Reading this post by zuzu at Feministe, all I can wonder is when did virginity—or the illusion of it—become mandatory? I remember when Britney Spears was a star for being an actual performer, her virginity was a big deal because it was exotic . The assumption was that a 16 or 17-year-old performer rolling in cash and dating another star would usually be Doing It, and that she claimed not to spanned a million virgin fantasies in the minds of men with tepid sexual imaginations.
Now some actress named Vanessa Hudgens, who was in a popular Disney movie called “High School Musical” has been dragged out by Disney and forced to apologize for being victimized by someone who didn’t respect her basic right to privacy.
Vanessa Hudgens, the star of the wholesome, made-for-kids TV movie hit “High School Musical,” apologized on Friday for a nude photo of her on the Web and Walt Disney Co. said it was sticking by the performer.
Some parents of her young fans voiced dismay over the photo, which shows Hudgens, 18, smiling and standing naked directly in front of the camera.
“I want to apologize to my fans, whose support and trust means the world to me,” Hudgens said in a statement issued about a day after the photo surfaced. “I am embarrassed over this situation and regret having ever taken these photos. I am thankful for the support of my family and friends.”
In a statement, Disney said it hoped Hudgens had learned a valuable lesson. “Vanessa has apologized for what was obviously a lapse in judgment.”
People who are worried sick over what the children will think if they find out that adults have sex need to grow up and be more worried about the horrible lessons this apology teaches. Like:
- Women should apologize for being human beings with sexual desires.
- If something bad happens to a woman who has a sexuality (basically all women), we should blame her for being sexual instead of blame the person who violated her trust or body or autonomy.
- Women’s bodies are public property and if a woman uses hers in a way that the public disapproves of (even if it hurts no one), she owes everyone an explanation.
Who knows who leaked them? But I won’t be holding my breath to see if we get an apology about violating her privacy if it’s found out who leaked the pictures. Which just drives home the lesson for the kids, which is that treating women like garbage is not nearly the same kind of crime as being a woman with a normal, healthy sexuality is.
It just steams me to see a female celebrity have to go on the contrition tour for doing something that is, by any sane measure, not wrong. I’m under no illusions about the sincerity of certain contrition tourees—I’m sure Michael Vick still thinks dog torture is fine and Mel Gibson still hates the Jews—but what a celebrity is expected to apologize for speaks volumes about what our social values are, at least the ones we prefer to wear on the outside. Someone apologizes for racist remarks, drunk driving, etc. means that we as a culture at least tell ourselves we’re against racist remarks, drunk driving, etc. The public apology is a profound thing in that sense, since it helps establish values. So when a woman apologizes for being sexual, she reinforces the idea that being sexual is somehow wrong. Granted, Hudgens issued an apology that was ambiguous enough that it doesn’t have to be read as sorry that she’s a sexual person who plays fairly vanilla games like taking pictures of herself naked for her boyfriend, but it’s also ambiguous enough to be read as an apology for that in order to please the assholes out there who think because they have kids, you owe it to them not to have a private sex life, at least if you’re female and somehow in a capacity to entertain or teach children.*
In a better world, Hudgens would have released a press release reminding everyone that the person who leaked her private photos to the world is the person who owes her an apology and she doesn’t owe anyone an apology, since she didn’t actually do anything to hurt anyone. “I’m really sorry there are horrible people out there who get a rise out of humiliating women, but I’m not sorry for what I did, since I was the victim not the perpetrator. I’m sorry that I was naive enough to believe that people would not abuse my trust in them, and I hope that I have better friends in the future.” That sort of thing.
*Parents who do this: Everyone is laughing at you, because we’re like, “How the hell did you get your kids, then? Prayed really hard in your separate bedrooms?”
84 Responses to “Blaming the victim, part 8 million four hundred thousand”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
My eight year old daughter came home with this story on Friday, only she prefaced it with “Gabriella isn’t going to be in the next High School movie”. Apparently the elementary school playground version of the story has the actor being soundly punished for her “behavior”. I couldn’t counter at that point by saying that she wouldn’t be fired by Disney because they hadn’t stated their support and I figured that it wasn’t out of the question. So I had to undertake to explain to a slumber party full of girls about the right to privacy and other issues REALLY at stake. Needless to say, I was a total buzz kill — and I wouldn’t be surprised if I hear it from some irate parent that I told their daughter that it’s OK to take off your clothes while someone takes your picture. Of course, I DID tell their daughter that, so I guess I’m doomed.
Yeah, cause there’s no sexuality evident at all in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3dBuqXqpLs
I was pretty mad about the hoop-la over the wrong thing too, and disgust by the people demanding to see a photo that was not meant for their eyes.
You can’t get classier than those two, they’ve are adults, and they are in a committed relationship. Sex in such a situation is wholesome and healthy (though just cuddling is fine too), photos are normal in our techno age.
In fact, there is no proof that they have had sex, the photo could be a tease, either way, it’s none of our business outside of condemning the creeps who will infringe on their privacy
Interesting post. I was just thinking of an older post of yours, where you discussed the two views of male/female sexual relations: the misogynist view as “conquering” and the feminist view of sex as mutual. I was thinking about how there seems to be a new virginity craze going around and this fits right in. The misogynist view of sex as hunting would see a sexual woman as polluted by another man.
I feel sorry for this young actress. I think the message this sends to a lot of girls is that you can’t trust anyone. You obviously have to trust someone to pose nude for them (even if you’re doing it for money) and this is a violation of that trust.
