Category Archives: Ms. Magazine

Features and blog posts written for Ms. Magazine.

In “Dragon Tattoo,” David Fincher brings the girl to life

Orig­i­nally pub­lished at Ms. mag­a­zine on Decem­ber 26.

I dreaded see­ing David Fincher’s The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

In par­tic­u­lar, I dreaded sit­ting through another graphic rape scene like the one in Swedish direc­tor Niels Arden Oplev‘s 2009 ver­sion of the film–a scene I described in my review as dis­qui­et­ing, intense and vicious. Hol­ly­wood being Hol­ly­wood, I expected the Amer­i­can ver­sion to take the dis­turb­ing mate­r­ial to a new extreme. But when my edi­tor asked me to review it, my curios­ity over­pow­ered my dread. In the the­ater I waited for the scene tensely, but when it came, I found I was able to stay in my seat through­out (unlike dur­ing Oplev’s)–though I did cover my eyes at points, because there are some things that we just don’t need to see.

From what I did see, it was graphic. But not as graphic nor as dis­turb­ing as in the Swedish film. And in the end the scene was, remark­ably, the least remark­able aspect of the movie.

More note­wor­thy was the film’s inter­pre­ta­tion of Lis­beth Salan­der, the famously fem­i­nist pro­tag­o­nist of Stieg Larsson’s best­selling nov­els. Many movie­go­ers, myself included, believed Noomi Rapace’s sharp inter­pre­ta­tion of the seething, cun­ning Salan­der in the Swedish adap­ta­tion left lit­tle room for improve­ment. Her Salan­dar was pitiable and strong by turns, and always unap­proach­ably cool. How­ever, direc­tor David Fincher, writer Steven Zail­lian and–especially–actor Rooney Mara cre­ated a much fuller ver­sion of Salan­der, one more com­plex and truer (I’m told) to the char­ac­ter in Larsson’s novels.

In fact, many of Fincher’s char­ac­ters feel more devel­oped than Niels Arden Oplev’s cut-and-dry ver­sions. In Oplev’s hands, pro­tag­o­nist Mikael Blomkvist was stern and in charge, Salan­der con­fi­dent and deter­mined, while Salander’s sadis­tic guardian Nils Bjur­man exuded vil­lainy throughout.

In the Amer­i­can ver­sion, every­one is a lit­tle more human and a lit­tle more flawed. Blomkvist, as played by Daniel Craig, can be a bit bum­bling and pas­sive, let­ting the women in his life steer its course. It makes sense that this Blomkvist, in a bun­gled effort to solve the mys­tery he’s been work­ing on, sends him­self into into the villain’s clutches and requires res­cue. Bjur­man, the guardian who beats and rapes Salan­der (in the scene I dreaded watch­ing), seems mild-mannered and harm­less in some con­texts and sadis­tic in oth­ers, like many real-life vil­lains. He viciously assaults Salan­der, but does so with an enti­tled non­cha­lance, and after­wards acts gen­tle, almost apolo­getic. This is the real­ity of abusers: They are pathetic, vac­il­lat­ing between vio­lence and ten­der­ness in an ugly cycle that can con­found and entrap their victims.

Salander’s char­ac­ter is by far the most devel­oped, not least because Fincher gives her more on-screen time than Oplev and makes a point of explain­ing her his­tory. At the film’s out­set, she’s a ner­vous, inse­cure young woman with a rage prob­lem. Shoul­ders hunched, she avoids eye con­tact and acci­den­tal touch, and when she knows that she’ll have to inter­act with someone—say, at work—she care­fully crafts her appear­ance to intim­i­date and dis­tance. When a man in the sub­way steals her back­pack, she doesn’t react imme­di­ately, seem­ingly afraid of con­fronta­tion. When she does decide to go after him, hit­ting and kick­ing him on an esca­la­tor and snatch­ing her bag, she then runs away—fast—into a train car. Rather than rel­ish­ing the vio­lence, she appears upset and fright­ened by it.

She changes after she gets her revenge on Bjur­man, the guardian. (She sodom­izes him with a dildo and tat­toos “I am a rapist pig” on his chest and stom­ach.) After this, her aver­sion to eye con­tact slowly dimin­ishes and her appear­ance thaws. When she once relied exclu­sively on com­put­ers and other tech­nol­ogy to do her research, she now opts for face-to-face interviews.

I won’t argue, as some might, that she is empow­ered by rap­ing her attacker. Rather, I imag­ine that her increas­ing con­fi­dence derives from the real­iza­tion that, if the men in her soci­ety can so eas­ily get away with vic­tim­iz­ing women, women can just as eas­ily get away with pun­ish­ing those men. In a sick way, the play­ing field is leveled.

