I’ve been hanging onto this all weekend, because it’s a real Monday morning bit of hilarity. It’s also a good indicator of how the concept of the boycott, wielding so powerfully when used strategically by the civil rights movement, has really devolved into a temper tantrum that’s less about effecting change and more about the boycotter preening over her moral superiority. Observe Rachel Ray’s outfit in a new ad for Dunkin Donuts:
To ordinary people, this is an example of someone wearing the confusing combination of a lightweight summer shirt and a scarf. There are two major possibilities here. One is that this is yet another example of the fashion trend fascists trying to push a stupid idea on the public to see who buys into it. Considering that said fascists have successfully convinced a handful of women to dress like this:
I’ve seen this commercial at a couple of blogs, and in both cases, the blogger defended it, but I don’t think I’ve seen anyone think that it’s anything but delightful. I’m sure the word “beaver” was not originally meant to be a nice word, but obviously, this commercial is reclaiming it in an effective way. But perhaps it was ready to be reclaimed? I mean, I’ve always wondered why “beaver” is supposed to be an insulting word. Who doesn’t like beavers? They are cute, they work hard, and sure, they could bite you (which vaginas can’t, though no one tell Chris Matthews), but on the whole, beavers have a positive role in our society. “Pussy” or any other cat pun seems meaner, because while cats are actually awesome, they have an unfortunate reputation with fierce authoritarians who dislike how a cat can reduce your pretensions with a haughty stare. But I can’t for the life of me imagine someone having a low opinion of beavers, so I never got why this word falls into the pantheon of ugly words for cunt.
I mean, it would be better if it was “otter”, I suppose. Really captures the playful angle, and would make for an even better visual pun in commercials. But “beaver” is not so bad.
My patriarchy-and-capitalism-blaming spidey sense went a-tingling this morning, and when I opened up my email, I saw why. Before I get into this, though, I should clarify that while I think the patriarchy is a bad thing that needs to go, I don’t think capitalism is necessarily evil. I think that capitalism, in controlled circumstances that allow for a genuine free market to flourish, is a great thing. If mixed in with socialist elements like public ownership of certain markets that do better under public control, and held in check with regulation and pro-labor policies, as well as high marginal tax rates that encourage long term investment over short term scorched earth investing, I think there’s a place for capitalist markets that can encourage creativity and wealth creation. Unfortunately, the capitalism we have now is increasingly geared towards making a quick buck rather than long-term investment, and that has resulted in all sorts of bad, including the mortgage crisis and the way we’d rather start wars to get at oil than make the long term investment into energy independence.
I was bemused, and not a little puzzled, when I read this tsk-tsking article about about “sexy” wedding dresses in the NY Times. I’m confused as to why the Times has a slate of fashion writers that hate innovation, playfulness, and creativity—you know the very elements that redeem high fashion insofar as it’s a redeemable thing. Here are the dresses they think are too damn scandalous when draped over a bride.
Not a one of these wouldn’t be considered a perfectly reasonable evening gown if it was a different color and worn to some kind of thing where you wear clothes like that. Considering that a wedding is probably many women’s sole opportunity to dress up that much, why shouldn’t she wear something that’s appealing, instead of something that fits the image of the bride as a child-like virgin, fancied up for a ritual and deeply creepy deflowering? Wedding fans should be glad that the consumer culture has kept the practice alive in an era where people are increasingly disinterested in the wedding’s traditional function as a ceremonial transfer of a female body from father to husband. But for some reason, the NY Times fashion section is fond of harumphing. Another writer there recently threw a temper tantrum when a designer dared to make men’s clothes even a fraction as difficult, uncomfortable, and decorative-in-a-demeaning-way as women’s clothes are.
I found this blog post by Feministing’s new blogger Miriam to be quite interesting. It’s about a trend that I’ve noticed in the past few years, the decline in women wearing perfume and the subsequent decline in profits from making perfume, based on this Valentine’s Day article in the NY Times. I don’t wear perfume and haven’t owned any in years myself, which wouldn’t in itself be a reason to think there’s a trend from personal experience, but I do know that even if I wear a subtly scented lotion these days, a lot of time women will notice and say something nice about it. Which has caused me to notice that almost no women I’m around smell like perfume, usually just soap or a lightly scented lotion. I remember a time when at least on nice occasions, it was like the battle of competing perfumes.
