Toward a New Hierarchy

I'm grappling with several idea threads and trying to weave them together into a single coherent concept. They involve success, hierarchy, patriarchy, and YA fantasy literature.  In sum, The overall idea goes something like this: the backlash worldwide toward violence against women and fundamentalist religious orthodoxy is a reaction to women changing the meta-model for male reproductive fitness.

It started with my feeling troubled with  the word "success."  I'm not thinking of how a person defines his or her success. I'm thinking that the word in itself should only be applied to a finite task. So much of my life and the lives of the women I see are not at all measurable by success.  Meals, for example, fall almost exclusively to women's responsibility, take up perhaps a quarter of our waking lives, and yet somehow don't factor into equations of success. Nor should they.  Much of what women do is repetitive and recursive, which eludes categorization as success. Yet it has a pull on the psyche as sharp and as persistent as nicotine. Try not to think in terms of success, unless applying it to a limited, finite task. I'm finding it nearly impossible.

Then I came across the work of Jordan Peterson at the University of Toronto. His ideas, or at least my understanding of some of his ideas, as well as studies by others into dominance hierarchies, the correlation between infectious disease and conservative ideology, and my own delving into the current YA fantasy literature have led me to think that women have a task to do, a momentous task, and that the future of the planet is in our hands.  This probably is a book's worth of argument, but I'm going to attempt a blog post as a first pass at these ideas. Here are the raw materials.

Dominance hierarchies are not the same as patriarchy. Apparently, dominance hierarchies can be found in crustaceans and predate even the evolution of trees on the planet, so as a structure of cognition, they go deep. Getting rid of dominance hierarchies is not going to happen any time soon.

Each dominance hierarchy has its own rules for reaching the top, but even if you don't rise to the top, there are behaviors that gain you status and behaviors that diminish status. Status correlates to reproductive opportunity, so males compete strenuously for it. There are also sets of behaviors that are similar across all hierarchies, and this set of successful behaviors could be considered the "god" or "hero" set.  Narrative in the form of myth becomes the template for rising in the set of all dominance hierarchies.

Humans today have twice as many distance female ancestors as male, meaning that many men were not successful at finding women willing to reproduce with them. Females are picky. Peterson asserts that, "women's sexual selection was the primary force of human development and drove rapid human cortical evolution." The big heads made birth harder for women than other mammals, and the long development led them to want caretakers who were able to protect them and ensure the lives of their offspring. But remember Darwinian evolution is not toward "better" but toward "fitter." So as society changes, the abilities in males that ensure women's safety change. And so the "god pattern" that men use to establish status needs to change, but it must perforce lag behind the changing attitudes in the women. The narrative follows, and in the lag, many men get left behind.

I'm thinking that patriarchy itself was a backlash, an overthrow of the goddess who gave women the choice to select the fittest men.  If you give college coeds a set of t-shirts that young men have slept in and have the women sniff the shirts and describe the smell, their nose apparently describes as sexy the scent of men whose genetic makeup is most distant from their own and disparages with "smells like my brother" the t-shirts worn by men whose genetic makeup is closest to their own. Patriarchy took this choice away, forcing women to mate with a broader pool of men. (I wonder if using the word "choice" to oppose abortion doesn't really call this ancient reactionary desire to control women up from the depths and if another word might not be better.)

Women wanting high-status men is old and deep in our makeup. Throughout nature, a lower position on the dominance hierarchy results in a more precarious existence. When a new pathogen is introduced into a bird population, for example, the bottom of the pyramid dies first.

But what constitutes status changes depending on circumstances. So in more violent times, choosing a man with great physical prowess and a violent nature was desirable.  As society became more complex, intelligence was added to the mix and so Odysseus replaced Achilles. As peoples mingled and cultures were absorbed into larger empires, Law became the means of reconciliation of differences with a single ultimate authority. The set of qualities to rise in a lawful society were placed under one God and thanks to writing, these attributes could be shifted and massaged so that over time, instead of a new God, new layers could be added to the older paradigm.  Thus Jesus shifts the Old Testament dominance hierarchy without discarding it.

Comfort and scientific progress meant money became more essential to survival as the bourgeoisie rose along with a rise in pragmatism. Which meant the warring Olympians who became the God of Judgment and then the God of Grace fractured into the God of Protestant Reform.  All reflected the sexual desire of women to have men capable of supporting them and their children in the real, changing world.  Nietzsche's claim that God is dead I think says that the meta-set of dominance behaviors needed to rise to the top of the modern hierarchy pyramid IN ORDER TO have access to women is failing men and they do not have a model with which to organize their competition so that they are assured of success. And this makes them blame women.