An announcement from Not!Disney
Hey kids! Your parents took off their clothes once and had SEX! …and that is why you are here. Goodnight.
Did n’t they give that Harry Potter actor a terrible time, because he appreared in a play nude?
I only bring this up because, these anti-nakedness folks don’t want MALES to have naked bodies under their clothes either.
THat is why the broader culture should refuse to take them seriously, ever, about anything. THey should certainly never be apologised to!
…and I guess it’s back to boycotting Disney again, and they had previously won me over with High School Musical II, with the gay subtext, the pragmatic protagonists, and the steady headed but warm hearted female lead, especially when Gabriella gave Sharpay a piece of her mind in a direct, clear, but non-bitchy way.
As if we needed more evidence that sexism still exists and in full. Good post …
Really thought the actress might have (premptively perhaps) leaked them. After all the acknowledgement they were her was really quick. I thought it was a way to try to get out the Disney contract straight jacket through a morals clause. My guess is that she is seeing very little HSM money and wouldn’t mind leaving the Disney stable at this point.
Ooh, Rob, you might be right. I hope that’s true.
I was just arguing about this with the couch panel. If she were an unknown or just aspiring, I’d be more inclined to think she was a passive victim in this.
Since she isn’t, I’m strongly sensing that this a case of timely handling, using “frienemies”, to announce that she’s ready for adult roles.
One way or another, marketing and packaging considerations have to figure into it with minors who are also big stars, and whose personas straddle the “barely legal” grey area of sexuality. I think the Elizabeth “Showgirls” Berkeley and Britney models of zero to zoom hold here.
Abstinence spokes-skank Britney Spears rubbed her hymen lap-dancing the Viagra enlivened, turning-worm pizzle of Bob Dole back into working order. (Amazing what being amped up on Pepsi can do for kids of all ages during the Superbowl. Cutie Pie Janet Jackson’s career also went from moppet to adult availability and had Superbowl notoriety re-enliven her flagging career in time for cross-promotion with a “comeback” CD.)
In her avatar as national Abstinence Spokes-skank, Britney also fluffed the Codpiece in Chief by lisping to Tucker Carlson that we should get with What-evahhhhh the asshole war pornographers wanted, no matter what, cause it was, like, you, know, wartime and stuff.
Then BOOM goes the dynamite and it’s like she’s lap-dancing the nation. The public defiling of national virgins is almost a predictable puritanical ritual, harkening back to the forensic honeymoon panties being passed around the gathered throng. That way, everyone got to have a boo at them and “prove” not only that the hyman was intact before broken but that it, indeed, got broken (and how!).
At least the poor thing was spared the ultimate disgrace of having geriatric assholes like Donald Trump and Larry King airing out their dentures with creepy faux-feminist defenses of Girls’ We’re Whacking Off To’s right to behave badly (and how!).
::: shudder :::
Who needs some old fossil with roadkill on his head or jokeshop chattering teeth for dentures publicly horndogging her.
Did her nude photos list her artist’s representation at the bottom? Whether they did or not, I wish her well, hope she makes whacks of dough, accumulates power, fame and glory and makes a run for the White House someday on a solid feminist platform.
Even if she did release them herself, the apology functions as a social marker about what is considered wrong in our culture. What’s really going on is interesting gossip, but really doesn’t change the social message of this apology.
Sorry–I blasphemed too quickly:
The video link is to her music video “Baby Come Back”, which runs on Disney Channel. From the first time I saw it, I thought they were really over-doing the sexual aspect, especially the way they combined it with her “innocent little girl” looks.
But, hey, that was corporate sponsored, so it’s perfectly fine.
Ellie: Could we do this without calling female performers skanks? I agree that sometimes, though not necessarily in this case, women in entertainment play a game that can be regressive and harmful to the advancement of women generally, but… skanks? I wouldn’t be helping much either if that was my response.
Amanda, an interesting thought on your comment about her right to privacy being violated:
Just a few days ago, I overheard a conversation along the lines of “if celebrities didn’t want people to take their pictures, they shouldn’t go out in public, they should wear better disguises, they shouldn’t have become famous in the first place, they shouldn’t expect to have private lives, etc.”
I was stuck by how similar this sounded to the “slut got what she deserved” commentary about rape victims: she shouldn’t have been wearing that, shouldn’t have been drinking, shouldn’t have been alone, etc. Honestly, the comments were almost exactly the same.
Has there been some kind of study about how celebrities are treated compared to the objectification of women? There’s some kind of sense that they have no right to private lives, no right to be “people”: they are objects that belong to society as a whole, and we all have a right to judge them and shame them as we see fit.
It was pretty eye-opening, and I’d love to see someone with a clue cover this topic. Any suggestions?
Yeah, cause there’s no sexuality evident at all in this video:
Totally off-topic, but sweet jeebus will the autotune blight never end?
Dorothy,
If everywhere you go people are taking your picture, would you wear a short skirt and no undies? Would you take money to appear at private functions such as club, restaurant, and movie openings? If so, you are playing the game, whether you apologize or not. (And I hope you wouldn’t, for reasons Ms. Marcotte has already stated.)
Fame is fickle, a pain in the ass, and requires a tremendous loss of privacy sometimes (see Lindsay Lohan, compare to Jodie Foster, then compare to Julie-Louise Dreyfuss.) But don’t tell me that it’s not pursued for nothing other than that rush it gives the receiver. It’s not blaming the victim I do so much as I mock the supposed victim when there’s a whined-about downside to all the attention she and (not as often, but it still happens, especially in sports,) he pursued.