This lends all the more poignancy to Blomkvist’s first request of her: “I want you to help me catch a killer of women,” he says. Judg­ing from Salander’s expres­sion, it’s a “click” moment.

As their rela­tion­ship devel­ops, Salan­der grows increas­ingly self-assured and con­fi­dent. By the end of the film, she acknowl­edges, her­self, that she’s a dif­fer­ent per­son than she was in the beginning—even as Blomkvist remains the charm­ingly clumsy man he’s always been. This is per­haps the biggest dif­fer­ence between the Swedish and Amer­i­can adap­tions. In the for­mer, Oplev paints Salan­der as a sort of super­hero figure—an enigma with a mys­te­ri­ous, check­ered past who has finally found an out­let for her rage. Fincher, by con­trast, gives us a Salan­der in transformation—a woman whose per­sonal tragedies and retal­i­a­tions have set her on a road to real­iz­ing her human poten­tial. Like many real-world fem­i­nists, she’s still fig­ur­ing out how to trans­late her rage into con­struc­tive change and, as she does so, she begins to under­stand herself.

Buy A Girl, Before Someone Else Does…

Reposted from the Ms. blog

Today in totally mis­guided phil­an­thropy, we have “The Girl Store,” a pre­sum­ably well-intentioned girl empow­er­ment project that—for some utterly illog­i­cal reason—masquerades as a child pornog­ra­phy site.

Head on over to The Girl Store and you’ll be greeted by shaky footage of a disheveled Indian girl smil­ing bash­fully as an unknown cam­er­ap­er­son pans up and down her body, lin­ger­ing on her lit­tle hands, before finally set­tling on her face. The accom­pa­ny­ing text reads:

100% gen­uine girls
…young…
…inno­cent…
…and avail­able.
Expe­ri­ence the sen­sa­tion of buy­ing a girl
….her life back.

…Buy a girl before some­one else does.

In case that dis­turb­ing, voyeuris­tic intro didn’t clearly com­mu­ni­cate the website’s pur­pose, let me clar­ify: It sells school sup­plies. To whom it sells these school sup­plies is debat­able, but let’s just give the site’s cre­ators the ben­e­fit of the doubt and assume that they’re not try­ing to exclu­sively solicit dona­tions from inter­net pedophiles. (While we’re at it, let’s also assume that the home­page—which fea­tures a num­ber of miserable-looking lit­tle girls sway­ing against a white backdrop—isn’t sup­posed to resem­ble an auc­tion block.) But that said, why does the sale of note­books and pen­cils war­rant the clear and delib­er­ate eroti­ciza­tion of small chil­dren? Is the video sug­gest­ing that the alter­na­tive to edu­ca­tion is sex­ual abuse? Is it sup­posed to make us—the hap­less and happy-go-lucky consumer—feel com­plicit in that sex­ual exploita­tion? Or are we just sup­posed to feel creeped out? Most impor­tantly, what the hell does this have to do with school supplies?

Accord­ing to the web­site: every­thing. The Girl Store, so the web­site claims, is “the first e-commerce site where pur­chas­ing school sup­plies help girls avoid being sold into mar­riage or sex slav­ery.” That is quite a state­ment. Of course, no one both­ers to explain how a $14 pen­cil case or Han­nah Mon­tana back­pack (yes, it sells these actual prod­ucts) some­how deters sex­ual preda­tors, let alone saves them from being “sold for…terrorism.” (I, for one, would like to know whether wear­ing the Han­nah Mon­tana back­pack is enough to stave off the vil­lain­ous, or if the ridicu­lously over­priced pen­cils dou­ble as a weapon.)

Granted, edu­cat­ing girls—whether in the U.S., India or elsewhere—is cru­cial to fos­ter­ing gen­der qual­ity and cre­at­ing eco­nomic oppor­tu­ni­ties for women across the board. But how does pur­chas­ing a hand­ful of school sup­plies hand­ily solve the ram­pant global prob­lem of human traf­fick­ing or the much less visible—though sim­i­larly pervasive—sexual abuse of chil­dren within the home? It’s an out­ra­geous and absolutely erro­neous notion, and one that implic­itly places the onus of per­sonal safety on the child rather than on her fam­ily, her com­mu­nity, or the poten­tial perpetrator.

A child doesn’t, after all, will­fully resort to pros­ti­tu­tion or slave labor because she is une­d­u­cated. She’s forced into it, by an impov­er­ished and mis­guided fam­ily that regards her as an asset or as a bur­den, or by oth­ers who view her as a com­mod­ity that is always in demand. The peo­ple who would abuse and exploit her would do so with­out regard for whether she could read or write—and whether or not she had the lux­ury of doing so with over­priced imple­ments. Financ­ing an under­priv­i­leged girl’s edu­ca­tion, while pow­er­ful on an indi­vid­ual level, does noth­ing to change the struc­tural fac­tors and sys­temic prob­lems that under­lie the sex­ual com­mod­i­fi­ca­tion of women and girls. Claim­ing oth­er­wise for the pur­pose of hawk­ing cheap wares—even char­i­ta­ble wares—is not only irre­spon­si­ble but unscrupulous.

