critiqued a colleague's work. Today, in fact, I received an email that did just that. I don't think the email would have been as questioning if I were a male colleague. Perhaps I'm thinking into this too much, but perhaps I'm not.

Before I am crucified, I have to say that the majority of the men I have worked with have not been like this. The majority have been great and accepting of a lady on their team. To my credit, I like sports which greatly improves my ability to relate. My personal theory (because I took Psychology 101 does not mean this is truth so please take it with a grain of salt) is that the gender roles we grow up with have a great bearing on how we interact with folks of the opposite sex. As soon as you take a car out of a girl's hand and put it in a boy's hand, you've implicitly created an impact on the capabilities of each.

While that may be hard to break, it certainly is not impossible to educate better on the implicit sexism that comes across more often than we care to admit in our interactions at work. However, this means that leveling the playing field is not so simple. Per Clay Shirky's post, this is also a rant with no immediate answer. My hope is I've illuminated some issues that can start discussions in favor of a positive, more inclusive future.

Magazines and Women

Friday, August 19th, 2011

I'm a big fan of magazines. While I usually stick with fashion magazines, lately I've been reading some other more business oriented titles. This year, Anthony and I started our own company for our personal pursuits and I felt really lost throughout the process. So when I got the opportunity to redeem some points for magazine subscriptions, I decided to go with a few titles that would help me wrap my head around our business needs. I subscribed to Inc Magazine, Entrepreneur and Fast Company.

I've really enjoyed my subscription to Inc Magazine. I find their articles to be super informative and their interviews, like recent ones with execs from Tumblr and Kid Robot, to be truly inspiring. And, for what it's worth, I appreciate the attention to detail in the graphic layout of the pages themselves. I love that it's a happy marriage of helpful content and creative design. I also like that the magazine is not written for a particular gender. Women and men alike can pick it up and get something out of it. This is not to say that every magazine should do this, but it's nice that a magazine marketing towards small business owners does not discriminate.

Unfortunately, I can't say the same for Entrepreneur. Now, working in technology in various industries, I've realized it's a boy's club — not that that's entirely a bad thing! I've worked with some pretty talented men and learned a lot from them (most notably that the lack of women in their midst is mostly an oversight, not intentional). I also happen to like a lot of things men typically like more than most women (sports, fried foods, gadgets) so it doesn't really bother me to spend time in the company of dudes.

That said, there are definite differences between me and my male colleagues. For example, it is probably not socially acceptable for them to wear dresses, or bare their legs at all at work. Though, if I were to wear baggy jeans and oversized t-shirts as they do, I would probably have some difficulty being taken seriously (I don't say this to be contrary; I say this because it actually happened to me).

And this point precisely brings me back to Entrepreneur magazine. Their September issue, which just arrived in my mailbox today, included an article about over-dressing vs under-dressing; the cover simply reads "Exclusive. How to Dress: The Taxonomy of Casual." I was really excited to read that piece because I struggle with this point when dressing myself for work. I don't want to dress too formally (or too trendy, per the industry I'm currently in…) and risk ostracizing myself from my colleagues but I still want to dress in a way that will gain respect (the whole "dress for the job you want" thing).

I read the article and was really disappointed to see it was written for a target audience of 100% men. The graphic associated with the article showed ONLY cartoon-y male characters wearing different types of dress. The depiction of only men didn't stop me from reading the article though, as there as no indication that this article was merely discussing menswear. I think that's probably what surprised me the most; though the article in question was written by an editor at Esquire, it wasn't explicitly stated that this was a "man's guide" to dressing. They had just inferred that only men would be reading it.

This unfortunately begs the question: are women not considered entrepreneurial? I think we all know what the answer to that is and I'm sure it is backed up by data that suggests that most of their subscribers are men or that more men start companies or get VC funding. Despite the data, whatever it may be, why isolate your female readers? Would it have been that difficult to provide a more balanced piece? Considering they hit up Esquire to write about work appropriate clothes, how about consulting an editor of woman's magazine to briefly touch on women's wear? Surprisingly, it is not for lack of women on the cutting room floor; the editor in chief of the magazine is indeed a woman.

I brought this up to the network of women I know and many agreed with my sentiments. In fact, one commented that she has seen technology magazines in airports under the "Men's interests" section. Why is technology only a man's interest? While I acknowledge that there is a dearth of women in tech, that doesn't automatically exclude women from possibly being interested in such publications.

And this is the fundamental flaw – the imposition of gender roles that deny the existence of quite a few people. By writing that article for an audience of men, you are further impressing the position that entrepreneurs are exclusively men. A more balanced article, including women even in small part, would at least acknowledge that there are indeed female entrepreneurs (Yes, really. They exist! And highlighting only those who start cupcakes businesses is not at all representative of the majority of women who own businesses!).