But back to the topic: yes, it is stupid for a young and beautiful woman to have to apologize for being young and beautiful in ways her corporate overlords do not sanction. I hope her costars, male and female, all appear in a production of Hair or Oh, Calcutta! just to say fuck you to the double standard, though I’d rather they appear nude in something with modern values and better songs.
Eileen upstream, I don’t use skank gender-specifically and Britney is skanky (dirty, greasy, scummy, whatever you prefer) to me. Not all female (or male) performers are skanky to me nor would I call them that indiscriminately. In Britney’s case, it’s not so much the sex as the matter of making a fortune delivering a false, dangerous and even potentially lethal message to kids and young people about phony abstinence.
Amanda, about the contrition-tour, remember that conservative Disney has a vested interest in having its virgin cake and eating it too. In a moral values driven right wing whackjob world, where the majority of the public is deprived of neutral rights and franchise, the same privileged old guys continue to decide who gets what: in this case, from virgin to defiled virgin to shamed slut to contrite rehabilitated slut to supportive stepford fertility pod, nanny, domestic etc. etc.
The same tiny percentile of male geezers, rising scions and able acolytes continue to decide who’s human, whose privacy is respected, who gets to ride the Crony Constitution first class (or not at all), who does or doesn’t have to fess up or apologize for behaving “badly”, etc.
Disney’s role & business as propagandists for this shifty moral values culture is well established.
(I don’t know whether this particular performer’s apology is sincere or not and have no way of knowing. I’m not in the celeb / watercooler loop.)
PS: Am I using the text window wrong or something? The spam buster keeps coughing up hairballs when my browser refreshes after a post.
First, I’m in agreement with the point of the post. Now:
“…a production of Hair or Oh, Calcutta!” ????
What century is it again?
+++
The music video: couldn’t watch much as the non-sync of audio & video was awful, but I didn’t really see ANY ‘ “innocent little girl” looks.’ Youth, maybe, beauty, absolutely, but ‘innocent’?
And that song: what Javascript output that abomination?
Did n’t they give that Harry Potter actor a terrible time, because he appreared in a play nude? I only bring this up because, these anti-nakedness folks don’t want MALES to have naked bodies under their clothes either.
First of all, Daniel Radcliffe CHOSE to appear onstage naked — and I don’t seem to remember him having to issue an apology after opening night of the play.
Yeah, I don’t remember that much complaint about Radcliffe’s nudity. Just “Oooh, Harry Potter’s nekkid! Giggle giggle giggle swoon!” I think he was 18, too, same as Hudgens.
First of all, Daniel Radcliffe CHOSE to appear onstage naked — and I don’t seem to remember him having to issue an apology after opening night of the play.
And people had their panties in a bunch over it because he was Harry Freaking Potter, and therefore apparently in grave danger of leading innocent children to sophisticated Broadway productions. Or something, I’m not sure about that. All I know is that I found out about it when a supposed adult showed me a promo picture of it so that we could titter over it.
Dorothy, I think sometimes people expand their victim-blaming through the concept of Public Figures as defined in journalism. The famous do give up a certain amount of press privacy - which I’ll define here as the right to have the minute public details of your life remain unpublished, lest that be confused with the legal right to privacy. But being a public figure just means that anything bad that happens to you is newsworthy; it doesn’t mean it’s your fault. Some people don’t seem to know the difference.
Amanda, thought your post was spot on with regards to how society views the public apology, reminded me of Hugh Grant a few years back having to apologize to his fans after his arrest with the sex worker. It was really non of our business.
Though I will admit that I am in the camp of Hudgens releasing the pics herself, either to appear older (and thus appeal to a demographic beyond tween girls) or to get out of her Disney contract, which is, from what I understand working in this business, VERY difficult for young teen actors to get out of once they’ve got in. It’s basically like Disney owns you and you should be grateful to them every waking day of your life that they let you act for them at all. It’s almost like early 2000 when Jessica Beil, (then 17 at the time with her parents permission) bared all for a magazine in the hope that she would be fired by Spelling Entertainment to get out of her 7th Heaven contract.
This isn’t the first or the last time either. A lot of young Disney employed actresses, when trying to appear mature and “older” will strip down, either in mags like Maxim or on screen. It’s not so for the guys, with actors like Shia Lebouff getting to keep his clothes on and people still take him seriously.
While I don’t think Hudgens whould have had to apologize for a damn thing, I do either think that she leaked them (and then gave the typical, PR approved “apology” just in case she has to feed from the Disney teet –and again, totally agree with you that it’s bullshit for her to even have to) OR her boyfriend is either very vindictive or stupid and careless, if indeed she only sent him those photos.
However, I am going to argue with Dorothy just a bit on one thing, sometimes actors are followed no matter what they do and they’re not asking for anything but to be left alone. Most people, usually the like of Perez Hilton and Dlisted, and those who read those blogs, believe that stars deserve it because they make millions and that’s the trade off, I absolutely think that’s bullshit and watching someone get coffee is about the most boring thing I can think of to do and it says a lot about those people who want to see it. BUT there are some stars who do go to paparazzi infested clubs and hot spots because they specifically want to be seen and they are indeed “asking for it” because they’re careers depend on it. They have to keep their face in the public eye, good or bad publicity. It’s just sad they ruin it for everyone else who don’t have to.