For the last century, women have been gaining the rights and means of paying their own way.  That has driven a final stake through the heart of the old god and it is simply the lack of anything to take its place that has us floundering culturally and has allowed all this backlash. Until women figure out that they are driving this through the men they select, and recapture the power of choosing undermined by patriarchy, society is going to be drawn and quartered by the disconnect between the ideology of men and the wants of women.

So the question is, can women take the narrative bull by the horns and help craft a story that gives men a clear path to success in a new dominance hierarchy?

I noticed how YA fantasy which is full of paired female and male protagonists in an equal partnership with traditional and non-traditional roles blended. Young women are drinking these stories of werewolf packs and vampire hives and clockwork geniuses. The new hierarchy is in the forge. I'm thinking that the greatest gift to the future any writer could give is a potent and durable YA narrative that plants the framework for a paradigm of male and female for the future in the minds of these young women. For if the women build it, the men will come.

I think that's plenty for now.  Feel free to tear into this.  Or to support it.  If you made it this far, do let me know that, too.

Alice Guy-Blanché: The Most Important Film Director You Never Heard Of

*cross-posted with broadhumor.blogspot.com

Alice Guy-Blanché

It seems that making narrative films was the brain-child of a woman, Alice Guy, who not only was the first female filmamaker ever, but whose 24-year career saw her writing, directing, and producing over 1,000 films from 1896 to 1920. She was the origin of many innovations in filmmaking,  including using double exposure, running film backward, synching music to films, and location shooting, to name a few.  Guy-Blaché not only was one of the first to put narrative fiction on film, she shaped the director's role in the process into what we think of it to be today. She hired and trained a generation of filmmakers.  Anthony Slide recounts in his history of female silent filmmakers, "it was as if, with one mighty stroke, she had single-handedly created the entire French film industry,"  Hers is not only the longest career of any film pioneer, man or woman, but she still is the only woman to manage and own a studio.

So how come you never hear of this woman whom Barbra Streisand described as "a French film pioneer who invented the director's job?" Good question. 

It is unclear why, when Gaumont published a history of the film industry in France, her name was entirely absent. When she called Gaumont on it, he promised to correct the oversight in subsequent editions. That never happened.

Apparently, she has been "re-discovered" many times in recent years, but her name and accomplishments still go unacknowledged by official film history.  Any one of her directing accomplishments should have secured her a place in the pantheon.  For example:

... as one of the first persons to direct a film with a narrative structure, and thus to direct actors to convey the essence of the narrative through gestures and actions, Alice Guy is one of the originators of filmic acting, both in theory and in practice. Indeed, she is the first real auteur of the cinema. (from Film International )

If you've studied film you probably have seen Sergei Eisenstein's Potëmkin and the "innovative" use of close-ups and reaction shots, shots that Guy used in 1904 film "The First Cigarette." You can read a great article about Alice Guy at Film International or just scan the basic facts below.   I've also posted a YouTube video of one of her early comic films, The Consequences of Feminism (1906), which is a reverse-sexism film not unlike many we get submitted to the festival.

For me, her story, what she did vs. how she is remembered, is a good lesson in structural barriers to women's  success.  It is not enough to level the playing field. If the score keepers fail to mark the wins by women, it will create an atmosphere of disregard.  Yes, a woman may seem skilled or competent, but commonplace thinking asserts that if women were really as capable as men, there would be more of their work through history.  Novels.  Paintings.  Films.  Structural inequities erase notice, and don't result in a conscious conspiracy, but rather a self-perpetuating neglect. Just as in child-rearing, indifference and neglect are far more damaging to the psyche than domineering and abuse, so too for women's creative work this indifference destroys our inner "muse" with a suffocating vacuum.  All the while preserving a comfortable deniability of chauvinism.

So what about Guy-Blanché? She worked for the French inventor Léon Gaumont when the company was primarily a maker of photographic equipment.  After accompanying her boss to a screening of a 35mm demo by the Lumiere brothers in 1896, she asked for permission to use the company cameras to make her own film. She got approval contingent on the filming not interfering with her secretarial duties. She made La fée aux choux, one of the world’s first films with a plot shot in her own garden with the help of a female friend.  Her films were very successful.

La Fée aux Choux by Alice Guy-Blanché 1896

She become the head of production of the Gaumont film studio from 1897 to 1907.  But she got married to co-worker Herbert Blanché who was almost 10 years her junior, and, well, as a married woman was expected to retire.  Raise children.

So she and her husband left for the US, where they formed Solax, one of the largest pre-Hollywood studios in America.  She was the artistic director while her husband was the production manager. Even while she was pregnant with her second son, she completed at least a film a week, proving that the Hollywood horror, voiced at a Women in Film breakfast I remember, that a woman might get pregnant and ruin a film's production schedule and be rendered by her condition unable to command the shooting of a picture, is suspect baloney worthy of Upton Sinclair's novel, The Jungle.