The article notes that 15% of women don’t wear perfume at all, a number that’s growing. I’m sure that an even larger percentage wear it on occasion, but very rarely. One way or another, there’s a definite shift in the fashion going on. I remember when it was not at all unusual for a woman to spray perfume every day, but now I suspect it’s pretty unusual. Miriam suggests a feminist angle:
What it doesn’t really address is the fact that a decline in perfume purchasing might be due to an increased desire to smell more like yourself. It also implies that not wearing perfume equals having no smell at all. I’d argue we all have a smell, with or without scented products, and it can be pretty nice for some people.
I’m not so unhappy to see this decline (although 85% of women still wear perfume, according to the article) mostly because of the gender stereotypes that many of the scents promote. Women need to smell like florals and fruit, while men need to smell like musk and pine trees.
I know I should weigh in on the bizarre rants coming out of NY NOW about Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama instead of Clinton, but I think my opinion will be redundant to what’s already out there. Instead I’m going to blog about this interesting article in Alternet by Anne Kreamer, who wrote a book about women who go gray instead of start dyeing their hair when the gray comes in. It’s a subject I find interesting, because dyeing your hair to cover gray has become very normalized, almost mandatory for women. It’s assumed that it’s what you do, just like it’s assumed you shave your legs and wear a bra. Since I adhere to those cultural norms, I’m at a crossroads now that my hair is actually beginning to turn gray enough to be noticeable. I really, really don’t want to dye my hair. I used to dye my hair a lot when I was younger for the hell of it—I liked being a redhead and then a blonde—but it’s time-consuming and expensive and messy and I’ve been done with it for about almost 8 years. But watching my hair come in gray, I had the initial thought, “Oh shit, now I have to start dyeing it again.” It popped into my head, because it’s just so automatic for women to do this, and then my feminist self began to ask questions. And I realized that I really don’t care enough about having salt and pepper hair to address the issue. (We’ll see if this changes.) I want to be proud of my rebellious ass, but mostly I feel a twinge of shame at having gray hair when I’m only 30 years old. I realize that I’m being ridiculous—I suspect a lot of women are in my position, but I don’t know it because they dye their hair—but still, that’s my honest reaction.
There’s two big legitimate reasons women are scared to let their gray hair just be that Kreamer mentions.
Click picture to see larger size.
The copyranter claims this is more evidence of rampant misogyny in advertising, and since I have experience with both trolls and well-meaning people who assume that every other explanation for something horribly offensive must be exhausted—no matter how implausible—before we consider something sexist (by gum, they’d claim a man who choked up a little was a crybaby who wasn’t tough enough to run the Free World, too! we swear!), I could hear all the scrambling already to declare this ad Not Sexist, or at worst, Sexist To Men. Because there’s no such thing as sexism, you know. I suspect the protests will be that this can’t be sexist, because it objectifies men, since you see them half-naked, and women aren’t even in the picture. And while I agree that this ad is no doubt sexist to men—mainly because the side effect of sexism towards women is sexism towards men that implies that men are as firmly entrenched in stifling gender roles as women—and misanthropic, in that it portrays people’s sexual habits as a strict trade-off on an objective hotness scale, I’m going to also agree with copyranter that this ad feeds the misogyny in advertising.
They don’t need to show the women, because at this point it’s thoroughly assumed that in order to have the right to look at these ads, you should be either a size 0 with D cup tits, or at least be very, very sorry that you aren’t and hating yourself and currently seeking every way to escape your disgusting current situation, body-wise and achieving the size-0-D-cup minimum requirement standards for inclusion into the public life. But more to the point, the degree of hotness you achieve as a woman in this ad (aka, how you dress up your acceptably perfect body) directly correlates to how much pain and discomfort you’re currently experiencing, as copyranter notes. There’s an irony there, which is that flats are really stylish right now, which the ad begrudgingly allows by making a cute pair of flats the third pair of shoes down. The shoe store makes money whether women are buying flats or heels, so the best explanation for the implication that women must be in pain to be fuckable strikes me as copyranter’s explanation:
In the 21st century, misogyny in advertising is still rampant, rampant, RAMPANT! You wanna know why? Because many, many ad agencies are still basically just boys club bastions with hardly a female writer or art director in sight. Women belong at home, supervising the Roomba!