Amanda, thought your post was spot on with regards to how society views the public apology, reminded me of Hugh Grant a few years back having to apologize to his fans after his arrest with the sex worker. It was really non of our business.
Though I will admit that I am in the camp of Hudgens releasing the pics herself, either to appear older (and thus appeal to a demographic beyond tween girls) or to get out of her Disney contract, which is, from what I understand working in this business, VERY difficult for young teen actors to get out of once they’ve got in. It’s basically like Disney owns you and you should be grateful to them every waking day of your life that they let you act for them at all. It’s almost like early 2000 when Jessica Beil, (then 17 at the time with her parents permission) bared all for a magazine in the hope that she would be fired by Spelling Entertainment to get out of her 7th Heaven contract.
This isn’t the first or the last time either. A lot of young Disney employed actresses, when trying to appear mature and “older” will strip down, either in mags like Maxim or on screen. It’s not so for the guys, with actors like Shia Lebouff getting to keep his clothes on and people still take him seriously.
While I don’t think Hudgens whould have had to apologize for a damn thing, I do either think that she leaked them (and then gave the typical, PR approved “apology” just in case she has to feed from the Disney teet –and again, totally agree with you that it’s bullshit for her to even have to) OR her boyfriend is either very vindictive or stupid and careless, if indeed she only sent him those photos.
However, I am going to argue with Dorothy just a bit on one thing, sometimes actors are followed no matter what they do and they’re not asking for anything but to be left alone. Most people, usually the like of Perez Hilton and Dlisted, and those who read those blogs, believe that stars deserve it because they make millions and that’s the trade off, I absolutely think that’s bullshit and watching someone get coffee is about the most boring thing I can think of to do and it says a lot about those people who want to see it. BUT there are some stars who do go to paparazzi infested clubs and hot spots because they specifically want to be seen and they are indeed “asking for it” because they’re careers depend on it. They have to keep their face in the public eye, good or bad publicity. It’s just sad they ruin it for everyone else who don’t have to.
Unstable Isotope,
Would you mind terribly linking to the earlier post that you were referencing?
I am so glad you’re blogging this. I had exactly the same thought when I first heard about it. “What the hell did this girl do that she needs to apologize for?” I’ve been waiting for someone else to say it, too. I only wish it had been the mainstream media as well. It’s painfully obvious that the only thing she did “wrong” was to be a sexual woman. I’m disgusted, though, sadly, not surprised at the way this played out.
Heh. People who’ve got their pants in a twist about this should never, ever go to Brazil. One of our top kiddie-show hosts got her start in porn. And everybody is smart enough to realize that that’s OK because she is a grownup, and she’s not doing anything pornographic during the kiddie show.
Didn’t the same thing happen to Sabrina the Teenage Witch(also Disney) a few years ago?
A “friend” of mine once loudly informed me that any woman who allowed any man to take a photo of herself like that was granting him permission to do anything he wanted with it.
He was dating my friend at the time.
They’re not together anymore, and I’m afraid of what he’ll do if there are any intimate photos of her that he has.
(Of course, he also told her she should be ashamed of her sexual history and that she leads men on when she flirts with them, and he’s embarassed whenever he thinks about it. And all I can ask is WHY? WHY WAS SHE WITH HIM?)
I agree Amanda that teh apology represents the idea of limits on women’s sexuality, its just the timing is strange. Notably this this happened right after there was a spate of stories about her and Zac Efron (her costar) “dating” while both were having contract negotiations for the next sequel.
Disney needs to stop pursuing horseshit like this and start the acts of contrition for something that begs an apology: unleashing “High School Musical” and its sequel and merchandising upon the world.
As far as the idea of the actress possibly releasing the photo herself to show a williingness to pursue more mature roles, I’m pretty sure she’ll have to learn how to emote first. And enunciate. And, well, act.
A “friend” of mine once loudly informed me that any woman who allowed any man to take a photo of herself like that was granting him permission to do anything he wanted with it.
Allowing anyone to take a nude photo of you (gender unspecified, although we well know which gender it most applies to in the real world) is an expression of trust.
Given how untrustworthy most young people are, and especially given how stupid the young are at judging the trustworthiness of those they’re in Tru Luv with at the time, it probably counts as rank stupidity. But rank stupidity has always been the privilege of the young.
But the British word “cad” best describes this “friend” of yours.
Vanessa Hudgens is pretty, the photo in question that showed up is vanilla and not particularly salacious (yes, I looked - sue me), and she’s mildly embarassed. She shouldn’t have apologised (or have HAD to apologise), but she’ll get over the whole episode once the media picks up on the next white girl to salivate over.
Ordinarily I’d dismiss that as a ridiculous conspiracy theory. But my sister used to be a TV writer, and she says Disney is absolutely the most hated major studio in existence. They try to stiff and cheat everybody, but especially people who have a tough time fighting back. Who knows?Miranda,
I will look for it. I can not remember when it was or the actual title however, but it stuck in my mind.
Perhaps Hudgens did release it herself. I remember when Kevin F. was threatening Britney with a sex tape, she was going to release it herself. Perhaps Hudgens decided to release herself (or have a friend do so) rather than be blackmailed. If so, more power to her.
Disney is evil. They were the major force behind the recent extension of copyrights - “for a limited time” is now all but forever, and the promotion of the useful arts and sciences is dead as a motivator for intellectual property law thanks to the Mouse. They screw their employees over on an incredibly regular basis. One of the all time shittiest jobs to have is being inside one of the absurd costumes as Disney World/Land. You get paid shit, abused by supervisors and have to pretend to be happy.
