8
Spoiler"Better Things" and the gender woo
edit: for some reasons the spoiler censoring thingy doesn't seem to be working (at least not for me) so watch out, most of the text contains spoilers.
Better Things is about Sam (Pamela Adlon, who created the show with Louis CK), an actress pushing 50, raising her three daughters alone. I just finished watching it, and overall I found it entertaining, and interesting. I like that all of the central characters are women. There's a lot of female friendships, women talking about motherhood, marriage, divorce, careers, menopause, about growing up, and so on. It is on the libfem side, but I guess it's a reflection of the times.
Sam's middle daughter, Frankie, is GNC, and from the beginning I feared that they'd eventually trans her, simply for being GNC. In the end of the first season, Frankie is caught using the boys' bathroom at school and Sam is called. Later Frankie explains that she was just grossed out about the behaviour of some girls (which I think sounds like sexual assault from what she described), and she says "people will say it's because I'm a boy, but I'm not". What a relief! For a couple of minutes, because later the eldest states "Frankie is a boy", as if it were really obvious. Which she will later on completely deny having ever said, because as the show goes on, Frankie does not transition. Instead she becomes a they/them non binary, even though there's nothing unfeminine about her. Sure, she starts wearing suits, but so did Marlene Dietrich.
Frankie is the worst! She is insufferable, and so arrogant lecturing adults about politics! She's also completely disrespectful towards her mother, and very self centered. I know teenagers do that, but Frankie takes it to another level. At some point she runs away from home, and no explanation why she needed so much to be away is ever given. She just sort of disappears, and it seems she's been imposing herself at friends' houses, expecting adults other than her family members to take care of her. Sure she's smart and independent in many ways, but I don't think it's made clear in the show how dangerous a situation like this could be in real life. In the show she's staying with friends, but in real life I doubt that many people would house a brat just because of her teen angst, and a child with that level of arrogance could easily be groomed and abused by some adult taking advantage of a girl who thinks she can just leave home at 13.
At the same time, this white "non-girl" who thinks Easter traditions are offensive (because fertility symbols?) has absolutely no problem having a quiceañera. A rite of passage that is not her heritage, and it's exclusive for girls, which she claims she isn't. Her reasoning is that California is originally Mexican land, and her having a quinceañera is "appreciation" and not appropriation. Appreciation, it seems, of a tradition that means introducing the girl to the community as a woman who's ready to get married. But sure, it's not problematic because it's not white, I guess.
Everyone is very supportive of Frankie's gender identity in the show, including Sam, but it's an afterthought. No one makes a big deal out of it, they are more like "whatever". Sam is in fact a very permissive mother (sometimes too much IMO) and gives plenty of space for her daughters to express themselves. I don't think the plot was written to make identity politics or liberal politics look good. I think it was written to look like is a trend amongst bored teenagers. Max, the eldest daughter, matures over the seasons, specially towards the end, and Sam's mother, who Sam considered putting in a home at some point, also moves on, and I feel like the message is that it's all phases, including Frankie's gender identity. She'll grow out of it.
I'd say it's overall a good show, because despite the liberal politics I enjoyed watching it. Has anyone seen it? What did you think?
I saw this on display in the Brooklyn Museum and found it breathtaking. A truly wonderful collaboration, which included the talents of many women besides Judy herself. I could not get enough, and spent about two hours there. I recognized the names at almost all of the place settings. Terrific concept!
I saw it in 1981, in the same month I'd joined a radical feminist rape prevention collective, along with 5 other women from the collective. It really was one of the most empowering experiences I've ever had and made me so proud to be a woman.
I also saw the Dinner Party in my city. It was amazing. We had feminist newspapers, organizations then. It has been criticized for being Western & Eurocentric, (as has Lilian Faderman's work a bit). But it seems only women are expected to cover everyone & everything in every project or book. And female genitalia is considered obscene unless it serves male purposes.
Yes, women are expected to include men in all things, even artwork. I’m really glad that you were able to see the installation.
I’m posting this as a counterpoint to the vulva wall installation done by a male artist. (I’m in no way disparaging that it was posted).
Judy Chicago’s The Dinner Party couldn’t even have been made today because it does not include men. I had the privilege of seeing the installation at one of her shows in 1979. It is stunning.
From the archived article (which includes photos of several of the place settings):
The Dinner Party is a monument to women’s history and accomplishments. It is a massive triangular table—measuring 48 feet on each side—with thirty-nine place settings dedicated to prominent women throughout history and an additional 999 names are inscribed on the table’s glazed porcelain brick base.
This tribute to women, which includes individual place settings for such luminary figures as the Primordial Goddess, Ishtar, Hatshepsut, Theodora, Artemesia Gentileschi, Sacajawea, Sojourner Truth, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Emily Dickinson, Margaret Sanger, and Georgia O’Keeffe, is beautifully crafted. Each place setting has an exquisitely embroidered table runner that includes the name of the woman, utensils, a goblet, and a plate.
