Good Girls Revolt — When Men Were “Mad” and Women Were Researchers

Good-Girls-Revolt-Amazon-Pilot
Three “good girls” at Newsweek talking with brief hire Nora Ephron, who left her researcher role for “someplace I can write.”

It’s hard to believe, watching now.  Even more than Mad Men, Amazon’s Good Girls’ Revolt is all too familiar.  The story of the women of Newsweek and their battle for equality in the newsroom, it’s a heartbreaker, and it’s not because of the huge moments of oppression or betrayal, although they are present. (Through some creative reporting, a young researcher discovers what really happened at the 1969 Altamont Festival that “killed the 60’s.”   But the rewrite assignment – and the credit – goes to a guy who never left the building. “That’s how we do things here. We have a process.  Men are the reporters – you girls are the researchers.”)  The researcher on this story  loves the thrill of reporting so much she surrenders everything she’s learned, even though she’ll never get credit for it in the office, much less in print.

Sadly, many of us remember; it happened to us.  

Implicit, explicit and intractable power all in male hands, all the time, permeates every moment of Good Girls Revolt’s pilot episode.  We know where their pending revolution is coming from.

Even more frequent than the “big stuff” were the small assumptions, dismissals, insults and slights that eat away, day by day, at confidence and ambition and hope.

  • Four women in a hallway conversation greeted by the boss: “Hello, my little coven.”
  • The Managing Editor sending his best researcher, who keeps her reporter partner (and lover) safe and “his” stories on the cover, for coffee.  “Black, two sugars, right?”
  • “Sweetie,” “honey,” “cutie.”
  • A husband who “gives his wife a year” to write a novel before moving her to Connecticut to raise babies, but then puts a hole in her diaphragm so she’ll be pregnant before that year ends.
  • Three guys hungrily ogling a smart, but lovely women as she tries unsuccessfully to make it through the newsroom without incident.

Sadly, many of us remember; it happened to us.

For me it was a very sweet 60 Minutes producer sitting next to a very pregnant me in the newsroom and urging me not to come back to work – to stay home like his wife did.  Or the executive who called with sympathy for my miscarriage and told me that, pregnant woman that I’d been, I shouldn’t have been working so hard – as if I was my fault.  (His assistant asked me if I’d even wanted the baby at all.)

In addition to newsroom battles, this introductory episode takes us to a “consciousness raising” meeting, led by a pregnant “Eleanor Holmes Norton” and featuring, like a 12-step program, the telling of individual stories of humiliation, discrimination and sexual harassment.

Sadly, many of us remember; it happened to us.

In my own community, oppressive sexual relationships between researcher and producer weren’t frequent, but they weren’t rare, either.  They almost never ended well.  One correspondent told me at a bureau Christmas party “I’d really love to sleep with you.  Really.  But I never dip my pen in the company inkwell.”  He thought I’d be impressed.

We need this show – and so do our daughters and nieces and sons and nephews and husbands and young friends.  Here’s how Buzzfeed’s Ann Helen Peterson  ends her piece on the show:

Good Girls Revolt may be about a bunch of accidental revolutionaries. Its politics may be embroidered with melodrama, and romance, and fixation on clothes. But, then again, so is life. And that doesn’t make the show, or the work of the women behind the scenes, any less feminist — or necessary.

As [production designer Jeannine] Oppewall says, “Sometimes I look at my nieces, who don’t quite yet see the amount of work it took for us to pull this off, and I’m like, ‘You better have a look at the past, because if you’re not vigilant, the past can always be your future.’ You gotta babysit it and talk about it and push it and make it seem like this is absolutely the way it should be.”

 

Maureen Dowd, Michael Wolff, The New York Times and Notoriety

Mwolff_pic I have been a fan and follower of Michael Wolff for years.  Read his stuff in the bubble and afterwards.  Even read Burn Rate, his lively, funny and very interesting history of the rise and fall of his Web company.  So I get his email every day, with links to his Newser columns. They're usually fine, when I have time to read them.  Today though, he's outdone himself so I wanted to be sure you knew.  The piece is called "Maureen Dowd is All in Your Head"

Given what Wolff writes about The Dread Plagiarism Incident, I'm not offering any of my own perspectives here.  I just wanted to take note of this very interesting discussion of journalist celebrity, aspirational followers and the New York Times in general.  Here's a sample:

Here’s my question: Why are boring people so interested in her? Ever since she began her column in the mid-nineties it has been de rigueur among people who, relatively speaking, have no opinions about anything
to have very firm opinions about Dowd. Among a great swatch of uninteresting people she is the officially sanctioned, government-approved lightening rod.

The role Dowd has played is striking.  Even in the context of being declared tiresome,  she evokes a pretty acid response from a pretty touch cookie.  Interesting, no?

WHOSE LIFE IS IT, ANYWAY? (REDUX)

Kavalier_and_clay_2 I’m under a horrendous deadline and getting ready for Blog Her at the same time so I’m offering a couple of "best of" posts from my early days on Vox.  This one is here because of a conversation I had with someone I’d mentioned in a post – she would have rather I hadn’t.  Here’s the dilemma:

At BlogHer (last year – 2006) there was a great debate among the "mommy bloggers" about how much to reveal about one’s children.  Much of what was best in my career (as well as, of course, my private life) came from my kids – literally.  They’re why I finally wrote a book [for kids.] They’re why I got interested in kids’ books and began writing book reviews for the New York Times and Washington Post and eventually served as early children’s book editor at Amazon.  They’re the reason I did some of my best TV pieces – about kids learning to ski, learning disabilities, etc.  You get the idea.  BUT

Once they were over 7 or so I always asked before I mentioned them in anything I wrote.  I kind of felt that it was my gig and they had their own lives.  Now this is a problem.  Michael Chabon says:

“Telling the truth, when the truth matters most, is almost always a frightening prospect. If a writer doesn’t give away secrets, his own or those of the people he loves; if she doesn’t court disapproval, reproach and general wrath, whether of friends, family, or party apparatchiks; if the writer submits his work to an internal censor long before anyone else can get their hands on it, the result is pallid, inanimate, a lump of earth. "

He’s right I think – I can feel myself hanging back when those "other people’s secrets" begin to emerge — and if affects my writing.  It’s true even of the most innocent things: something really lovely was said to me this week by one of my kids but it would expose HIM and I can’t do it.

Granted, most moms who blog have far younger kids than my adult sons but it’s an interesting question.  Any thoughts? 

Whatever we think about this though it gave me an excuse to share one of my favorite Michael Chabon quotes. (of very very many…)