I hope Hudgens did this deliberately to squeak out from under The Mouse - they certainly have no problem pulling sneakier shit in order to screw their employees.
Didn’t Bob Denver appear nude in something to get rid of the Curse of Gilligan?
Daniel Radcliffe is about the same age as this girl, and about as well known, but nobody says to Radcliffe “You can’t appear naked on Broadway! Think of all the little kids who love Harry Potter!” (Sure, being naked on stage because your role demands it is a little different than taking a nude picture of yourself for your SO, but the former is public while the latter isn’t.) Radcliffe is considered an adult with the right to control his own image, while she’ll be considered “that sweet little girl” for God knows how long.
In today’s society, being female means never reaching the age of majority, even if you are the majority.
BTW, Eric, Equus comes from the same era as Oh! Calcutta! and Hair. Do you have any 21st century dramas you’d like to share with us?
For me, this will always be the definitive version of Equus.
As for the photo, it’s just plain depressing on so many levels I don’t want to think about it — perhaps we will all figure out someday that everyone has genitals. The Pope and the President and your third grade teacher and Britney Spears all have naughty bits, just like you do. But that’s crazy talk, I know.
I can’t find a YouTube of it, but I am reminded of a Muppet Show segment where Sam the Eagle gives a news editorial. He has discovered that people . . . under their clothes . . . are all naked. And even animals . . . under their fur . . . are also naked. And even birds . . . under their feathers . . . .
That’s when he runs off the stage.
So, yes, Disney sexualizes its female stars in their stage show/music video nonsense that goes along with every TV hit, then they make her apologize. Ridiculous. I think the Muppet Show had a much better idea of how to really create family-friendly, kid-appropriate entertain
ment.
I think it’s unfortunate that Vanessa Hudgens feels like she has to make an apology for taking what appear to be rather innocently posed naked pictures of herself. But I think the apology likely is authentic, reasonable, and if one reads just a little into it, it’s not at all as oppressive as it might seem to some.
She apologized for “this situation” and she regrets “having ever taken these photos.” She goes on to say “I am thankful for the support of my family and friends.” And that’s it, that’s the extent of her statement. So she apologized for having taken nude pictuers of herself. She regrets having taken those photos, and given that they got out, I’m sure she does!
I think though it’s important to note that she didn’t apologize for (1) having a boyfriend, (2) maybe having two boyfriends (as I read the story elsewhere, it seems that two boyfriends or love interests or whatever originally got the photos), and from that, I’d conclude (3) that she’s not apologizing for very much having sexual interests and autonomy of her own choosing how to express them.
I think that she could have gone a lot further and said that her behavior outside of simply taking the photos was not in keeping as a role model for young people. I think it’s significant that she didn’t do that. From what I’ve read of statements from Vanessa’s fans I think they recognize that implicit message is being made by Vanessa. I don’t think the statement is meant to be ambiguous to socially conservative parents, like that a 18-year-old Disney star “owe(s) it to them not to have a private sex life.” A stronger statement could easily have been made if the star (or Disney) really wanted to appeal to them.
To the extent that her apology is meant to be a statement by her that she’s regretful about having taken these photos, and not simply as damage control for the Disney corporation, it seems reasonable to just look at the statement from a fan’s perspective. I don’t see how she’s apologizing for “being (a) human being(s) with sexual desires” at all, since — if I’m assuming the statement is an authentic summary statement from her and not just some PR agent’s spiel — there’s nothing in her statement that makes direct reference to her agency to have or to express sexual desires.
I’m thinking that anyone here who can imagine being a 18-year-old female Disney star would likely have not said anything much different, except perhaps statements that would likely just come across as anger directed at whoever leaked the photos. But expressing anger in a press release in a situation like this doesn’t make the situation better, it might more likely make it worse. And I don’t think anyone would have literally said in a press release “I’m not sorry for what I did”. One might have said (less to the press than maybe in further statements to your fans) “I’m not sorry for what I am”, but I think Vanessa’s fans likely think her simpler statement isn’t incompatible with that.
Jeff Fecke, of course the Pope has genitals. Testiculos habet…
Actually, there were a few parents who said just that, but they were isolated loonies, and the media firestorm was more “Hey, Harry Potter gets naked!” than “Dear God, Harry Potter get naked!”
I note that people threw a fit over the idea of “Harry Potter” (actually Daniel Radcliffe) being seen naked, but not over “Harry Potter” mutilating horses.
So, between failure to distinguish between fiction and reality, and really skewed values, I have to say, “great mental landscape you have there, folks”.
Nuh uh. The misogyny in the word doesn’t go away just because you say you’d hypothetically use it to describe a man, and we all should be aware of that somehow.
I think this comic adequately sums up my feelings on the idea that the lesson to be learned here is “don’t ever do anything you don’t want shared with the entire world. “
This weekend I spotted one of those “chastity vow” type tee-shirts that said something to the effect of You have the Right to Remain Virtuous.
That really annoyed me. It suggested a wealth of issues, most of which regular Pandagonians will surely be familiar with by now.
I was tempted to go up to the wearer and say, “You also have the right to hump like a rabid chipmunk if that’s what you want to do,” but as she was in High School I didn’t think it might be the best idea.
However, it might be worthwhile to parodize the “chastity” movement with these kinds of subversive countermessages.
mutilating horses?
“So when a woman apologizes for being sexual, she reinforces the idea that being sexual is somehow wrong.”