So we have a world where a store wants to entice women to buy its shoes, but goes through a middleman who is more interested in sending the message to women that their sexual prospects depend on their willingness to suffer more than the message that the store probably wants to send, which is, “Buy our shoes! They’re cute!” If that doesn’t say something about our society, I don’t know what does.
The other irony here is that most real human beings aren’t beauty whores. If the trade-off to never touching a painfully high-heeled shoe again is that I don’t go out with 20-year-olds who spend all their time at the gym, well I’ve already made that trade-off. There’s no incentive here for most women to go up the pain ladder. In fact, I was miffed at the idea that mildly chubby men, as a general rule, have to settle for women who don’t have the good sense to actually wear real shoes when they leave the house.
OT: So, WTF, McNulty?!
Spotted in the juniors’ section at Wal-Mart. Since I’m in a generous mood, I’m going to pretend they’re encouraging teenage girls to shoplift.
From Feministing’s weekly round-up, this article about the supposed return of pantyhose made me almost throw up in my mouth a little….almost until the writer tipped her hat to the fact that pantyhose are one of those items, like girdles or chastity belts, that can’t be said to “come back” into style so much as they are forced on women who would, left to our own devices, generally opt out.
Katie Couric has been one of the most stalwart and high-profile bare-leggers, bringing her tanned gams into living rooms every day with the TV news. But the sight of bare legs is so repulsive to some that a forum has emerged on Stockingshq.com, a website for stockings fans, dedicated to persuading the chipper news anchor to wear pantyhose. Fundraisers, bribes and beatings are a few of the strategies discussed. One man lamented that he’d been forced to switch to Fox, where the legs are rarely naked.
About 70% of the impassioned commenters on Stockingshq.com are male, according to site founder David Bradwell. Their push for hose is about making “ladies” look sexy.
“It’s about leaving something to the imagination,” he said. “A gift which is wrapped and can then be unwrapped is better.”
He also admits he’s never tried to wear them.
Is it me, or is anxiety over women wearing “slutty” costumes on Halloween reaching a fever pitch? This Joel Stein column from last week was amusing, but the premise he hung the story on, which is the idea that there’s something unseemly about adults celebrating Halloween, struck me as contrived and silly. He was looking for an angle to condemn women who use the occasion to vamp it up on Halloween, and with that it became clear to me that a lot of the trend of picking on the ubiquitous skimpy Halloween costumes is less about criticizing a culture that defines “sexy” as a single-gendered quality and more about perpetuating a no-win situation for women, where we are both expected to be eye candy and sexually available all the time and condemned for it.
Stein accepts the premise that only women can be sexually attractive.
Neither gender wants men to try to be sexy. Slut Day will embrace that fact by having all men dress like Hef: silk pajamas or bathrobes only. No, those aren’t sexy either, but women feel uncomfortable if they’re wearing a fishnet bodysuit and their date is wearing chinos and a blue Oxford. Or a bow tie and a bookstore bag.
The notion that even straight women find the male body not sexually attractive has always puzzled me; how do men who hold this opinion reconcile that with the knowledge that straight women want to have sex with men? I suppose the cover story is that we women live in a higher moral plane, and that we fall for men’s sparkling wits while they think of baser things, and that we only sully ourselves with the physical aspects of sex in order to enjoy the spiritual benefits. It is, like many patriarchal stories, complete bullshit, but whatever.
I had a German professor in college who asked the class on Halloween why people get so damn excited about this non-holiday (in the sense of having a day off) holiday. And we told him that it’s an opportunity to party down and be more explicit about sexuality than is commonly allowed in our society. He pointed out that other cultures have that already, and it goes on longer than a day and they call it Carnival. Of course, Carnival is celebrated in some parts of the U.S. and called Mardi Gras, but its close attachment to the Catholic religion prevents it from really catching on across the country. So Halloween has filled the void, which says to me that there was a void to fill, and people have this basic need to have time set aside to indulge and honor our sinful sides, and sexuality is going to be part of that. The time of year even makes sense; just as Mardi Gras precedes Lent, so does Halloween give adults a finale shindig before settling into the real holiday season, which is about family and for some, religion. I think it’s great that people want to have sexuality as part of the holiday, and I wish there was a way to do that in our culture without reinforcing the idea that women are the sex class. And I can’t believe that I agree with Cary Tennis for once. Well, somewhat.
