Blog Hoppers!

Image from Etsy

Happy Thursday everyone! I hope this week has treated you all well! I encourage you to take a look at the conversation happening at my post about how men cannot be feminists and join in, there's some really great stuff going on over there! Here are some of my favorite posts over the past couple days. Don't forget to leave what you have been writing and reading in the comments!!

The 5 Ways Glamour Undermines Its Size-12 Self-Acceptance Message [Glossed Over]
All of the uproar over Glamour's size 12 model didn't quite sit well with me and didn't really know why, but Wendy has explained my uneasiness about it very well.

Bros before Hos: A Post Ted Kennedy Story [Recursive Paradox]
After Sen. Ted Kennedy's death, everybody was quick to praise his contributions to women's rights. But Recursive Paradox pointed out a not very well-known story about Ted Kennedy that should also be remembered!

Will Kate Gosselin EVER get a date? [Salon Broadsheet]
How the media has been portraying Kate Gosselin as lonely.

The Feminist Lens: The Yellow Wallpaper [Small Strokes]
A look at how to teach a feminist text in a high school setting. And make sure you check out her Teaching Feminism in Schools series.

Campaigning for What, Exactly? [this ain't livin']
A critical look at Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty.

Are Animals and Humans the Same? [Womanist Musings]
PeTA's advertising techniques and how black people are often portrayed as animals.

Are Clothes More Important Than Intellect?

Have you heard the news? Michelle Obama wore shorts! The world is coming to an end!

Apparently Michelle Obama wore shorts (of a modest length) while on vacation at the Grand Canyon. Why am I talking about this, you ask? Well, I'm talking about it because it seems to have been deemed newsworthy.

Is it really that big of a deal that Michelle Obama was wearing shorts? Especially considering they were on vacation...at the Grand Canyon...in 106 degree heat.

I'd like to say the reporting on this is a result of a slow news day. But even then, it's not really worth talking about. So why does the media think it is their responsibility to comment on Michelle Obama's inconsequential fashion decisions? I can kind of understand a commentary on a decision to wear shorts if it was to a political function or something, but on vacation...really?

The Huffington Post had a poll asking if Michelle Obama has "the right to bare legs" (via Jezebel). Most people in the poll said yes, but does this question even warrant a poll? And even the phrasing of the question: the right to bare legs. I'm pretty sure she has the right to wear whatever she wants.

It is pretty disrespectful to comment on Michelle Obama's fashion decisions (especially such inconsequential ones) instead of the intellectual weight that she adds to the White House and politics. By commenting on her fashion, the media is saying that she doesn't really have anything to add to the equation other than just looking pretty while standing next to her powerful husband. And do we hear anything about what Barack Obama was wearing? He was probably wearing shorts too, but apparently his legs aren't as important as his wife's.

A very similar thing happened during the 2008 presidential campaign. Many media outlets devoted a lot of attention to Hillary Clinton's pant suits and cleavage. Did these media outlets analyze the fashion decisions of Obama, McCain, or any of the other male candidates? Not really. So why is it so important to consider what Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama wears? It's just a way to draw attention away from the actual issues at hand and discredit the intellectual assets of the person at hand.

By focusing on the wardrobe of Michelle Obama (and this is not the first time that her outfits have been the subject of news), the media is saying that she has very little else to offer besides her looks and great fashion choices. Aren't we pass the point where First Ladies (and wives/girlfriends/partners in general) are only there to look pretty? First Ladies have always contributed to the politics of their presidential husbands and they have evolved into a political entity in and of themselves. It's about time that we stop look at how attractive they are, what they wear, etc. and spend more time focusing on the intellectual and politics of that person.

The focus on clothing instead of intellect is just another silencing technique used against women, particularly smart, powerful women. Like I said, focusing on clothing places the value of a person on their looks instead of their intellectual possibilities. The media is scared that women might actually have something worthy to say that they instead focus on inconsequential things about their appearance to take the attention away from what they might say.


Further Reading:
First lady's shorts draing long, hard, looks [Today Show]

Colbert Takes on Media's Treatment of Women

I love Stephen Colbert.

Watch the clip of last night's "The Word" here. (Sorry I have trouble getting Comedy Central videos to embed)

While I'm not familiar with Archie comics, I think Stephen Colbert hit the nail right on the head with last night's "The Word"!

His sarcastic commentary points out one of the main tools to keep women less than: turning women on each other. Turning women on one another is one of the ways that women are kept at a second class status. If women stopped fighting amongst themselves, comparing themselves to one another, etc. I think there is a subconscious fear among many men that women actually have more power than them (as Colbert points out) and by creating in-fighting among women is a way to keep women down.

I also liked how he commented on how women characters are often only defined by the man that they can land. In so many romantic comedies, strong business women are portrayed as not being happy enough until they have found that right man (see my review of The Proposal). Women obviously can't be happy by themselves, women need a man to make them happy.