Spot on, girl. The whole Patriarchal mantra
I need to keep myself reminded on this one.
jfbbookworm upstream claiming that “skank” is misogynistic.
YMMV, but in my heritage and life experience, the word isn’t gender specific.
Say what you mean and mean what YOU say.
I’ll speak for myself and my own life, not yours, nor do I feel I should limit my expression to the apparently small extent of your understanding.
“I’ll speak for myself and my own life, not yours, nor do I feel I should limit my expression to the apparently small extent of your understanding.”
That can be a dangerous stance to take. I’ve already told part of this story here at pandagon but the whole thing seems relevant now.
Back in the day when I was younger I used “tahway” as a playful insult between friends. My dad hear us using it and put a stop to it. Now most of my friends were smart kids and took my dad’s advise about not using the word. Fast-forward about 3 months and one of my dumber friends just got his ass kicked hard by a bunch of native kids. The reason? , he was using his favorite playfull insult “tahway” within ear shot of the guys who beat him up. The word basically translates to fat cow + rasial slur for native Americans. And that’s when he learnt the leason: as part of the majority you do not get to decide what is offensive to minorities.
Deadman,
“skank” means unwashed, haphazardly washed, unhygienic looking — applying to female and male — which was the context I used it in as well as the prime meaning of the word.
I recommend that jfbbookworm and you should get out more and/or mix in a better dictionary with your mission to correct the inner netz. Chiding someone for an error they didn’t make won’t look so dumb or you can BS your way through it better.
Ellie, do you really believe that cultural context is meaningless simply because you as an individual have given a word a particular meaning?
I went to dictionary.com to see the definition of “skank” and it seems there is a racial component to the history of the word that I had never heard before. I for one will never use the word again. Feel free to use it yourself, but realize that we are still free to criticize your choice to use it.
American Heritage Dictionary - skank (skāngk) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. A rhythmic dance performed to reggae or ska music, characterized by bending forward, raising the knees, and extending the hands.
2. Disgusting or vulgar matter; filth.
3. One who is disgustingly foul or filthy and often considered sexually promiscuous. Used especially of a woman or girl.
I was just saying that “I’ll speak for myself and my own life, not yours, nor do I feel I should limit my expression to the apparently small extent of your understanding” as a general stance can be dangerous … nothing more
Short version: Male celebs have to apologize to doing things which are evil. Female celebs have to apologize for doing things which are tacky.
This is because: female celebs, who symbolize women in general, are believed to be answerable to a morality which mostly depends on the state and condition of their bodies. (Example: was her body drunk and in a speeding car, was it naked on the Internet, etc. If the answer to questions like these is “yes”, then she has to apologize. To everyone.)
Whereas: male celebs, who symbolize men in general, are believed to be answerable to a morality which transcends their bodies. Hence, in their case the important questions are: is he cruel to animals (Vick), or is he cruel to other men(Gibson). Male celebs who bounce too high and wide over these kinds of speed bumps also have to apologize, to everyone, but they have to apologize for reasons far different from those which wring the I’m-sorry’s out of their female analogues.
Ellie: I could almost see myself describing Kid Rock or Tommy Lee as skanky, given the definition provided. I think it gets applied to women disproportionately and for reasons that are often not very enlightened, but I can give you the benefit of the doubt for the post above.
There’s a difficult area in this topic. We don’t want to suggest that young women are not capable of exercising control over their lives, and so we probably shouldn’t behave as though they’re helpless victims of a big bad misogynistic machine. You can’t help but feel bad when you see the machine grind up people like BritBrit, who tried their level best to do every they’d been asked.
In the case of Vanessa Hudgeons, I understand why she allowed the ‘apology’ to be issued, but regret that she didn’t decide she was above commenting. I hold her accountable for not advocating for herself a bit more effectively, but it’s tempered by the realization that I really don’t expect much of Disney stars of either sex. I’m not expecting the next wave of the feminist revolution to start up in Camp Disney.
Thanks for the post, amanda.
what’s most sad about the music video posted above (i watched with the sound off), is the spate of comments from young, i’m assuming, viewers calling her gross and immature for posing nude for an SO. I feel for those kids, although eventually i would guess they’ll grow up and work through the guilt enough to have sex lives of their own. I hope there are more moms out there explaining the facts of life to slumber parties like chryslin.
Hmm, I don’t think I’d be comfortable using the word “skank” for a lot of the same reasons I’m not comfortable using the word “b1tch” (even though the latter can be, and often is, tossed around freely in gay male groups).
As has been ably pointed out, social context applies these words almost exclusively as pejoratives aimed at women, not men, and trying to argue that the “technical” definition of skank allows it to be applied in a unisex fashion is, simply put, being deliberately obtuse.
Jamesf–the character played by Daniel Radcliffe in Equus blinds a bunch of horses with a hoofpick, if I remember correctly. But nudity is TEH BAD.
Well, Eileen, Warren and other would-be correctors who really really want to correct my actually correct use of a word …
Since the source of your upset seems to be the language habits of society at large rather than my own, it seems like the most practical way to deal with your refusal to accept the gender neutral origin of “skank” is to set off on an internet-wide PR campaign to urge people to use it more to your liking.
Beyond “skank”, there are probably thousands upon thousands of similar cases posts out there that use gender non-specific words that you — perhaps generationally, perhaps not being exposed to other cultures — don’t understand the same way.
Usually, when someone says that YMMV and that s/he speaks only for him or herself, I’d take that to mean that YMMV and that s/he speaks only for him or herself.