Ah, Halloween—for many, a time to have little ghoulish humor or glamor with the costuming. For others, an opportunity to indulge sexism they might conceal during less drunken revelry-oriented times. I’ve gotten a few emails about this costume:
It’s called “Sexy Anna Rexia”, because nothing attracts the boys like broadcasting your indulgent attitudes towards a mental illness that strikes mostly women and is often fatal.
I went costume shopping today, and out of the corner of my eye, I saw this:
Sluts ‘n’ skates.
Disco Ball bless Dawn Eden for existing. She has this complete inability to wrap her hateful arguments in politically correct dressing, even though god knows she tries to ape the usual wingnut rhetorical tricks (Affirmative action is anti-racist! Women belong in the home because they’ve been empowered to choose it!). Now she’s written a post about the woman who was nearly thrown off Southwest Airlines in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t outfit, and her post is sort of the platonic ideal of the hatefulness underlying the modesty-and-chastity cheerleading movement. To start off with, Dawn supports a culture where rape is tolerated as an necessary evil to keep the bitches in line.
I asked the following Q of the day last year, and the answers were so much fun that I thought I’d give it a whirl again:
What article of clothing have you worn in the past that is a complete embarrassment now?***Clothing that your parents bought for you doesn't count — this one has to be your unfortunate selection.
Mine would be a memorable pair of gauchos — 100% thick and nasty hot polyester, powder blue. Purchase date around 1977. I wore those crappers for two seasons — with brown boots, I recall.
That still qualifies as my worst fashion faux pas. It's hard to figure out what fashion trends are going to be forgotten or reviled, but I have to say that some things I see on the street defy any logic or fashion sense whatsoever.
Kate and I were in the Verizon Wireless store yesterday, and there was a customer at the service desk with a beige washcloth sitting on his head. Not balled up or wet, mind you, a dry one just draped over his cranium like a doily on a table. He was talking to he customer service agent and a person who was with him and none of them acted like this wasn't strange in the slightest. WTF is that about?
I was just surfing around before going to bed last night and found Yahoo Avatars and decided to see if I could create something that looked even remotely like me.
Skin tone: You’re limited to 5 choices, I selected the middle one, kinda mocha.
Face: the proportion of lips/eyes/nose — not a lot of selections here to choose from. I picked “Face 9 w/Dark Brown Eyes.
Hairstyle: Something close to my locs, both in style and color, was actually available (”brown braids”).
Apparel: Just as it is in the real world, you have a lot more options in clothing if you’re thin. I guess I’m supposed to be grateful that Yahoo Avatars even has a “plus-size” option, though as you can see, she’s not too large. Then again, the “normal” avatars are ridiculously thin by comparison. So, my avatar is wearing “Teal Print Tunic & Black Leggings.”
Accessories: You can pick bags, jewelry, scarves and eyewear. I passed on all of these and just went for the glasses (”Black Narrow Glasses”). There’s also a wide variety of fantasy accessories, pets, sports and hobbies that you can overlay on your avatar.
Background: I picked Coffeehouse Chat Background, natch.
The narrow options to represent oneself are a bit disturbing, but the palatte of humanity is hard to replicate online. The selections I made, given the intent was to accurately depict my physical self say quite a bit, though I’m not sure what, about self-image and representation. It also says quite a bit about the constraints the virtual palatte itself. Colors, shapes, sizes — and fashion sense — are limited by the imagination and world view of the creators of this particular online world.
Hide the children.
Surely, Ann Althouse is in a jealous snit as we speak and it will continue all weekend, waning at times and then flaring up when she considers the possibility that the Big Dog’s eyes glanced over his wife’s display of slightly more chest than your average nun in the wintertime. (Update: I was totally joking, but should have realized that Ann was never going to pass up the opportunity to give her readers a shot at mocking women for being sexually attractive and unavailable.)
It’s truly a national emergency that the Washington Post has uncovered—the uncovering of an inch of breasticle-like flesh on the Senator, presidential candidate and former First Lady. The liberal blogosphere has expressed doubt, suggesting perhaps that this is a story on non-importance, and sexist to boot.