Hollywood's climate was more congenial to filmmaking, and when husband Herbert headed west with a starlet on his arm in 1918, Alice remained until 1922 when the divorce was final.  She then sold the studio and went back to France.

Perhaps Alice Guy-Blanché is the reason that the French have more successful, working women directors than any other country.

The Girlie-in-Sports Problem

*cross-posted with broadhumor.blogspot.com

I was just watching Gnarly in Pink and enjoyed watching the little 6-year-old girls skateboarding in their tu-tus.  They were definitely little girls but also definitely athletes. Then they put up the statistic:

By the age of 14, girls are twice as likely to drop out of sports as boys.

My immediate thought was that by the age of 14, girls' bodies have gone through a huge metamorphosis that boys do not have to deal with for a few years.  Things like your center of gravity moving lower. Widening hips putting strain on the knees. Depth perception according to female tennis players who lament about how water retention before their period altering their ability to track the ball. I don't say that this proves that girls can't do sports after puberty, only that we need to recognize it and openly look capitalize on the strengths of women's bodies rather than pushing activities that only can be done by androgynous or amenorrhea-induced bodies.

I speak from experience, not as an athletic girl who lost her prowess to puberty, but one who found the pleasure in physical activity once her body changed.  I had always been the last on chosen for team sports. I had little upper body strength and short legs that made running races a loser's game for me. My dad taught me tennis at 9 and I tried my best, but was weak, lacking the long limbs and robust body type of the more tomboy-ish girls.  That's why I will never forget the day in seventh grade when I suddenly could do something effortlessly in gym class that all the other physically fit girls struggled with.  

We were learning how to jump on a trampoline.  Once we all got the basics, the teacher demonstrated something called "swivel hips."  You were supposed to bounce sitting, twisted in the air, and come down sitting facing the opposite direction. It was good-natured fun watching the girls try to find the coordination for that mid-air twist.  When my turn came, I sat, swung my broadening 13-year-old hips in a circle, and landed effortlessly facing the opposite direction.  Admiration and praise for doing something in GYM!  Never happened before.

A world opened up to me.  I had always been placed in the last row in ballet class. But at 14 I took jazz, and suddenly I was in the front row.  My twisty, sinuous, hippy body put me in the middle of my own, private, ugly duckling story.  I even got better at tennis, learning to use my spine to snap a whipping backhand.  I have ever since been a physically active person, a person who has spent a lifetime practicing dance and mime, was a clown in the circus, and who has taught movement, yoga, and dance to others.  All this was the gift of my changing body. 

The above statistic doesn't mention  how many girls take up dance.  How many start yoga. (Nor how many of the boys who quit sports, too, end up practicing these healthy, physical activities.)  Maybe girls do leave "sports" but then many "sports" are designed with the architecture of the male body in mind.  Once I realized I had a perfectly capable female body, I stopped wishing to be accepted for being able to do things privileged by the form and strengths of the male.   I offer no criticism of women whose body type lets them continue with the sports they enjoyed as girls, only that there should be activities that reveal what was revealed to me in a jazz dance class in France once. 

It was a dance class associated with the university during my junior year abroad. I was paying for three classes a week at this studio and taking the dance class that came with my enrollment for a fourth. Three young men from Iran had come to study at the university and decided to take the class for their physical education credit.  They entered the class confidently, seeing the little, lithe female instructor and short-legged, hippy me. She started what for me and for her was a slow, basic warm-up and set of moves.  The muscled trio struggled with all the core work, the fluid stretching, and the loose dynamics of the moves. After 45 minutes they were incapacitated, and the instructor ended the class early.  I had barely gotten warmed up, but understood.  This class for them was what gym class had been for me in 6th grade; all rope climbing and pushups. The three students never came back, and I wonder some times if the number of guys who say they don't dance is a reflection of their inability to take what was dished out to me almost daily until puberty.  I propose that moving with grace, that flexibility and core strength should be as privileged in elementary schools so that boys learn to respect "girlie" abilities such as "princess" poise and "ballerina" flexibility.

Great Indiewire Piece on Gender Bias in Film

From Indiewire: Jane Campion and her female Cannes jury members

Great article on Indiewire about gender bias, with data and info for women filmmakers.

I know, I know.  I'm just as tired as you are of complaints that women don't get a fair shake in the film biz. We have to get over that fatigue, in my opinion, just like marathon runners have to get over being tired halfway through a race. The inequity is real.  It's entrenched.  Changes are happening at a glacial pace, if at all.  But I like to think that maybe Stephen Jay Gould's concept of "punctuated equilibrium" for evolution applies to social change as well. The system, unfair though it may be, is trying to maintain its identity in equilibrium.  So it will resist change that threatens to radically alter its identity.  A few random "mutations" may survive or breed out in a generation without shifting the species, like the few lucky women who catch a break.