But if you’re determined to change this particular aspect of the inner netz, by all means go for it and good luck.
Blitzgal upstream
Actually, I haven’t “given” that word that particular meaning; it’s a primary meaning of the word, and English slang well understood probably long before it started being used in the US.
I’m not sure what “cultural context” you’re talking about when the one I used it in is actually more expansive than your apparently very narrow experience of it.
I think in this case, physician, heal thyself.
Ellie:
Well, it’s not a question of anyone’s liking; and in fact popular usage is what I (and others) have been describing. In terms of bucking general trends, it doesn’t seem that the majority here are taking skank as you would have it taken. I don’t know of anyone who uses the word colloquially who’s ever used it to describe anything but a woman, and it’s never been used in a positive sense, to my knowledge.
It would seem others feel the same way.
That might be worth thinking about a little. I think you may be the one fighting the uphill battle here; it may be you who needs to attempt an “internet-wide PR campaign” to “correct” the usage of the word.
Of course I could be wrong. Do you have specific examples that you can cite wherein skank is used to describe a man?
Warren,
I don’t believe that you, Eileen and Blitzgal represent the majority at Pandagon in this or other issues, but by all means, feel free to link to where you decided this and any other resources to help correct the inner netz and the people on it.
Whether you’re speaking for blog, the commentators, the American People or just trying to invent a pretext actually to be deliberately obtuse, your ginned up indignation at being deprived of your entitlement to uncorrect the correct use of a term is, I’m afraid, a burden no one but yourselves will ever understand or care to.
And please, don’t let this your lack of success not correcting the use of the word “skank” prevent you from striding forth and hectoring people about the correct use of the word “funk”.
Another potential use of your collective time and effort is making people apologize for stuff that wasn’t wrong; maybe it’s not to late for you to get on one of those fundy whackjob bandwagons.
Dude, just look at the context in which you first used the word.
That’s not using “skank” as a synonym for “dirty, greasy, scummy person.” It’s using it as a synonym for “slut.”
[Apologies in advance if this double-posted; the comment field isn’t playing nice with Firefox.]
Dude, just look at the context in which you first used the word.
That’s not using “skank” as a synonym for “dirty, greasy, scummy person.” It’s using it as a synonym for “slut.”
Ellie:
Sorry, but you’re the one raising the issue at question; the onus is on you to offer citations to support your claim.
If you cannot, say so and retract, please; otherwise, please offer the requested evidence.
Warren,
Actually, a definition was posted upstream which supported my explaination for my (correct) usage and context — even beyond the YMMV, cultural and generational margins that add additional credence to my use of the word which vexes you so. Yes, indeed, you really CAN be wrong and are now exploring the extent to which that possibility isn’t just probable, but embarrassingly so.
The objection wasn’t mine in the first place (and I responded to it with more politely than the individuals in question demanded).
So no, I won’t “recant” — ROTFLMAO — despite your claim to speak for the majority at Pandagon. I will continue to use skank in the correct way and what’s more, believe that the Earth moves around the Sun and that this fine planet is round.
You’ll also have to cite your claim of authority in this matter or get up a wayyyyy better angry mob to make me more ascared.
Maybe even, I dunno, find a better outlet for your unrealized ambition to conduct inquisitions about slang.words on transient commentary sections on blogs.
Cause the world really really needs more blowhards steamrolling forth wrong information that way, and attempting to threaten people who don’t pretend what’s wrong is right.
Recant. Never! So nyah.
LOL
Ellie:
Your attempts at strawmanning I give the recognition they deserve.
You were the one who seemed to assert that the popular definition of skank is unisex. You have been asked to provide evidence to support that claim. So far you have failed to do so.
Please offer evidence to support what you claimed; or retract the claim, or concede by default.
Warren,
Concede fucking what? That I used a term correctly, as has already been shown by the definition posted here by one of my critics and apparent member in good standing of your hapless little keystone cops thought-police?
Concede that you’re not only wrong by the abundant margins of culture and language for word usage available in this thread, but lazy in offering better proof than buffoonishly refusing to accept the wider than normal evidence already here?
I’m afraid you’ll have to put on some kind of little thought police uniform and post a menacing, authoritative icon near the comments … perhaps get someone way more authoritative (or smarter than you) to get the kind of respect you misguidedly believe you’re entitled to.
Even when you’re wrong.
Ellie:
I give your ad hominem the same recognition your strawmanning warranted.
Please post specific references to support your claim that skank is colloquially used in unisex fashion; or retract the claim; or concede by default.
You know what?
Never mind.
This thread has been hijacked to become an issue of semantics, and that’s not what Amanda intended, I think, in her original posting.
The fact is that women are blamed for being human; and that it’s usually men who demand apologies from them. That is a sad patriarchal fact and I agree with Amanda’s point: A woman, posing nude, should never have to apologize to anyone for doing so. (When has 4ssl3ss Pants Prince™ ever had to apologize for a Wardrobe Malfunction?)
I’m sorry I helped drag the discussion into offtopic, pointless quibbling. Ellie, this isn’t a concession to you; but you should know that I’m dropping our argument here and now. If you wish to carry it on with me off-thread, my email is wockrassa at gmail dot you know the rest.
I’m done with the skank discussion, and I apologize again to Amanda, and anyone else who’s made it this far, for helping to turn a cogent post into a driveling maunder on the meanings of words.
“I don’t believe that you, Eileen and Blitzgal represent the majority at Pandagon in this or other issues, but by all means, feel free to link to where you decided this and any other resources to help correct the inner netz and the people on it.”
