Compiled, written and edited by Sherrie A. Inness, Disco Divas: Women And Popular Culture In The 1970s cogently examines the 1970s as an era of great social change, especially for women. Illustrating the reverberations of cultural shifts in the 60's, the changing images of women in popular culture and mass media, and the changes that continue to evolve as those generations of women grew older, Disco Divas is a timely and insightful contribution to Women's Studies reading lists and American Popular Culture Studies reference collections.

DISCO DIVAS, edited by Sherri Inness, is an excellent anthology of essays from a variety of popular culture critics writing about the much-ignored decade of the 1970s and the variety of ways the evolving definition of what is female was influenced by advertising, television, movies, and even recipes.

Of particular interest to me were two chapters: one on the relevance of CHARLIE'S ANGELS (the in-depth discussion by Whitney Womack of how the signified transcended Aaron Spelling's supericial signs is a revelation that takes all the fluff out of a Farrah Fawcett haircut) and the other on changing female images on American soap operas (the depth with which female characters were written, moving from the home and bedroom to the office and boardroom, gives contemporary soap watchers a very good idea why daytime (and for that matter, nighttime) soap operas have declined both in number and viewers; Thomas Petitjean, who wrote this chapter, has a good handle on why the 1970s were indeed the golden years of the American soap opera).

This book is not simply for scholars or readers of feminist studies; it's written with style and verve that make it interesting reading for the non-scholar who simply loved the 1970s or grew up in the period and wants to see just how popular culture shaped the new millenium.

Kitchen Culture in America provides a review of popular representations of food, gender and race and uses everything from television to ads and magazines to examine how women's roles have been shaped by the practice of consuming and making meals. From 1895 to 1970, this provides examples which argue that 'kitchen culture' instructs women in acceptable social behavior patterns.

this book was fascinating in highlighting cultural phenomenon in girls culture through the twentieth century. I have complaints with only one contributor. This book is very useful in finally gaining insight into a overwhelmingly overlooked culture in american society

This is a collection of 9 essays by different authors studying the cultural influence of girls' series books in the first half of the 20th century.The series' studied include anne of green gables, isabel carleton, linda lane, automobile series, scouting novels, betsy-tacy, cherry ames, judy bolton and nancy drew. Two of the essays are about nancy drew - one on her own and the other compared to judy bolton. This collection of essays is an interesting read if you are looking for analysis - it is not a description of the different series',it reads more like a university english text for a children's literature class. Some of the series' profiled here were a little before my time but the essays were interesting to read nonetheless. I gave it four stars because I am no expert on literature analysis so it is hard to rate this book from that point of view.

I read half the book and got so angry I couldn't finish it. The author argues that Dana Scully of"X-Files, Xena, Emma Peel of "Avengers", Thelma & Louise, Wonder Woman, Bionic Woman, Captain Janeway of "Voyager", Ripley of "Aliens" etc. all have their toughness defused by having feminine characteristics or clothing. What the author seem to want is one dimensional characters. Having feminine characteristics does not make characters less tough. Only the "bad guys" in films are portrayed as totally tough. Tough men in films are not without their softer, more "feminine" side. No one would find them compelling or sympathetic otherwise. The author says, "In many ways Ripley and Janeway are tough, but their toughness is lessened by emphasis placed on their maternal and nurturing sides." (page 119) This is ludicrous. Nurturing and positive "women" traits do not negate toughness. In point of fact, it increases it. When one can show a softer side, that shows that one is not insecure and overly dominant and aggressive. Innes states,"Thus toughness for Ripley is not some new feminist ideal, where she takes the best part of femininity and masculinity and forges them into a type of toughness that has not been seen yet" (page 107) In this line the author seems to indicate that toughness combined with "feminine" traits would be the best ideal for women, yet she successfully dismisses all the women who show "feminine" characteristics as not tough. I believe the character of Janeway has a great combination of what I would call womanly toughness. Having her hair down and being in a soft nightgown when she was suppose to be sleeping does not turn her into a victim. Innes writes, "Even if Picard had awakened to find Q in bed with him, such a scene would be interpreted far differently than the scene with Janeway. Q is viewed as a male predator who might threaten Janeway sexually but never Picard." (page 117). Q is not viewed as a threat at all; he is more of a comical character. The interpretation of this episode sounds hysterical, like a person overly sensitive to insults. In other words, the author comes across as untough, not Janeway. In point of fact Picard did wake up to find Q lying next to him and Picard pulls the covers up over his naked chest. (Episode: "Tapestry, U.S. airdate Feb. 28, 1993). I also take exception to the idea that clothing is always a meter of toughness. If a woman decides to wear pink frilly blouses than she is still the same tough woman. The idea that clothes are a meter of personality is what lawyers say to try to blame women for "getting" raped. The author has a more stringent requirement for women to be tough than men. Men can wear sexy outfits, have romance, save and be nurturing to children, be tender, and still they are tough. However, the author says if a woman character shows these same characteristics than her toughness is lessened. Hogwash! I am disappointed with the book because I feel it does a great disservice to women.

I felt that this was an excellent resource for the research of how women are depicted in the media and how important it is to recognize even the smallest steps taken to debunk traditional stereotypes of women. I used this in writing a content analysis of the depictions of women in professional wrestling, and found her theories to be sound and her arguments legitimate. I would definitely recommend this book to anyone studying female representation in the media.

I want to thank Ms. Inness for giving us the opportunity to share our voices with others. I have been writing for a long time and have seen so many letters of rejection that I began to think my voice was unimportant. But our voices are important; every girl has a story. My contribution to this book was important but its only a fraction of what is really going on today with girls in our society. This book stands as a vital part of the whole being -- girls everywhere are running; listen when they speak. *peaCe*