And finally we get to his great commentary on Hillary Clinton. Only reporting on Clinton's response to a question about her husband is insulting. I think Clinton had every right to have that response. People should be asking her about her opinions on the things she is working on, instead of what Bill thinks about it. Only reporting on her response to that completely diminishes the amazing work that Hillary Clinton is doing.

Stephen Colbert has provided some great insight into the media's treatment of women in his great, sarcastic way.

Funny Men, Attractive Women

Have you ever noticed how male actors, especially comedians, don't have to conform to societal beauty standards? But female actors are usually shunned if they don't conform to these standards and as they get older.

I was watching an interview with Jonah Hill for the movie Funny People (Judd Apatow's latest creation) and they showed a clip starring Hill and Seth Rogen. Neither of these men are "attractive" according to cultural standards, yet they are both popular actors. In the clip that they showed, Seth Rogen was discussing his looks (he has recently lost a good amount of weight for a different role) and how he isn't good looking but isn't bad looking either. Jonah Hill goes on to reprimand him for losing weight because there's "nothing funny about a physically fit man!" This line really struck me because, at least to me, it shed light on the double standard that funny and talented men don't have to be physically fit where as women do.

Men can be physically "unattractive" and make up for it with their personality/humor. But women, on the other hand, have a hard time making it big if they are not culturally attractive. Of course there are some exceptions such as Dame Judy Dench and Queen Latifah. But both of these women are beautiful, they just don't conform to societal standards of beauty; Dench because of age and Latifah because of weight. In comedies, women have to be both attractive and funny where as men just have to be funny.

This is oh-so evident in Judd Apatow movies. The women that "star" in these movies are much more attractive than the men that play opposite then. Not to say that a relationship where the woman is more attractive than the man could never happen, but it is definitely not the norm in movies. For example, in Knocked Up, Katherine Heigl stays with her unattractive, slacker boyfriend, Seth Rogen. I could understand that if Rogen was actually a good boyfriend, but he wasn't. Just one example of how women in comedies have to be attractive in order to play a prominent role.

And even as attractive, funny women age, they are shunned from the mainstream. They are offered roles to play the mothers of people they are only 10 years older than and to play the old hag next door. Feministing posted a video with Amy Pohler, Sarah Silverman, Christina Applegate, Jane Krakowski, Mary Louise Parker, and Julia Louis-Dreyfus discussing what it means to be getting older in show business. They talk about the roles they are offered and the ones they are turned down for, about not getting magazine covers because they are over 35, etc. While all these women are amazing actors and very attractive, this video speaks to the value of youth (including society standards of beauty) in show business and society.



There are of course exceptions to this "rule." But they are few and far between. Men have the pleasure of relying on their talent and humor instead of their looks whereas women generally have to rely on their looks in order to get roles...at least at first.

Further Reading:
Judd Apatow Talks About Sexism, Seth Rogen [Jezebel]

Weight = Expertise When It Comes to the Surgeon General

I debated about posting this video. While it is certainly newsworthy, it has been so widely reported on in the blogosphere. But, because I was completely outraged by it, I decided that I had a responsibility to myself spread it to even more people.



"Just because you eat a lot of dinner rolls doesn't make you a role model."

Who the hell is this guy and where does he get off claiming that Dr. Regina Benjamin is incapable of being surgeon general because she is (as he claims) obese? First of all, obese? Really? She looks perfectly fine to me. Second, being overweight does not necessarily correspond with "poor" exercise and eating habits. And since when does weight correspond with intelligence?

This is just another example of how women's bodies are fair game for discussion in the public forum. Would a story like this make it on the news if it were a male nominee? I don't think so. Men are judged by their intelligence where as women's only worth is in what they look like. Women's (plus-size) bodies are already under attack enough as it is with shows like Drop Dead Diva and More to Love. Do we really need to add into that mix attacking intelligent, qualified, strong women for the way they look?

P.S. A shirt that says "No Chubbies"?

Further reading:
Fatties Need Not Apply [Appetite for Equal Rights]
Is Regina Benjamin too fat to be surgeon general? [Salon: Broadsheet]
The Persuasive Fatty [Shakesville]
"No Chubbies" [Sociological Images]
Faux News: new Surgeon General nom 'too fat' to serve [Pam's House Blend]

True Blood is Right Wing's Worst Nightmare

I have a slight obsession with True Blood. I posted earlier about how vampire series like True Blood (and Buffy and Twilight) represent women's sexuality by featuring very few female vampires. But True Blood quickly has become one of my new favorite shows on television right now (I only discovered it a couple months ago). Because of this, every Monday I look forward to Jezebel's "Sunday Bloody Sunday" feature recapping the previous nights episode; it's always smart and sassy. This week's "Sunday Bloody Sunday" tipped me off to an article on The Daily Beast relating the world of True Blood to the "right wing's worst nightmare about post-gay-liberation America."