Perhaps I'm more sensitive to these issues being that I'm both a woman and an underrepresented minority, but I'm willing to imagine that I'm not the only woman who picked up the magazine and was just plain bummed to see that she was excluded from participating in that feature.

Pictures by Women at MoMA

Wednesday, April 21st, 2010

I really enjoyed the Henri Cartier Bresson exhibit at MoMA today but it was a bit mobbed to say the least. While they showed the breadth of his work, I almost would have preferred a more focused, smaller collection.

What I actually enjoyed more was the exhibit "Pictures by Women: A History of Modern Photography" which was exclusive to lady photographers like Dorothea Lange and Helen Levitt among others.

"The Billboard"

Monday, January 25th, 2010

You can't write stuff like this. But if the past few days of my life were made into a sitcom episode, it would be called "The Billboard" — or if it were an episode of "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" this would be called "The One When Jen Takes a Photo of a Billboard."

It all began with a harmless coffee break. My co-workers and I walked up Broadway to Crumbs for some caffeination when we saw a strange billboard. The lovey-dovey couple on the billboard coupled with the quote "you are my soulmate forever" made us wonder. Since we are media people at first we thought, "this has to be some kind of marketing/pr move!"

Who are Charles and YaVaughnie? by Jen Gallardo, some rights reserved

Who are Charles and YaVaughnie? by Jen Gallardo, some rights reserved

When we saw the website that the banner linked to, we were most definitely sure it had to be some kind of marketing scheme. The website was a 90's era (meaning: bad) site consisting of a bunch of photos of the joyous couple and quite a few karaoke recordings we'll have to imagine they did together (who records their karaoke outings…?).

I found the whole thing funny and intriguing. And since I've resolved to carry my camera on me every day of the year, I decided to take a picture of it. If anything, I wanted to tell my sister about it because I thought she'd find it amusing. I put the picture in my Flickr photostream and didn't think much of it. I shared it with my Twitter friends, hoping someone would reveal that it was part of Match.com's new marketing strategy or something equally lame.

I was totally not prepared for what happened next. The guy on the billboard was a big exec — president of Oracle (note: Oracle creates almost every database in use by major companies). And the girl he was canoodling with was his mistress. The whole story was plastered on the front page of the New York Post on Friday. I still don't know the full details. Truthfully, I don't think anyone does. But the facts are that someone took out the billboards to expose this situation and it worked.

Since then, I've been contacted by several media outlets because of that little photo I happened to post on Flickr. As you can imagine, the billboard has since been taken down. So far, my photo is being used by CNET, Gawker, Associated Press (that is an array of online national news outlets), CNNMoney.com and Women's Health Magazine online in their coverage of this story. It's been a bit of a whirlwind of activity for me!

Personally, my focus this year has been on building my photography skills and obtaining more photo gigs/selling more prints. I'm hoping this situation, while tragic for the folks involved, can at least have a positive ending by bringing some exposure to my work and also scaring straight the corporate fat cats who think they can get away with living a double life.

When plastic surgery goes too far…

Thursday, January 14th, 2010

Yikes! What happened to this girl? Take a look at the link through to the People magazine cover. She looks like a completely different person.

I don't care for Heidi Montag or her celebrity but I think the author of the Glamour magazine post is correct in that she must be deeply disturbed to get so much plastic surgery done.

Attack of the killer heels (and handbags)

Friday, January 8th, 2010

I had no idea that counterfeit goods (you know, the fake Fendi and Coach bags you find on Canal Street in New York City) come with a world of terrible human rights abuses attached to them!

This is further proof that I just need to shell out the cash and buy really lovely expensive purses. I recently bought a beautiful LAMB bag (that's Gwen Stefani's line). It was a great deal at Century21 — nearly 50% off! I still haven't quite found a bag that I can use to lug around my camera and extra lenses. I'm thinking the Coach Madison bag (in the, unfortunately, more expensive large size) would do the job. If and when said bag is in my hot little hands, I will certainly do a photo series of it!

Women at War, and Peril

Tuesday, December 29th, 2009

When I think of female GI's, I think of Lori Petty in Tankgirl and Demi Moore in GI Jane. Tough as nails ladies that deserve a lot of respect. And being a lady in a male dominated field, I can somewhat relate to the obstacles women who choose to serve must face. One such obstacle that I can't begin to understand, however, is the sexual abuse they may be subject to at the hands of their fellow soldiers. As the New York Times reports, this is part of "the new and often messy reality the military has had to face as men and women serve side by side in combat zones more than ever before."