What they fail to understand, though, is that the media has it on good authority that Hillary is stashing Chilean sea bass in between her presidential breasticles. As you know, sea bass are endangered, so even if you get them from farm stock to stash between your breasts, the only thing we can assume is that you’re doing it to signal that deep down inside, you want the entire world to be consumed in a fiery wave of angry, vengeful fish. So drive your giant SUV that gets 10 MPG without guilt in your heart, since the Chilean breast fish say it’s okay, we’re all environment-hating hypocrites.
That said, it’s going to be tough to figure out how to use the exposure of entire centimeters of genuine mammary flesh supports terrorism, though.
Warning: Tomboyish joy is atypical.
Um, Feminism Friday post on Saturday. Enjoy!
So, Salon has this article up about a new wedding trend of “trashing the dress”, which is, like 95% of wedding traditions, mostly another photo opportunity.* Still, the writer Izzy Grinspan painted the new tradition as being a rebellion of sorts against the all-important wedding dress, which you’re not only supposed to spend a fortune on, but then you’re supposed to preserve in expensive storage for no discernible reason. It’s not like you’re going to wear it for your next wedding, right?
Well, I got all excited at the idea of new brides taking their dresses out and destroying them photogenically. I had mental images of women tossing fluffy white dresses on bonfires or spray-painting them. I hoped that at least one picture on this Trash The Dress website would show someone taking her dress out to the range and riddling it full of bullets. I set my hopes way, way too high. Mostly, “trashing the dress” is just another paean to femininity, and the pictures show the women in the dress, lolling around looking fuckable. The dress is trashed both by getting wet and having someone vamp in it, just screwing with the iconic virginity of the whole thing.
The model of responsible conservative manhood.
Your Infernal Majesty:
We good Christian men are horrified by these wanton harlots who show their flesh without regard for our dirty minds. We are trying to stay upon the righteous path but are beset by breasts, legs, and bare arms. This is disgusting! These women and girls should stop tempting men. They are being stumbling blocks in our quest for righteous living. We cannot help our actions if we see such abominations as boobies.
It’s hard being a man! Hard! We notice the opposite sex and and want sex all of the time (we swear! we do!). Women don’t. We know this because we are men and we know everything. It’s hard for us, who are human beings, to gaze upon those non-human boobie carriers known as “women.”
What do you plan on doing about this?
Sincerely,
Lech R. Ous
Dear Miss President:
We at the Prissy Victorian Ladies Society are outraged that yet again, immodest attire is being featured in proms, on the streets, and in church. Women have
dirtypillowsbreasts, and the very outline of them is most upsetting to the menfolk, who are driven to mouth-foaming lust. It is beyond horrific that women get themselves raped by wearing revealing clothing, going outside of their homes, and existing. It’s time they showed respect to men who can’t help themselves (poor dears!) and cover up, stay home, and keep quiet.What do you plan on doing about this?
Sincerely,
Miss Victoria Del Usion
Dear Lech and Vicky:
Well, you all have me in a right pickle, I must say. Here I am, forming a men’s-only religion and monastery, and it’s not good enough. Some of you refuse to join and free yourselves from the scourge that is me and my fellow women.
The menfolk here insist they are in thrall to the female form. Apparently, it’s enough to drive some men and the women who love them insane to see a hint of boobies, or the shape of boobies, or some leg or female arm. One would think you holy boys would spend as much time preaching to the speedo-wearing, shirtless masses of men to cover up. Then again, I will probably making discouraging this a punishable offense. I’d like to see more hot guys in as little clothing as possible.
Which brings me to my solution, of course. Since you’re that sure that women can handle seeing all of this manflesh, but men can’t cope with seeing things like a woman’s bare arms or collarbone, I have a two part proposal:
(more…)
vs.
So, wingnuts have manufactured a controversy about Nancy Pelosi wearing a headscarf in a mosque in Syria, even though it’s pretty standard operating procedure for politicians to dress diplomatically in foreign countries. My first post on this was a mess because I wanted to take a dig at Ann Althouse for her routine obsessions with picking at what women wear and was unfair to her, but I figured I’d spell out my thoughts on the entire issue in a less jokey way and categorize it as one of those Feminist Friday posts that Tigtog called for. So, a sort of post on women’s clothing and particularly compulsory femininity and the modest-immodest continuum.
