Image via curvygirlguide.com

So my friends over at the Curvy Girl Guide (if you haven’t checked them out, you MUST) brought this movie poster to my attention for the remake of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.  As Hollywood movie posters go you might think this one is par for the course — dark, brooding guy lusting after *ahem* scantily clad woman.  That is, if you didn’t know what the story was about.  My friend Melissa Silverstein at Women & Hollywood wrote about this several months ago, as well, in her great post entitled, “The Pornification of Lisbeth Salander.”

If you know even the littlest bit about the theme of this book-turned-movie, you know that this isn’t a film about sex.  It’s not a movie about a hot chick and her dude.  The book and the main character of Lisbeth Salander are about so much more on some serious topics, including violence against women. But I can only conclude from this poster that Hollywood wants us to think this is a sexy, smoldering story about a man and his woman, rather than one about political intrigue and extreme violence against women, out of fear that they otherwise wouldn’t sell tickets.

I weighed in on what on I thought of Lisbeth Salander last year shortly after reading the book, so as this topic has come again on the eve of the new movie’s release, I thought I’d reprise it here:

Yes, I’ve read The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. And I’ve seen the movie, even though it’s in Swedish with subtitles! I loved the book so much that I took it with us on our trip to China and finished it despite a massive head cold and serious jet lag.

Why? Because Lisbeth Salander rocks.

Of course, author Stieg Larsson is the amazing writer who made her rock. He had to be to combine Swedish political intrigue, alleged Nazi collaborators, and significant violence against women and turn it into an epic-length page-turner that’s become summertime must-reading.

But The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is much more than a summer beach read. It’s an inspiring tale that can help us embrace our inner feminists.

The current buzz surrounding the trilogy of books, the Swedish movie, and (of course) the inevitable rush by copycat Hollywood to make its own version is about whether it’s a stealth feminist tome or just a book that uses gratuitous sexual violence against women to promote sales. That aspect has turned into something of an uproar (and borrowing from the title of the third book, a “hornet’s nest“) from the grave (Larsson tragically died shortly after he turned in all three finished novels to his publisher). The first volume of his trilogy focuses on the details of a gruesome series of women’s murders, as well as sexual violence against Salander herself.

I was personally moved by TGWTDT and wasn’t sure why at first — it certainly was some slow reading to get through the parts about Swedish political intrigue. But as a woman who was the victim of domestic violence in my first brief marriage decades ago, I was taken by the strength of Lisbeth Salander when it came to controlling her own life, as well as by what seemed to be Larsson’s mission as an author to educate his fiction readers about the prevalence of sexual violence against women and how much of the world allows it to go on, seemingly unnoticed and unaddressed in any real way.

I was impressed that Larsson did not turn away or sugarcoat the theme of violence and depravity against women. Other critics don’t agree with me.

So the debate about TGWTDT has become this — is Salander a feminist avenger with a look that’s a cross between the new Wonder Woman and a teen boy punk rocker or just the character that allows Larsson’s publisher to exploit sexual violence for the sake of Amazon rankings? Many reviewers have been critical of the extreme descriptiveness of the acts against women, claiming that it’s unnecessary to write about sexual violence against women in such graphic detail.

I disagree.

I applaud Larsson for not turning away from the sexual violence and making his readers — especially his male readers — face what so many women have had to face in their lifetimes, but doesn’t often get the attention that might make it go away.

I don’t talk much about the period in my life when I had to deal with the fact that there was one person who thought I was deserving of being kicked, punched, pushed down stairs, and abused in a variety of other ways. For the most part, I try to keep that in the back of my memory.

All of that came rushing back as I read the tale of Lisbeth Salander and I felt that she spoke for me in a way I couldn’t when I was the victim of domestic violence. I hope that other readers, whether they consider this a feminist novel or not, don’t turn away from the violence against her and take it as an opportunity to think about why we seldom read about the real life versions of what Larsson’s written about.

So with that backdrop, what do you think of the poster for the new movie?  The producers and promoters have chosen to sexualize Salander in this way for ticket sales, but her character isn’t about being a sexy, hot chick.  And what does a misleading poster of this kind say about Hollywood?

What do you say — Judi Dench in 2012?

And I think Daniel Craig might look better as a redhead.

I wish I could say it was a complaint about not picking up his dirty socks (I know we can all feel Michelle Obama’s pain on that one), or even that he ran around with other women. Not like that’s a good thing.

But as I’ve mentioned before, it was a little more serious than either of those things –I was a victim of domestic violence.

I was lucky — I got out of that marriage pretty quickly.  But because of that, I worry about what happens when we put a pop culture spotlight on splitting up (aside from our fascination with celebrity marriages) if it trivializes the darker side of divorce.

That’s what I’m talking about this week at The Stir in my column, Speaker of the House. I hope you’ll stop by and weigh in on the discussion!

Image via Amazon.

If it saves one women or one girl, this idea is worth it.  Spread the word.  There are doorbells in America that need some ringing.

(H/T Peter Daou)

The author, the late Stieg Larsson, didn’t hold anything back in his descriptions about what was done to women throughout the book, including one of the main characters, Lisbeth Salander.