It’s appar­ent that the cre­ators of this project are striv­ing for the the edgy, viral appeal of the sim­i­larly over­sim­pli­fied (but much less per­ni­cious) “Girl Effect” mar­ket­ing cam­paign that we all know and love (and loathe, in turns). But it’s one thing to assert, as the Girl Effect does, that buy­ing a cow for a girl will solve com­mu­nity poverty, hunger and gen­der inequity, and quite another to ped­dle to a Han­nah Mon­tana back­pack as the sim­ple solu­tion to sex­ual slav­ery (I’ll leave the obvi­ous anti-globalization cri­tique to some­one else). The fact that this project so cal­cu­lat­edly exploits the sex­u­al­ized images of young girls, pur­port­edly to com­bat the sex­ual exploita­tion of young girls, adds insult to injury.

Cheap trick. Bad mes­sage. Ques­tion­able product.

The Girl Store opened a brick-and-mortar store­front in New York City this week, so Man­hat­tan­ites may have the priv­i­lege of pro­tect­ing a Third World girl’s honor for the mere cost of a latte. I won­der how many school sup­plies one could pur­chase with the cost of com­mer­cial rent in NYC?

America’s Toughest Sheriff?

America’s Tough­est Sher­iff?
Arizona’s Joe Arpaio cracks down on immigrants—and women bear the brunt.
Pub­lished in Ms. mag­a­zine May 2010

Mari­copa County sher­iff Joe Arpaio has crafted a con­tro­ver­sial rep­u­ta­tion as a hard-line immi­gra­tion enforcer. Now, with Arizona’s pas­sage of the harsh­est anti-immigrant law in the coun­try, Arpaio’s con­tentious polic­ing efforts have legal backing.

For years, Arpaio and the Mari­copa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) have made local head­lines for rou­tinely raid­ing Latino neigh­bor­hoods and work­sites and arrest­ing scores of Lati­nos they sus­pect of being undoc­u­mented. But it is women who expe­ri­ence the worst of the immi­gra­tion deten­tion system.

When deputies arrested Ale­jan­dra Alvarez in a work­site raid last year, they used such exces­sive force that she dis­lo­cated her jaw against a wall. Another offi­cer hit her with a clip­board while another, she says, repeat­edly told her “You are noth­ing.” Despite repeated requests for med­ical atten­tion, her injuries were not treated until after her release, nearly three months later. By then she required surgery and suf­fered from seri­ous com­pli­ca­tions.
Her only crime, she says, was work­ing to sup­port her four young children.

Dur­ing such raids, deputies don’t dis­crim­i­nate based on sex but, as Ale­jan­dra dis­cov­ered, Arpaio’s increas­ingly aggres­sive immi­gra­tion enforce­ment tac­tics uniquely impact women.

No one can under­stand the injus­tices I saw inside,” Ale­jan­dra says. “The way they treat preg­nant women, and the way they treat the undocumented…And I was there just three short months.”

Alejandra’s story is not unique. Last spring, when Maria Mar­tinez was arrested in her front yard for pos­sess­ing a “fake” ID (actu­ally an expired Cal­i­for­nia state driver’s license), six MCSO deten­tion offi­cers allegedly broke her arm while try­ing to force her fin­ger­print onto a vol­un­tary depor­ta­tion order. Last Octo­ber, when Alma Cha­con was col­lared for an out­stand­ing traf­fic vio­la­tion, she was forced to give birth in hand and leg shack­les before a judge released her on her own recog­ni­zance – a prac­tice pro­hib­ited in Ari­zona state pris­ons, but legal in ICE deten­tion centers.

Because they may seem more frag­ile or more timid, the offi­cers use intim­i­da­tion to pres­sure them to sign vol­un­tary depar­ture orders,” explains Lydia Guz­man, pres­i­dent of the immi­grant rights coali­tion Somos Amer­ica. “Phys­i­cally, they are abused. They’re more vul­ner­a­ble to this kind of treatment.”

Guz­man, whose work includes pro­vid­ing direct assis­tance to immi­grants who are unlaw­fully detained, helped Ale­jan­dra, Maria and Alma obtain legal rep­re­sen­ta­tion and, now armed with good lawyers, all three women have suc­cess­fully chal­lenged their depor­ta­tions and are suing the sheriff’s office.