On the provocative post title, that’s a reference to the theory of compulsory femininity. The idea is that women have all these onerous tasks to prove we’re feminine and submissive enough, and these tasks are enforced through social pressure, institutions, and sometimes even government force. Fashion provides a pretty clear-cut example of how this works, because feminine fashions are routinely enforced in every way imaginable. The theory of compulsory femininity also explains exactly why a hijab is no different than a push-up bra, since both items of clothing are worn to demonstrate alliance with patriarchal dictates and are hardly worn just for the hell of it.
From Jill, it appears that the Rebelution modesty survey is complete. If you’ll recall, their graphic representing “modesty” was rather seductive.
Sadly, the survey doesn’t answer the question that worried me the most—how many visible tattoos before you’re officially immodest? Three? Four? Twelve? But it should surprise no one that, given the opportunity to boss women around and demonstrate their dominance and outright ownership of women, the readers of Rebelution hopped to. Like Jill said, the comments on the posture section are particularly bad, since this isn’t only an opportunity to shame women for what they were, but also to insinuate that the very existence of women in public is a “stumbling block”. (By the way, I love that phrase. I kept picturing young Christian men stumbling all over the place, unable to walk from permanent erections from the horrible sight of young women wearing tank tops.) Unfortunately, they didn’t ask if it was immodest for women to have audible steps in public, but there’s always next year.
Jill’s got some of the comments, but I can’t help but steal her idea and keep going, since there’s just tons. For the question, “A girl’s physical posture and/or position can be a stumbling block.”
Girls usually know when they’re doing this though, I think. Like if a girl who already has a very confident air about her, who dresses very attractively, then sits cross-legged on a couch with her arms spread out over the back of the couch, smiling… Haha, okay, you kinda get the idea. This is awkward.
If you don’t want to force some guy to sin, in other words, best to make sure your posture conveys the strong message that you hate yourself. Slouch. Flinch frequently. If a man tries to catch your eye, bow your head, maybe fall on your knees to be safe.
This was one of my favorite questions, because it indicates a certain willingness to hobble women’s movements under the guise of “modesty”. “A purse with the strap diagonally across the chest draws too much attention to the bust.” Unsurprisingly, the majority of bossy young men felt that the messenger bag, with it insinuations of bicycling and laptop computers and heavy books, was downright slatternly.
Depends on how it is worn. If the weight is in the back so that it emphasizes the valley in the bust, then yes, it is immodest. But if the weight is on the side, then no, it is not immodest.
Costumes make it true!
Dressing up as fictional characters to role play during sex is one thing, but doing it as part of your actual wedding ceremony is a tad creepy. Especially if you’re dressing up as a “princess” from Disney’s derivative but lucrative pantheon.
If your nuptial dreams include a fairy-tale wedding, Walt Disney Co. might have the perfect solution.
The company is using its stable of imaginary princesses as inspiration for a new line of wedding gowns. Disney and bridal designer Kirstie Kelly have developed a line of ethereal gowns that pay homage to Cinderella, Jasmine, Snow White, Ariel and Sleeping Beauty.
Granted, the gowns are just “inspired” by the various movie heroines, but I have a feeling they’d better be pretty close to the inspiring sources, lest they lose their targeted customer base of women who want to dress like a Disney heroine for their weddings, i.e. the sort of women who want their bridal gown to project the idea that they are too immature to get married and probably too childish to see a penis up close and personal. You can just hear Humbert hearts pitter patter at the idea.
Story found via Broadsheet, where they also discovered another Disney princess article where sexist armchair evo psych reaches its logical conclusion, with the argument that the love of the color pink is encoded on the fancy female genetic structures.
“We believe it is an innate desire in the vast majority of young girls to play out the fantasy of being a princess,” says Disney spokesman Gary Foster. “They like to dress up, they like to role-play. It’s just a genetic desire to like pink, to like the castle, to turn their dads into the prince.”
This quote made me suddenly long for Caitlan Flanagan, who would eat this shit up.
Luckily, the journalists writing the story emit a strong feminist-skeptical vibe.