Looking beneath the surface of True Blood, you can see the connections between the vampires in the series and the gay community. The vampires recently "came out" of hiding among humans (aka heterosexuals, for the purposes of this comparison), exposing the number of vampires in society and demanding an equal place in society. A running theme throughout the first season is the vampires fighting for the right to marry humans. Churches claim that vampires are evil and threaten to destroy the very fabric of society.

I had been aware of this social commentary since I started watching the show (which is also much similar to the X-Men series). But I had never really thought too critically about it because I was too busy enjoying the awesome-ness of the show (ok, so I might be a little biased about the show). So, I have gone over some of the similarities, but there are also some troubling differences...

As the Daily Beast article points out...

it has troubling implications, because the vampires, political rhetoric aside, aren’t really interested in joining human society. Unlike the misunderstood X-Men heroes, most of the vampires we meet are arrogant, perverse, and cruel—everything the far right believes gays to be.

The article goes on to wonder about the true intentions of the show...

It’s hard to tell what creator Alan Ball, who also made Six Feet Under, is up to here. He’s openly gay, so he could be simply tweaking conservative fears. Or, like Rupert Everett, maybe he’s reacting against the domestication of gay life.

It's hard to say. Even though there are similarities between vampires and the gay community, they are not necessarily painted in a good light. Is this Alan Ball just turning conservative fears on themselves, or is it "reacting against the domestication of gay life"?

Even though True Blood offers social commentary on the gay rights movement (whether positive or negative, it's still up for debate), I do not think that the show has much to offer feminism and women's rights. The shows main female character, Sookie Stackhouse, is kind of helpless. She constantly needs Bill, her vampire lover, to rescue her, which has caused Eric, a powerful vampire in the region, to take notice of her as well, often treating her as an object. Sure, she does have her psychic capabilities to offer, but it's always the guys (aka vamps) that do the heavy-lifting. In addition to often having to rescue Sookie, Bill is often highly protective of her, not really letting her do a lot for or by herself. Sookie loves how Bill treats her, most of the time. But she always comes back to him in the end after they have a fight about his protective nature or his vamp nature.

I still love the show. I think it has a lot to offer television, even without being feminist. But encouraging conversation about the treatment of women in the show and the emphasis on sexuality will bring these feminist issues to light.

Further Reading:
True Blood: Pro-gay/Anti-feminist? [Smashing patriarchy daily]
'True Blood' and Female Sexuality [Appetite for Equal Rights]
Rough Sex With Vampires: What Does "True Blood" Tell Us About Women and Sexuality? [AlterNet]

Chris Brown's Apologizes For That "Incident"

Chris Brown recently released this video apologizing for, you know, that "incident" in February. In the video, it is very unclear what he apologizing for. He only talks specifically about domestic violence when referencing what he experienced in his childhood. He only mentioned Rihanna by name once. If you didn't know what had happened in February, you would be really confused.

I'm still not quite sure if this apology video should be taken seriously. Yes, I'm sure he is sorry for what he did to Rihanna...and sorry for the backlash that it caused against him. What about you? Do you think his apology is truly, 100% heartfelt? Or is it (if only partly) a publicity ploy aimed at gaining public approval again?

Further Reading:
On Chris Brown's Public "Apology" [Feministing]
Chris Brown Apologizes For That Thing He Did [Jezebel]
Chris Brown Can't Admit What He Did [Womanist Musings]

Some Great Dating Advice

Sarah Haskins has some great dating advice in her new "Target Women" video.



To see more "Target Women" videos, go here.

Have You Heard? Ms. is Using Religious Imagery

The blogosphere has been abuzz the past couple days about Ms. magazine's summer cover. This cover uses Hindu imagery of multiple arms to portray what modern moms are juggling.

Bitch was the first that I saw that commented on this cover. Mandy Van Deven at Bitch was not pleased that Ms. appropriated Hindu religious iconography, especially when they didn't seem to do their research...

The multiple arms on a god or goddess represent their strength and ability to multitask, and the multi-armed representation is not one that is appropriate for a human form, as the pose is intended to convey that these abilities are super-human. Another question that begs to be answered is which god or goddess is this woman supposed to be depicting? The number of arms in this cover (8) is quite uncommon. This seems to demonstrate a lack of knowledge on the part of the cover designer about depictions of and difference among Hindu deities, as well as confirms this use for solely aesthetic purposes.

It is a shame that a) Ms. didn't do their research to at least appropriately represent a Hindu god or goddess and b) that the appropriation of South Asian religious imagery is so common in the United States today.

Choices Campus Blog then responded to this article on Bitch. Laura at Choices Campus Blog defends the Ms. cover saying...

In fact, the cover reads "Mom 2.0: She Blogs, She Tweets, She Rises up!" There is no indication of religion, but instead Ms. is trying to point out the many responsibilities that the modern woman (or mother) has, between balancing a typical "mom" with a career.