Being sued, how­ever, is noth­ing new to Arpaio, who spent the last six years in lit­i­ga­tion with the ACLU in a vain effort to restrict inmates’ abor­tion rights — in spite of the fact that there have been only 10 requests for abor­tion ser­vices in 14 years. The ACLU has five other suits against him or office, as well, includ­ing one that chal­lenges a con­tro­ver­sial new law that cat­e­gor­i­cally denies bail to undoc­u­mented immi­grants guilty of com­mit­ting a class-4 felony – in Ari­zona, that con­sti­tutes pos­sess­ing a fake ID.

Accord­ing to Alessan­dra Soler Meetze, exec­u­tive direc­tor of the ACLU of Ari­zona, this law is com­monly applied to undoc­u­mented immi­grants who are stopped for traf­fic vio­la­tions, and who are then arrested for pre­sent­ing a false driver’s license.

Nor­mally women would not stay in jail cells for minor civil traf­fic infrac­tions,” Soler Meetze says. “But because they’re undoc­u­mented, once they get in the sys­tem, they end up stay­ing for much longer peri­ods of time.”

And the longer women stay in jail, the more likely they are to expe­ri­ence abuse, suf­fer from mal­nu­tri­tion, or develop health com­pli­ca­tions. Human Rights Watch and the Inspec­tor General’s Office at the Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­rity have both released reports doc­u­ment­ing and crit­i­ciz­ing the low qual­ity of med­ical care, high preva­lence of abuse, and ris­ing num­ber of deaths within women’s deten­tion centers.

While the mis­treat­ment of women detainees is a national prob­lem, it has proven par­tic­u­larly per­ni­cious in Ari­zona, where Arpaio’s celebrity has drawn con­sid­er­able atten­tion, and a new law passed in April will sub­ject Lati­nos to even greater scrutiny—and jail time. The con­tro­ver­sial mea­sure requires law enforce­ment to check the immi­gra­tion sta­tus of any­one they per­ceive as “rea­son­ably sus­pi­cious” and arrest those with­out doc­u­men­ta­tion. Once imple­mented, women can be arrested with­out ever hav­ing com­mit­ted a crime.

Ari­zona stands out as a real test­ing ground for many of these hash, anti-immigrant mea­sures,” says Meetze. “Other states start to copy the laws they see passed here in Arizona.”

Harsh new laws, in com­bi­na­tion with Arpaio’s increas­ingly aggres­sive tac­tics, have cre­ated a cli­mate of fear among Latino pop­u­la­tions in Ari­zona. Because they are afraid of being arrested, many immi­grant women now refuse to report even vio­lent crimes com­mit­ted against them, accord­ing to Guz­man. Her hot­line, Respect Respeto, reg­u­larly takes calls from wit­nesses or vic­tims of domes­tic vio­lence, gang bru­tal­ity, and sex­ual abuse who fear call­ing the police.

Arpaio thinks he’s cre­ated safer neigh­bor­hoods, but he’s done the oppo­site,” Guz­man says. “He has nar­rowed down the num­ber of peo­ple who can report a crime, and it makes our neigh­bor­hoods worse than ever.”

Last spring the Depart­ment of Jus­tice began an inves­ti­ga­tion of the Mari­copa County Sheriff’s Office to deter­mine whether Arpaio and his offi­cers are guilty of racial pro­fil­ing and abuse of power, but that hasn’t slowed the sher­iff down. While he con­tin­ues his raids and is now talk­ing about run­ning for gov­er­nor of Ari­zona, women immi­grants con­tinue liv­ing in fear — despite Obama’s assur­ances that immi­gra­tion reform is on the horizon.

And once the new law is imple­mented this July, Arpaio’s inevitable enforce­ment of it will exac­er­bate an already dread­ful situation.

Dispatches from Manila: The Morong 43

Pub­lished in Ms. mag­a­zine, Decem­ber 2010

When we enter the women’s ward of the sprawl­ing, open-air prison com­plex, we are greeted by a flurry of yel­low behind a thin wall of bars. The 23 women we have come to visit are already wait­ing, buzzing around a wooden table just out­side of the cell they share, eager to embrace those among us whom they knew in their for­mer lives.

Each is wear­ing a brightly-colored t-shirt that reads “Free the 43 Health Work­ers” and, as the barred gate closes behind the last of us, the crowd bursts into song–a hymn about the strength of women–and some begin to cry.

The women, who range in age, from early-20s to early-60s, have been impris­oned at this facil­ity for nearly two months and, prior to that, were detained at a high-security mil­i­tary camp for three months. One of them is a doc­tor. Two are mid­wives. The rest are vol­un­teer com­mu­nity health work­ers. They are happy to share their sto­ries. Get the whole story »