While I lurk more often than I post at Pandagon, I think it’s pretty safe to say that Eileen, Blitzgirl, and Warren are all in the majority on this particular site, with regards to this particular issue. Besides, as jpbookworm has already pointed out, you are using it to mean “slut” in this instance, so I really see how it’s other meanings are relevant.
If you can’t come up with a more mature argument that my teen patrons - who tried to argue that “fag” was ok to use in the library because it really means “cigarette” (really? and you’re calling someone a cigarette why?) - then maybe you ought to rethink your language.
Back to the topic. Color me unsurprised. (but sad) Disney finally does something smart and recaptures the appeal of the old Hailey Mills movies - and makes it more complicated that it needs to be by also deciding to go all Father Knows Best on their newly adult stars.
So, here’s a cookie for you, Warren, re
I’ve seen few shirt messages that more succinctly summarized liberated, responsible, sex-positive messages than one I saw on an African-American young woman when I was back in junior high and on summer vacation up in the Smoky Mountains, back in the late ’70s; it said:
“Yes I Do, But Not With You.”
More like this please!
So, here’s a cookie for you, Warren, re
I’ve seen few shirt messages that more succinctly summarized liberated, responsible, sex-positive messages than one I saw on an African-American young woman when I was back in junior high and on summer vacation up in the Smoky Mountains, back in the late ’70s; it said:
“Yes I Do, But Not With You.”
More like this please!
Wow … too bad it took your helium filled head this long to deflate and float back to earth.
Here’s a simple way to avoid creating clutter with your burning need to correct what doesn’t need correcting — and this holds for your fellow uncorrectors — is not to barf up posts demanding that people “recant” actually correct information, like some pretentious douchebag talking out of his depth.
Possibly, when someone answers your question more politely than it was phrased. Maybe learn something and not strut around so much like a jerk and pretend you were wronged when someone gives you more than the time of day had that been asked with the same tone.
Mostly, dropping this notion that your being an asshole here is correcting social injustice, instructing people in manners, or that you were compelled to waste bandwidth by anything more than your inflated self importance would also help in your cause.
I doubt that you speak for the comments section or any of the main bloggers here, but I can believe why leading a couple of co-scrubbers might have contributed to your misguided sense of self-importance. I think that about covers it.
No, I don’t care to take this to email; you were the one demanding — LMAO! — that I RECANT my use of “skank” remember?
Maybe you and your co-scrubbers can get together and start a blog no-one reads. Should anyone stumble on it, you can while away your time removing any accidentally interesting or correct content from the comments in the belief people keep you at a huge distance out of a sense of awe.
For what it’s worth, the initial useage of “skank” made me flinch a little, because of the context it was in. It definitely gave off a “that filthy whore” vibe that seemed terribly out of place here.
As for the Apology, it made me grumble too. I think it bugs me because not only does it tell girls that they’re doing something horribly wrong if they’re anything but pure virgins, but it also tells women that the most important thing about them is whether or not they’re using their bodies in the approved way. And if they’re NOT. Well! Time to make sure everyone knows how very, very sorry you are for making them have to tsk about it.
I have no clue why that double-posted. I only pushed the button once. Anyway, sorry…
Ellie:
“Maybe you and your co-scrubbers can get together and start a blog no-one reads. Should anyone stumble on it, you can while away your time removing any accidentally interesting or correct content from the comments in the belief people keep you at a huge distance out of a sense of awe.”
The only sense of self-importance I see here is coming from you. Out of this entire discussion, only your comments were interesting or noteworthy? Fascinating.
I could have missed it, but I don’t believe that anyone *demanded* that you recant anything. Your decision to use a word that has long been used as a shaming device for women was criticized, nothing more. You are the one who is overreacting here.
I find it interesting that you chose to quote only the final paragraph of Warren’s very eloquent response to you, and further chose to attack him personally when no one here has attacked you on such a level, and then announce that you’ve somehow “won.” As I said above, just as you are free to choose the words you use, others are free to use their own words to critique you. Your final response was outrageously rude when no one here stooped to that level when speaking to you.
When someone who disagrees with you and speaks his or her mind, it doesn’t mean you are being censored.
Ellie:
Just as an added observation, the post in which you initially used the contested word was also poorly written to the point of being almost incomprehensible. That might also be why quite a few people didn’t know where you were coming from with your weird skank-attack on Britney Spears.
I love your use of the term ’scrubbers’ or ‘co-scrubbers,’ by the way. I’m aware that it is slang used to call women whores, but you can get out your trusty dictionary and insist that you meant ‘hard workers.’ That is intellectually dishonest to the nth degree and loses your argument for you.
Unless you really meant to call people on this board whores, which wouldn’t surprise me. You’d lose then too, of course.
Ellie, you are simply a pathetic, tragic person. I said I was done with you, and I meant it; yet you still try to make this discussion about you. And I note you have failed to accept my invitation to carry this on in email; I expected as much from an intellectually-cowardly, soapboxing wannabe bully.
How completely sad.
Where is the bunny when you need it?
Soooo, Deadman:
Somehow your post seems to imply that it is way worse to use a word “offensive to a minority” than it is to be physically assaulted by an offended listener?
That is so wrong on so many levels, I hardly know where to begin.
Certainly people have the right to be “offended;” even if the offense was not aimed at them personally. They do NOT have the right to assault people whose speech patterns do not conform to their liking. When did you not learn that?