I Am Beautiful: A Celebration of Women in Their Own Words

IEImary caretaker and the wish to nurture achild and witness her or his growth, yetPurdy remains skeptical of the independenceof their choice.Rather than define herself as a parent,Purdy says she "participates in parenting."Nevertheless, she does admit thatthe desire to parent can be a compellinginterest—one that outweighs the manyarguments that Purdy puts forth againstparenting in a sexist society, and one thatshe ultimately upholds on the samegrounds she gives for the access to genetictesting and abortion: the right toself-determination, which emphasizescontrol over one's body and resources.Given how much influence society hasover our decisions, in Purdy's view, it isnot surprising that she ultimately arguesthat the more significant issue in reproductivetechnology is not about individualchoice, but whether the huge sums ofmoney being allocated for it might betterbe spent on broader social change, suchas routine health care for women thatmight reduce the infant mortality rate.Roiphe would agree, despite her radicallydifferent view of parenthood andthe forces that shape it. No one can denyhow hostile the environment has becomefor women and their children, given therecent welfare "reform" measures thataim to marginalize (if not extinguish)them. Onslaughts like this make it clearthat, while it is important to debate anddefine who we are and what we need aswomen, right now we may need to subordinateour differences to fight for anenvironment in which women and childrencan survive, let alone thrive. •IN BRIEF• LIKE THERE'S NO TOMORROW:Meditations for Women LeavingPatriarchy by Carolyn Gage, (CommonCourage Press, paper, $14.95)For once, here's a meditation manualwith attitude. Written by an ON THE IS-SUES contributor, this book of morethan 100 meditations covers issuesfrom empathy to jealousy, from askingfor help to refusing to compromise.Gage gathers quotes from courageouswomen around the world, and writesin a tone that encourages and inspireswithout being insipid. Packed withoriceless gems ("The doctrine of'choosing one's battles' is a dangerousone for the radical feminist."), it's abook that deserves a place of honor onevery woman's bedside table.FITHE DIVA INTHE MIRRORBY KATHI MAIOIT'S NOT EASY BEING A DIVA, AND Idon't mean an opera singer. (Althoughthat's no walk in the park, either.)No, I'm referring to the Hollywoodfemale superstar: iconic women performerswhose show biz personas couldfill a screen, eclipse any script and overshadowany co-star. Back in the goldendays of Hollywood, the town was full ofthem. Joan Crawford. Bette Davis. EvenJudy Garland and Elizabeth Taylor. Theywere bigger, much bigger, than the filmsthey appeared in. And that's the way weliked them.But, gradually, throughoutthe 1950s and 1960s, the roleof women in feature films deteriorated,and the Hollywooddiva all but disappeared.Oh, we still havefemale stars today, but look atthem. Headliners like JuliaRoberts and Sandra Bullock(and even slightly older performerslike Meg Ryan andMichele Pfeiffer) are girlish,sweet and, sad to say, almostinterchangeable. They hardlystrike us as women of power,and they never truly dominatetheir material, or theirleading men. In fact, comparedto the hypermasculinemale stars of today (Stallone,Mel Gibson, Schwarzenegger, etc.), theypractically fade into the woodwork.So, is the diva dead? Not as long asBarbra Streisand still lives andbreathes—and produces, directs, writesmusic for, sings over the closing creditsof, and stars in—the occasional film.Theproblem is, much of the movie-goingpublic—that is, many audience membersand almost all critics—no longer want towatch a woman be a STAR. They want awoman who takes up less space on thescreen, someone who is young and prettyand more docile, on and off the set.KATHI MAIO is the film critic forON THE ISSUES.That's why there was such backlashagainst Streisand's latest movie, THEMIRROR HAS TWO FACES. Most of thereviews were pans, and most of the panswere intensely personal attacks, chargingher with "control-freak" perfectionismand excessive vanity. Many gleefullypointed out that she fired some technicalworkers during her shoot. Others beratedher for lighting herself in a flatteringmanner. It's as if they were saying, "Howdare she call the shots on her own filmset?" "How dare she be the star of themovie wherein she plays the protagonist?"(Take a moment to consider thatwhen Mel Gibson directed himself as thetitle character of "Braveheart," no onebusted his chops for being a take-chargekinda guy, or for filling the screen withhis own manly, mythically heroic countenance.Heck, they even gave him a coupleof Oscars for his self-glorifying epic.)As with her previous (Oscar-snubbed)directorial projects, much of the snipingagainst The Mirror Has Two Faces was leveledagainst La Barbra for having the au-The divabehind thecamera:BarbraStreisanddirects JeffBridges.dacity to be an (unrepentantly) powerfulwoman in today's Hollywood. It's sexist.Unhappily, however, so is Ms.Streisand's entertaining romantic comedy.In the film, Streisand plays Rose Morgan,a popular professor of romantic literatureat Columbia University. Rose stilllives in the shadow of her beautiful, vainmother, Hannah (Lauren Bacall), whobelittles her constantly, and her beautiful,vain sister, Claire (Mimi Rogers),who steals and marries Rose's equallyshallow boyfriend (Pierce Brosnan), simplybecause she can.This is fairytale family dysfunction.Only the wicked stepsister and stepmotherare actually flesh and blood. Since thisS p r i n g 1997 • O N T H E ISSUES 51