Laura even shows how this recent cover is a remake of a Ms. cover from 1972.


While I don't know that showing that it is a remake of a previous cover shows that it isn't an appropriation of Hindu imagery and isn't offensive, I do think it is important to look at both sides of the responses to this cover.

Bitch blog then had another post about the cover from Veronica I. Arreola, again defending the Ms. cover.

the image of a multi-armed woman in relation to motherhood is most likely as old as motherhood itself. I imagine this is why women papoosed or slung their infants to them as they worked the fields. As some in the comments of Mandy's post pointed out, their own mothers use to say "I wish I had another set of arms!" or "I don't have 8 arms missy!"

For Arreola, this imagery is appropriate for the multitude of tasks that mothers have to handle. Not being a mother myself, I can only imagine the demands that mother's have one them. But I don't think that using Hindu imagery is necessarily the most appropriate way to represent this, as Arreola does.

Afer Arreola's post at Bitch, RMJ at Deeply Problematic decided to join the conversations. She saw Arreola's response as lazy and even more offensive for trying to portray the Ms. cover as an octopus.

Just because something is commonly seen in popular culture does not make it an okay reference to reify. No, not even if you're doing it to support moms. Come on. Privilege blinds, and appropriation in imagery and language is not okay if you're on our side...
...Women can be shown to multitask with hydra heads, or with blurred hands doing many things, or... I don't know, something. There's no need to mock and appropriate the imagery of a religion that millions of people currently practice.

So far, I have been trying to show how others have been discussing the matter of this cover. But now it's time for me the throw in my two cents...

This cover shows the lack of cultural sensitivity in the United States. Seeing as how people defend the cover as an appropriate representation of multitasking, oppression of religions other than certain forms of Christianity is still (obviously) a problem in the United States. Using Hindu imagery shows that people do not view Hinduism as a "legitimate" religion, instead mocking or mimicking Hindu deities for the purposes of selling magazines.

I was shocked to see this on the cover of Ms. I love Ms. and I'm sure that all of the content of this issue is outstanding, as usual. But I was surprised that Ms. fell into this trend of appropriation of cultural and religious imagery at the expense of an oppressed population. So, ultimately, I agree with what Van Deven at Bitch and RMJ at Deeply Problematic had to say about this cover. It is a gross way of representing mothers by oppressing Hindus. Like RMJ said, there are many other ways to show all of the demands placed on mothers in today's society.

This Week in Blogs: July 12 - July 18

Sorry for the tardiness of this post, I have had a rather busy weekend in Chicago and needed Sunday afternoon to catch up on things and relax. I spent some of that time reading over the numerous blog posts that I missed from some of my favorite blogs. Here are some blog posts from the past week that I found particularly interesting:

Blogger: How Abortion Rights Make Bad Boyfriends [Jezebel]
Sorority Life on Facebook and the Construction of Female Friendships [Deeply Problematic]
Why I Provide [RHRealityCheck]
Calling the Ketel WHACK, or: The Worst Title of Any Post Ever (It Is About Vodka) [Tiger Beatdown]
How do two affirmative action babies raise their own baby? [Bitch]
Food, Class, and Need [Womanist Musings]
"Is Abortion a Public Health Issue?" Sotomayor Hearings, Day Two [RHRealityCheck]
Feel the Homomentum [Shakesville]
Sotomayor: Strong, Rational, Intelligent Woman [Feministing Community]

What have you been reading and writing this week? I have some catching up to do on my blog posts from all the stuff that I have missed while preparing for my trip to Chicago this past weekend.

A Little Housekeeping

This weekend (Thursday through Sunday, to be exact), I will not be posting. I am headed to Chicago for the weekend for a job interview and to catch up with friends. I'm not going to have steady access to the internet and want to spend my time with friends that I won't get to see a whole lot anymore, so there won't be time or opportunity that can be dedicated to posting. I have a post or two scheduled to come out, but will not be back in the blogging world until Sunday or Monday.

I will "see" you all in a couple days!

But in the meantime...in preparation for Courtney Cox's new fall show "Cougartown" (more later) watch "Target Women: The Cougar".

White Men's Objectivity

Why is it that white men think that they are the only ones that can be objective?

I must be honest, I haven't been watching the Sotomayor confirmation hearings, but I have been doing my blog reading about them. From what I have been reading, it is obvious that these hearings are not being as "objective" and respectful as they claim to be.

But one of the things that really bothers me is how they are focusing on her often misquoted "wise Latina" speech (which can be read here). In this speech she talks about the importance of embracing cultural differences in reaching decisions on court cases. Women and people of color have different experiences than white men and these different experience influence their court decisions.

Many far right wing-ers think that this shows her lack of objectivity and inability to reach "fair" decisions. But I'm right there with Judge Sotomayor. Realizing how one's experiences influence their decisions is important. For some reason, many white men think that they are the only ones who can be objective because their life experiences don't effect them. But they do.