(NOTE: I don't call them "lucky' because they succeeded entirely on luck.  I know they are all incredibly talented and hard-working.  Their luck is in having their hard work get suddenly rewarded, while other equally hard-working and talented women get bupkiss.)

When external pressure creates situation where the old attributes no longer fit the environment,  survival suddenly encourages mutations that fill the niches of opportunity.  At these times, species evolve very quickly and dramatically until they settle into a new equilibrium that fits the new environment.

Look at how gay marriage initiatives, stalled and thwarted for so many years, suddenly reached critical mass and state after state has been passing marriage equality legislation.  If we keep the pressure up with our "complaining" and keep making films on whatever platform we can, these may turn out to be good times to be a female filmmaker.  After all, we're already in the middle of a flux period in the entertainment business. Technology is putting on some pressure.  Changing social norms are putting on more pressure.

(Hat tip for the Indiewire article to Judy Chaikin and the Alliance for Women Directors.)

Genetic Differences vs. Societal Influences: A Personal Story by Neil DeGrasse Tyson

*cross-posted with broadhumor.blogspot.com

Hat tip to Upworthy.com for posting a video from 2009 that highlights a story by Neil DeGrasse Tyson that was in response to a question about genetic differences in women possibly accounting for why so few women enter scientific fields.  His story about his journey to becoming a scientist illustrates his final point, which is that BEFORE scientists - and the rest of us - talk about genetic differences, we have to come up with a system where there's equal opportunity.

The Upworthy video doesn't play, however.  Here's a YouTube link that should start just before his comments, which begin in answer to a question at 1:01:48.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEeBPSvcNZQ#t=3690

Incompetent Men vs. Competent Women

*cross-posted with broadhumor.blogspot.com

Great article in the Harvard Business Review blog titled:  Why Do So Many Incompetent Men Become Leaders? (hat tip: AWD member Klaudia Kovacs)  It seems that women's greater emotional intelligence prevents them from engaging as much in blowhardism about their abilities.

Here is an excerpt of the meat of the argument:

... the main reason for the uneven management sex ratio is our inability to discern between confidence and competence. That is, because we (people in general) commonly misinterpret displays of confidence as a sign of competence, we are fooled into believing that men are better leaders than women. In other words, when it comes to leadership, the only advantage that men have over women (e.g., from Argentina to Norway and the USA to Japan) is the fact that manifestations of hubris — often masked as charisma or charm — are commonly mistaken for leadership potential, and that these occur much more frequently in men than in women. 

This is consistent with the finding that leaderless groups have a natural tendency to elect self-centered, overconfident and narcissistic individuals as leaders, and that these personality characteristics are not equally common in men and women.

Followed by:

 The paradoxical implication is that the same psychological characteristics that enable male managers to rise to the top of the corporate or political ladder are actually responsible for their downfall. In other words, what it takes to get the job is not just different from, but also the reverse of, what it takes to do the job well. As a result, too many incompetent people are promoted to management jobs, and promoted over more competent people.

And capped with:

So it struck me as a little odd that so much of the recent debate over getting women to "lean in" has focused on getting them to adopt more of these dysfunctional leadership traits. Yes, these are the people we often choose as our leaders — but should they be?

Most of the character traits that are truly advantageous for effective leadership are predominantly found in those who fail to impress others about their talent for management. This is especially true for women. There is now compelling scientific evidence for the notion that women are more likely to adopt more effective leadership strategies than do men. 

Scripts Needs an Audience

*cross-posted with Broadhumor.blogspot.com

Today, I'm thinking about the difference between playwrights and screenwriters, and in particular what screenwriters can learn from their theater counterparts.  It's a jumble, so this may or may not coalesce into lucid ideas.  I'll give it a go.

Playwrights exercise absolute control over material, screenwriters do not.  Part of the reason is that the playwright controls timing while in movies, the director and editor control timing. If you write comedy, timing can make or break a  laugh, but drama is also about the building and delivering of emotionally triggering moments. Screenplays just are not as complete as play scripts. Screenwriters don't know if their story works so long as it is only on the page, which makes it hard to grow and get better. 

Playwrights also can't know from the page either if their play works as theater, only if it works as literature the way Shakespeare does. Text on the page doesn't tell you if a joke will work as dialogue.  Reading Moliere, I don't laugh. Yet almost any production of Moliere delivers one belly laugh after another.  Playwrights have opportunities to get a read from real audiences on their work at every stage of their development. They get plays produced by small theaters and hear their words come out of the mouths of various performers. They cannot blame the director or actors if the same scene falls flat in two different productions. They learn how to write scenes that actors can act and that audiences will respond to.  Staged readings will draw an audience and allow playwrights to test their work in a theater with live actors.  But readings of scripts are not the same as readings of plays because the screen is not a stage.  What is a screenwriter to do?