The Dinner Party was intended to be exhibited in a large, darkened, sanctuary-like room, with each place setting individually lit, making it look as though it is composed of thirty-nine altars. The 999 names, written in gold, gleam softly, suggesting a hallowed or liminal space. Five years in the making (1974-1979) and the product of the volunteer labor of more than 400 people, The Dinner Party is a testament to the power of feminist vision and artistic collaboration. It was also a testament to Chicago’s ability to create a work of art that spoke to people who had not previously been a part of the art world. When the exhibition opened at the Museum of Modern Art in San Francisco in March of 1979, it was mobbed. Judy Chicago’s accompanying lecture was completely sold out.
Although critics praised the table runners, they ignored or disparaged the plates. These ceramic objects, which become increasingly three-dimensional during the procession from prehistory to the present in order to represent women rising, look somewhat like flowers and butterflies. They also resemble female genitalia, which many people found disturbing. Writing for the feminist journal Frontiers in 1981, Lolette Kuby was so taken aback by the plates’ forms that she suggested that Playboy and Penthouse had done more to promote the beauty of female anatomy than The Dinner Party ever could.
Kuby’s distaste for pudenda was echoed more forcefully a decade later, when Chicago attempted to donate the artwork to the University of the District of Columbia. Chicago was forced to withdraw her donation after the U.S. Senate threatened to withhold funding from UDC if they accepted what Rep. Robert Dornan characterized as “3-D ceramic pornography” and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher dismissed as a “spectacle of weird art, weird feminist art at that.” It was not until 2007 that The Dinner Party, an icon of feminist art, would find a permanent home in the Elizabeth A. Sackler Center for Feminist Art in the Brooklyn Museum of Art.
Feminist Education
What drove Chicago to embark on such a large and controversial feminist project? She was inspired, in part, by her pioneering work in feminist education. She started the Feminist Art Program at California State University, Fresno in 1970. The following year she founded the Feminist Art Program (FAP) at the newly established California Institute of the Arts (CalArts) with the abstract painter Miriam Schapiro. The galleries were still under construction when Chicago arrived at CalArts, so the FAP had their exhibition in an abandoned mansion that was slated to be demolished shortly after. The resulting installation, Womanhouse, was a testament to Chicago’s method of teaching, which begin with consciousness raising and then progressed to realizing a message through whatever medium was most suitable, whether it was performance, sculpture, or painting.
While at CalArts, Chicago and Schapiro developed the idea of “central core imagery,” arguing in a 1973 article published in Womanspace Journal that many women artists making abstract art unconsciously gravitated towards imagery that was anti-phallic. By the time she began working on The Dinner Party, Chicago had come to believe that central core imagery, which celebrated feminine eroticism and fertility, could be used to challenge patriarchal constructions of women. For Chicago, there existed an irreducible difference between men and women, and that difference began with the genitals. Chicago would eventually put vaginal imagery front and center in The Dinner Party.
Right Out of History
After several years of work establishing various feminist art programs in Southern California, Chicago was eager to get back to making her own artwork and resigned from teaching in 1974. Her experience with Womanhouse inspired her to embrace materials that had traditionally been associated with women’s crafts, such as embroidery, weaving, and china painting. She was determined to make a monument to women’s history using china-painted plates alluding to thirteen specific figures, which she originally planned to hang on the gallery wall. However, she soon realized that there were many more women that she wished to include, and the initial conception of the piece expanded to a large-scale installation with thirty-nine place settings.
An important component of the piece was the educational material that represented the years of research that had been conducted by Chicago’s volunteer staff, led by art historian Diane Gelon. The Dinner Party was accompanied by a book of the same title (published by Anchor Books in 1979 and designed by Sheila Levrant de Bretteville) that included the stories behind all 1,038 names. Filmmaker Johanna Demetrakas documented the monumental effort that it took to make this installation in her film Right Out of History: The Making of the Dinner Party.
It is now permanently housed in The Brooklyn Museum.
❤❤❤❤
Yeah, no way this could’ve been made today.
I saw The Dinner Party a few years ago at the Brooklyn Museum with a friend, and we had a great time nerding out over all the names included in this piece.
I’m so glad that you got to see it!
So am I. Quite a breathtaking experience.
Way back when I was in college in 2009, my intro to women’s history professor showed us this documentary about the dinner party (probably the one in your comment). It was literally the first time I’d seen women working on a project together about women in school. And I was in my 20s in the United States.
I’m sure that professor no longer teaches at my college and that the course if still offered, doesn’t even resemble what it was.
Where was this?
Sort posts by new on Ovarit and again, no disparagement of the original post.
I posted The Dinner Party because Judy Chicago is a woman artist and it is a part of our feminist history:
“NSFW There are 400 of them made of plaster. Miami Beach, behold ‘The Great Wall of Vulva’ “
Thanks!