Everyone's experiences effect the way they think and the way they approach an issue. White men's privilege effects them, even if they don't recognize it. On Feministing, Samhita says...

Session's attempts to grill Sotomayor on this question of impartiality reveals the obvious ignorance that when white men hold partial beliefs they are natural and objective, whereas when women of color do, they are unable to effectively do the job.

When women or people of color (and especially women of color, it seems) use their experiences as a basis for their decisions they are emotional and biased, whereas white men reach the "truth" through their experiences.

I think what these men are delusional of is that there is actually something called objectivity. I don't think objectivity exists. Maybe you can try your hardest to be objective, but your experiences will always influence you. Only people who have the privilege of not noticing their privilege (white men) would believe that their experiences don't effect them because they can reach the "truth".

(Note: I just want to make a comment that this is not all white men. There are many white men who work towards realizing their privilege and how their experiences effect them and the people around them. But it is usually white men who make these assumptions about objectivity and bias because these white men do not realize their privilege.)

In addition to the idea of objectivity within the hearings, the media is still attacking and misrepresenting Sotomayor. I just read a post at Shakesville about The Colbert Report last night. Normally I appreciate Colbert's sarcasm and satire, but last night he went too far. In discussing Sotomayor's confirmation hearing, Colbert placed Sotomayor's head of the clip Sharon Stone from Basic Instinct where she flashes her "nethers" during an interrogation.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Stephen's Sound Advice - How to Bork a Nominee
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Jeff Goldblum

This unnecessarily sexualizes Sotomayor and further demeans her to the point that she is seen as in a lesser standing than men. Why can't Sotomayor just be valued for her professional qualifications rather than focusing on her gender and race as some sort of "disability" to making effective court decisions.

I hope that the confirmation hearings will change in tone after the first day, but I'm not so sure that they will. Conservatives will continue to focus on her experiences as a Latina as a "disability" to her ability to be a Supreme Court justice and the media will continue to make jokes about her qualifications or straight out support the conservatives treatment of her during the hearings.


Note on the cartoon:
I'm sure many of you (if not all) have seen the cartoon that I chose to include in this post. While it is straight out racist, there is some truth in it considering the first day of the hearings. Conservatives are attacking Sotomayor because she is Latina, which I assume this cartoon is trying to say. While it is racist, it does portray how conservatives and the media are treating Sotomayor. But I'm not saying that I agree with the message that the cartoon sends.

The Case for What Not to Wear

I actually like the show What Not to Wear. I like seeing the different clothes that get picked out. I like Stacy and Clinton, sure they are mean sometimes, but they are generally pretty funny. I think part of why I like the show is because I want to be friends with Stacy and Clinton.

But when Jezebel mentioned the show in passing in an article about how teenage girls use image consultants to boost their self-esteem, I kind of went on the offensive. The Jezebel article states...

Alter's piece explores the growing trend of image consultations for young girls, who, due to the increased societal pressures to present a certain image thanks in part to tween stars like Miley Cyrus and makeover gurus like Stacy London and Clinton Kelly, feel that their looks need an upgrade.

Sure, I will agree that stars like Miley Cyrus are not setting the best example for young girls. But I don't think there is anything wrong with trying to look good. I have even seen many episodes of What Not to Wear where the woman featured that show gains more self-esteem by seeing themselves in a different light.

Stacy and Clinton can be mean sometimes, ok, a lot. But their ultimate goal in that is to help the woman see that the way they are dressing is affecting other parts of their life. While I would love to say that it shouldn't matter how you dress, but it does. People judge. Especially when you are in a professional setting, you need to send the right message with that you wear.

In this past week's episode centering around an ex-ballerina named Holly, the woman had low self-esteem because her body was no longer to ballerina expectations, so she was not dressing to show off her body. But Stacy and Clinton helped her to feel better about her body, let go of who she was and embrace who she is, and increase her self-esteem. While I'm sure this woman will still have some self-esteem issues, I think that seeing her attractive body in attractive clothes helped her to realize that she is still a great person even if she couldn't make it as a ballerina.

While I agree with the Jezebel article that these image consultants may not be the best solution to self-esteem problems, I do think that What Not to Wear has some benefits. Living in today's society, appearance does matter. And looking good should not be anti-feminist. It's possible to look good, dress for your body type (I don't like the phrase, but it's true), and be a feminist. And if this show can help a few people raise their self-esteem just a little bit, I think that it is doing some good. And the pressures to fit in during high school (and beyond) are not going to go away.

On Being a Lesbian in Network TV Show - The Case of Heroes

I heard of this via Womanist Musings.

I have been watching Heroes since it started. The first season was great and ever since then I have been hoping that it will some how get back up to those standards. So far, no luck. Their recent plot twists have left me disappointed. But don't worry, they have more plot twists in store for the upcoming season. One of which is creating a lesbian love interest for Claire, the teenager who has healing powers.