Some say it’s too much.  But as someone who’s been the victim of domestic violence, and as we continue to see stories on cable news about real life women like Stephany Flores and Yeardley Love who have died at the hands of their abusers, I think that giving readers around the world a look at this type of violence without sugar-coating it is a way that we can move forward with reducing violent acts against women.

That’s what I’m writing about over at my weekly Speaker of the House column.

What do you think? Are graphic descriptions of violence against women just a gratuitous way to sell books or is it time to stare it in the face and not not turn away?

As I’m getting getting ready for my Mom 2.0 panel today, I wanted to leave you with some good reading for the weekend.  What better way than to recommend a few Mothers of Intention?!

One of my favorite economy gurus is my fellow MOMocrat Cyn.  She has a great post this week entitled, 10 Things I Wish the Obama Administration Would Do to Fundamentally Improve the Ec0nomy. Trust me, she knows what she’s talking about.

Veronica from Viva la Feminista has a great post, Judge Resigns Over Bias Against Domestic Violence Survivors. Don’t even get me started on this one.

Julie at The Mom Slant weighs in with her take on the current state of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.  She’s been in the military, so she knows what she’s talking about.

And Katie at mamapundit has concerns about Kleenex’s “mom” campaign.  She thinks it’s a little creepy.  I have to agree.

I’m sure I’ll come back with the names of some new Mothers of Intention after this weekend!

I was a victim of domestic abuse.

Many, many years ago I was married for a very short time when I was an incredibly young (19) and stupid college student (while 19 might be a good age for some to marry, it was not a good age for me).

I was smart enough, however, to get out of that very brief marriage quickly before I suffered too many injuries.  But it was scary — I had bruises from being pushed down stairs and I was anxious about lying to cover up why there was a big hole in the wall (where my ex-husband kicked it in in a rage), among other things.  When he pulled a butcher knife on me when I said I was leaving, I really knew it was the right choice to save my life.  But I was terrified that he would come after me and hurt me more.  He tried, but I was lucky that I had friends who sheltered me and kept me safe, even when I had to go to work.

I recovered from the few physical injuries I suffered without any medical attention.  But a lot of women aren’t so lucky.  So when I read a report this week from the SEIU that a variety of states allow insurance companies to refuse to pay for treatment of injuries suffered as a result of domestic violence because they are deemed a pre-exisiting condition, I pretty much lost it.  Some states make it illegal for an insurance company to do that, but there are still eight states and the District of  Columbia that permit insurance companies who cover individuals there to carve that out as something not deemed worthy of coverage.

I knew decades ago, as many women still know today, that you can get all the protective orders you want, but depending on where you live police are slow to enforce them or take them seriously.  So if a woman (or, I’m assuming, even a child) who suffers a black eye or a broken arm or worse because it’s not the first instance of domestic abuse, certain insurance companies won’t pay for it?

If that fact alone isn’t a call to action, I don’t know what is.  The President has said he wants health care reform and he’s claimed he wants to put issues that impact women and girls in the forefront.  When she spoke at Netroots Nation, Presidential advisor Valerie Jarrett, who chairs the White House Council on Women & Girls, answered my Twitter question about whether the goals of the Council were still a priority, assuring us that Barack Obama would keep pushing for those goals and that the Council’s work was on the front-burner.

Two of the Council’s stated goals are:

• Working hand-in-hand with the Vice President, the Justice Department’s Office of Violence Against Women and other government officials [will] find new ways to prevent violence against women, at home and abroad.
• Finally, the critical work of the Council will be to help build healthy families and improve women’s health care.

Call me crazy, but I don’t think either of those things can be accomplished if you’ve got insurance companies trying to eke out bigger profits on the backs of abused women.

So many people who are against health care reform want to keep the current system, claiming that a public option will result in rationing.  But if denying a beaten woman coverage doesn’t amount to rationing, what is it?  Some insurers have made the calculated financial (NOT medical) decision that if you are a woman who can’t get out of an abusive relationship, you don’t deserve medical treatment if your husband beats you.

Before I experienced it, I thought there was no excuse for not getting out — how could anyone stay?  But it’s a complicated issue, many times made harder by threats against other people, including children.  Or you think it’s only going to happen once — it was an accident, it was something that will never happen again.

And then it does.

I am one of the most fortunate women in the world — I got out before things got too bad.  I scraped together enough money on my then-$120 a week salary to pay for a divorce and got out.  I found a job in another state, but I looked over my shoulder for years, never wanting to let down my guard just in case he found out where I was.

Many years later, I met Mr. PunditMom who is the best of all possible husbands (even though I do complain sometimes that he doesn’t do his share of the laundry).  But I shudder to think about what might have happened if my ex-husband had been able to get to me, notwithstanding all my best efforts to prevent him from hitting me again — or worse.  And if he had, how would I have paid for my medical care if my insurance company had turned its back?

If domestic violence is a pre-existing condition, what’s next?  If I get a sinus infection this winter that the first round of antibiotics doesn’t clear up, is the next prescription not covered?   If it’s OK for some insurance companies to promote and cover prescriptions or other treatments so men can “perform” when the moment is right, why isn’t there a governmental push right now to make sure abused women can get medical treatment?

I wish I could believe there was some answer other than money.  But I don’t think there is.