TV shows have done this before. One prominent example is Buffy the Vampire Slayer, where Willow developed a lesbian love interest after breaking up with her long time boyfriend. But can Heroes handle this as well as Buffy? I highly doubt it. The writing on Buffy was top notch (but I'm kind of partial to Joss Whedon), whereas Heroes has been kind of lacking as of late.

Using a lesbian relationship solely to increase ratings is just further objectifying and exploiting lesbians and the relationships they have. I feel as if this development in the Heroes script is simply serving as a way to attract male viewers who have lesbian fantasies as opposed to bringing awareness to the issues, struggles, and life experiences facing lesbians today.

Renee at Womanist Musings has this to say...

It seems evident that the producers are going for the titillation factor, considering that this is an attempt to raise ratings. Heaven forbid a lesbian relationship exist on television because women actually engage in sexual relationships for pleasure and not to be a visual fluffer for some guy who wants to get off.

Even if they somehow manage to normalize this relationship, the impetus for its creation will always render it a form of exploitation. The idea that GLBT relationships can be affirmed when it suits the needs of heterosexuals only maintains the power imbalance. Heterosexuals should not be able to decide when expression of lesbian love is appropriate, when little to no such disciplining occurs between men and women.

Using lesbian relationships to serve heterosexuals is just another way to placing lesbians in a subordinate position.

On this note, is it any coincidence that the character entering into a lesbian relationship is Claire, the hot teenage cheerleader, instead of someone like Angela Petrelli? This is just another example of exploiting female sexuality for the purposes of heterosexual men.

I'm going to be interested to see how this story line plays out. Like I said, I'm not really holding out a lot of hope that the writers are going to handle this story line effectively or in a respectful manner. But, you never know.

Song of the Day: "The Fear" by Lily Allen

While Lily Allen is no stranger to controversy, I think she's pretty great. I have been listening to her song "The Fear" all the time recently.



Her lyrics are usually pretty sarcastic and full of social commentary, but "The Fear" takes the cake. The song is all about how people get fame and riches. I see it as a social commentary on consumer culture, but not everyone sees it that way.

The Feministe post "I'm being taken over by the fear" quotes Mark K-Punk in reference to "The Fear"...

“All Allen can do is point to her own inertia and complicity but awareness can only reinforce the very condition she is talking about [. . .] The verses are unsure whether they want to be satire or not, unsure whether they want to mock consumer-nihilism or celebrate it , unsure because – after all – what’s the alternative, where can all this mocked from? [. . .] Celebrity culture and its critique are coterminous; the jeremiads about its superficiality as cliched and empty as the culture itself, both appearing on the same pages of LondonLite. Only the negative capability of the choruses, only the admission of The Fear, breaks out of this circuit.”

Sure, it is hypocritical to critique consumer culture and the celebrity lifestyle, yet still be complicit in it. But at least she is saying something about it.

The lyric that stuck out to me at first was "And I'll take my clothes off and it will be shameless/'Cuz everyone knows that's how you get famous." In today's sexualized culture, people are known for their sexuality and availability. The same Feministe article states...

When Lily sings that couplet about how everyone knows that taking your clothes off gets you famous, she’s pointing to the fact that media culture runs on a certain kind of manufactured prurience. I mean, at this point, is anyone really shocked by nudity? Sex tapes? Infidelity? Homosexuality? Is it even possible to be?

And yet, manufactured sex “scandals” co-exist side-by-side with advertisements using sex to advertise practically everything. One punishes, one rewards. Yet they’re two sides of the same coin, it’s not hard to go from one to the other (Paris Hilton), and then back again.

Commenting on the need to be sexual to be famous, Allen is pointing out the hypocritical nature of today's Hollywood culture.

I, personally, think this song is great. I will keep listening to it and enjoying it. And I will keep listening to Lily Allen.

More from Lily Allen:

"Smile"

"Alfie"

Women as Incubators is Their "Sacred Birthright"

Sociological Images has a great post about pregnancy test commercials. The commercial in reference is for First Response pregnancy tests where the pregnant woman's head is chopped out of the screen, demonstrating the belief that women are only as useful as their ability to procreate. This woman does not have an identity. Her only purpose is the serve as an incubator for a fetus/baby. (Sociological Images did not have a video, only screen shots of the commercial)

The voice over of the commercial reads:

The moment we pass from womanhood to motherhood, we cross a threshold. For many of us, that step is filled with wish and worry, hope and how, wonder and when. Fertility is a woman’s most sacred birthright. For over twenty years, First Response has been there, helping women answer the most important questions of their lives. Now we bring you new help: the First Response fertility test for women.

The post on Sociological Images has some great commentary on this commercial. By stating that "fertility is a woman's most sacred birthright," First Response is again showing that a woman's only purpose in life is to be a baby incubator. Ryan on Sociological Images so rightly points out,

Strangely, I never see Viagra commercials arguing that knocking people up is a man’s most sacred birthright.

Also, by separating womanhood from motherhood, First Response places motherhood on a higher plane than womanhood, again promoting valuing a woman solely for her reproductive capabilities.

…”womanhood” and “motherhood” are presented as two separate things, with motherhood trumping womanhood. I’m assuming this is partly because a woman is not allowed to have a sex drive after she becomes a mother, and we all know that a woman without a sex drive is the higher form of woman.

Also, if you notice in the screen shot that the woman has a ring on, placing "normal" sex solely within a marriage. Unmarried women who get pregnant are whores because it is only a "sacred birthright" within a marriage.

Pregnancy tests make their money off of portraying women as incubators, not just in this First Response commercial, but in others as well. They strive to show motherhood as something special, sacred, and unique but just end up showing women that who they are doesn't matter as long as they have children (within marriage).

In addition, women who choose not to or cannot have children are seen as lesser than. Since motherhood is the ultimate goal and women's "sacred birthright", women who do not have children are obviously not real women.

Before reading the post about this commercial on Sociological Images, I had seen it on Hulu. It had bothered me when I had seen it, but this post helped me to better understand what exactly was bothering me. To contact First Response about this ad, go here. To contact Hulu about their airing of the commercial, click here.

The Implications of "16 and Pregnant"

I'm not normally a huge fan of reality shows on MTV, I find them pointless and vapid. So when I was strolling through channels and came across their new show "16 and Pregnant," I just kept going because I expected it to just be another shallow show. But when I saw this blog post, I became more interested in it. Right now I've seen 2 out of the 3 shows that have aired.

The show is actually pretty decent. It doesn't romanticize teen pregnancy too much (like shows like "The Secret Life of the American Teenager"). "16 and Pregnant" shows many of the struggles that teenagers go through when they are pregnant. MTV has even created a partner website for the show called It's Your Sex Life (IYSL). While not complete, this website has some good information on how to talk with your partner about sex, staying protected, and getting tested.

"16 and Pregnant" (at least the 2 episodes I've seen of it) have dealt with the reactions of friends when they found out the girl was pregnant, father's of the baby not pulling their weight, absent fathers, trying to make ends meet, attempting to continue education when they have a newborn baby, and so on. However, in each of these two episodes, the parents of the girl (and the guy in the episode where the guy is involved) are supportive and help the teenagers through. This is great! But definitely not the reality for many teen parents.

The show is about teens who have decided to keep and raise their children. There is barely any discussion of the other options that people facing unwanted pregnancy have: abortion and adoption. Many teenagers who get pregnant struggle with these options and making this decision. While I think that it is fine if the show focuses on girls who have decided to keep and raise their children, it is also important to show how and why they came to this decision. By not showing the discussion of other options, it is sending the message that raising your child yourself is the only socially acceptable option.

I can kind of understand not highlighting teens who choose abortion, just because it is such a political issue and they need to keep their audience and advertisers (I didn't say it was a good reason, I just said I kind of understand it). But adoption can be a very traumatic and emotionally stressful experience. I think the show and its audience would greatly benefit from showing the adoption process and what it puts the parents through. This will show the reality for many teen parents and help people who are in this situation with their decisions about their pregnancy.

While I think this show is a great idea and does a good job at showing the reality of teen pregnancy and parenthood when you decide to raise your child, it is not the reality for many teens you get pregnant. It is important to show all of the realities so as to not discriminate against any decisions concerning teen pregnancy. But I am going to keep watching because it is an interesting show.

Where's the Empowerment?

Something I have been thinking about lately is the female empowerment (or lack there of) in young Hollywood. Looking around at the young women singers and actresses, there aren't a lot of good examples of empowerment, even though they might like to think so.

As I have discussed earlier, Megan Fox is becoming increasingly known as a sex symbol. Fox herself finds being a sex symbol empowering. This Us Magazine article says,

Megan Fox doesn't mind that she's viewed as a sex symbol.
"I think it's wonderful. I didn't decide I'm gonna be an actress cause I wanna be respected for how I play chess," she tells Entertainment Tonight. "Part of Hollywood is being perceived as attractive."

While Fox may be ok with her sex symbol status, what kind of example is this setting for all of the teenage girls and young women that idolize her? According to Fox, the only way to be valued in Hollywood (and society) is to be attractive. You cannot be valued for your talent. Is this empowerment? Being valued just for your looks?

Another prominent example is the music icon Lady Gaga. She's all about sexual empowerment, as she calls it, but is this a beneficial form of empowerment? Lady Gaga's lyrics are all about sex and her taking control. While this may be great, Lady Gaga is not necessarily setting a good example. In an Entertainment Weekly article, Lady Gaga describes her lyrics as, "sexually empowering women.''

But Lady GaGa is not a feminist. ''I think it's great to be a sexy, beautiful woman who can f--- her man after she makes him dinner,'' she says. ''There's a stigma around feminism that's a little bit man-hating. And I don't promote hatred, ever. That's not to say that I don't appreciate women who feel that way. I've got a lot of gay women friends that are like, 'Put your clothes on.' People just have different views about it. I'm not wrong. I'm free. And if it's wrong to be free, then I don't want to be right. Things are changing. We've got a black president, people.''

What are these things that Lady Gaga says are changing? Women being valued for purely for their sexuality? I don't think that's anything new (see Jessica Valenti's book, The Purity Myth). And what is her deal with feminism? She seems to be greatly misinformed if she thinks feminism is all about man-hating. There are many things about this quote that bother me (like why is it important that her gay women friends tell her to put clothes on?), but it seems clear that Lady Gaga's form of empowerment is all about valuing women purely for their sexuality.

Just look at her lyrics. The song "Love Game" centers around her wanting to "take a ride on your disco stick." And "Poker Face" declares "and baby when it's love if it's not rough it isn't fun." And that's only a small selection of her lyrics.

The female empowerment that seems to be coming through in young Hollywood is the "empowerment" of sexuality, where these "role models" are valued purely for their looks and sexual knowledge (or perceived sexual knowledge).

What does this form of "empowerment" say to teenage girls and young women? The message that I get is that you have to be attractive to do anything in life and be valued in any way at all. What about the majority of teenage girls that have body image issues that don't see themselves as attractive? These teenage girls will think that they are not valued by society because they do not see themselves as attractive (even if they are).

I guess I should also address what I see as empowerment. To me, empowerment is about being a strong, successful (in a way that the woman herself is proud of what she's done), confident woman. Being able to take care of oneself and knowing what you want in your life.

Now, you may ask: if empowerment is partly about a woman knowing what she wants in life, can't being valued for your sexuality be empowering if that's what the woman wants? Empowerment can definitely be about sexuality. But when empowerment becomes solely about one's sexuality and valuing someone purely for their sexuality, then we have a problem. Seeing sexuality as the root of empowerment devalues women because women are so much more than their sexuality. Empowered women are strong, successful and confident, as well as sexually empowered.

As I was writing this, I was trying to think of a woman in young Hollywood that would be a good example of empowerment, but I could not think of one off the top of my head (what does that say about young Hollywood?). Does anyone have any examples of young singers, actresses, etc. that could be seen as an empowering example for girls and women?

High Heels and Lipstick: The Big Question

For a while I have been struggling with the "am I a feminist if..." question.
Am I a feminist if I follow certain patriarchal beauty standards (i.e. makeup, high hells, hair straightening/curling, etc.)?
Am I a feminist if I read Cosmo?
Am I a feminist if I follow pop culture?

I enjoy these things. Does that make me un-feminist? I don't think it has to, but it has taken me a long time to come to this conclusion.

One of the things that our sisters were fighting for in the 70s was the ability to not HAVE to do these things. To not have to wear heels and panty hose. To be able to wear pants in a professional as well as informal situation. To not have to wear makeup. And all Cosmo and pop culture do is perpetuate these patriarchal beauty standards and reinforce the stereotypical belief that women only exist to please the men in their lives and in society.

How can I call myself a feminist if I support this type of oppression of women? I enjoy wearing heels, dresses and makeup on occasion as well as picking up the sporadic Cosmo and People. But I have also committed my life to feminism. How do I consolidate these aspects of my life?

When it comes down to it, it's all about personal preference and choice. That's not to say that every woman that wears heels and makeup can be a feminist - you have to be away of the political and social meaning behind your choices. Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards in their book Manifesta say,

"In reality, feminism wants you to be whoever you are - but with a political consciousness. And vice versa: you want to bea feminist because you want to be exactly who you are," (56-7).

I wear heels, dresses, and makeup, but I am aware of the history behind the fight to not wear them. I read Cosmo and People but constantly question and analyze what I find in them - I do not take what they are "reporting" blindly.

Feminists need to know what their sisters fought for in the 70s and on and what wearing heels and makeup means in relation to that. Then, feminists need to make the conscious decision on what to wear, read, and do based on that reflection. In the end, I think that even asking the question "am I a feminist if..." shows that there is feminist analysis and reflection in that person. Just asking this question shows a feminist consciousness.

Another Offensive BK Ad

I just saw this ad on Feministing and had to share it. I just don't even know what to say or where to start. Are they advertising their "seven incher" or a woman ready to give you a blow job? I'm really not sure. Where do these people come up with these ideas? Well, I can guess where they come up with them because it's probably a room full of guys, but why do they think this ad is ok?

And this isn't the first offensive ad from Burger King. We have the "Square Butts" ad with Sponge Bob and "Baby Got Back"



And then there were the "Whopper Virgin" ads back in 2008.

Where is this advertising going to end? The contact info for Corporate Burger King is here. I urge you to write to them and let them know that this type of offensive advertising is not ok and not going to stand.