About the princess invasion in her home, Porto-Turner holds mixed feelings. She loves that Carisa is “so girlie,” loves that she is enamored with the same stories Porto-Turner read as a girl. But she admits it bothered her when Carisa turned 4 and refused to wear pants. She’s not too keen on the fact that Carisa’s fantasy play inevitably revolves around finding a prince and seeking “true love’s first kiss.” It bugs her that Snow White is such a wimp.
“I want Carisa to believe in love and romance, I want her to grow up and have a family of her own, but I also want her to believe in herself,” says Porto-Turner, who is communications director for the March of Dimes. Hence, she talks to Carisa repeatedly about her college fund.
I can’t say I blame parents who are deeply concerned about their daughters who are enraptured by these patriarchal fantasies. At best, you hope that girls grow out of them, but as the first story about the wedding dresses shows, there’s a strong possibility they won’t. If the idea of grown women buying into the princess thing is deeply unsettling, there’s a good reason—they’re sucked into this illusion of the rightness of a woman who depends entirely on heterosexual romance and male approval for her sense of self. Most of us know from experience that women who are sucked into it so completely are setting themselves up for some bitter disillusionment.
A bunch of feminist blogs have been covering this T-shirt, so I haven’t addressed it yet.
Of course, every comment thread I read about this shirt, someone has to bring up that damn T-shirt of a girl throwing rocks at a boy. Which says a lot to me—there are so many images out there condoning violence against women that they’re easy to forget, but one image of female-on-male violence is so shocking that no one can forget it. Especially troubling is, as Abyss points out, that this shirt portrays the real life psychology of domestic violence pretty accurately, from the way the victims so often get blamed to the smug entitlement many abusers possess. Abyss says:
That leaves the question of how we would illustrate a third box in this same style if the back of the T-shirt continued this story.
She wonders if people would defend the shirt so much if one saw violence against the perpetrator. Taking that as a challenge, Auguste made this:
My guess is people would not find that cute. In fact, they’d probably find it memorable the way they always seem to remember the shirt with the girl throwing rocks at the boy.
I have almost nothing to say to this except that these are some of the most attractive “socially conscious” fashion designs I’ve ever seen and, despite that, I can only imagine how sticky the feel against your skin. Have at, Pandagonians!
All I’m going to say on this article in the NY Times—with its picture of “inappropriately” dressed female doctors, many of whom seem to be dressed in the oh-so-scary V-neck shirt—-is this:
Not that nurses actually dress this way, of course, but the cultural contextualizing of the abstract idea of a sexy female medical worker certainly does vary according to pay scale and professional authority.
Some very sad news—Ellen Willis, Redstockings founder and writer, passed away. After reading this tribute post to her from Michael Bérubé, I am convinced that I need to read a lot more of her stuff. Digging around the links for the Wikipedia page, I found this essay she wrote in 1969 that had me pumping my fist in the air, because it was one of the best eviserations of a little bit of knee jerk rhetoric I see all the time on the left.
As expounded by many leftist thinkers, notably Marcuse, this theory maintains that consumers are psychically manipulated by the mass media to crave more and more consumer goods, and thus power an economy that depends on constantly expanding sales. The theory is said to be particularly applicable to women, for women do most of the actual buying, their consumption is often directly related to their oppression (e.g. makeup, soap flakes), and they are a special target of advertisers. According to this view, the society defines women as consumers, and the purpose of the prevailing media image of women as passive sexual objects is to sell products. It follows that the beneficiaries of this depreciation of women are not men but the corporate power structure.
I get the “whatever, it all comes back to making money” comment all the time here on Pandagon and 99% of the time, it is applied by a man to a topic that he deems unworthy of discussion because it either is something he can’t speak with authority on (women’s issues) or because it makes him uncomfortable. The point of blaming capitalism and considering the discussion done is not to actually mount a critique of capitalism, therefore, but to disable a critique of sexism. You’ll see this shallow logic applied a lot to the porn discussion, as if pointing out that porn makes a shitload of money is the end, not the beginning of an analysis. But it crops up in the weirdest places, notably this discussion of the purity ball video that I posted. In the middle of what was a generally fun and at times interesting conversation about the video, this comment showed up to fry my brain:
Yes it’s bizarre but let’s not miss the real point of all this. Someone is making money running these stupid purity balls. It always comes down to shearing the sheep with these people even if it means turning little girls into mental cases.
Wha?!, my poor, beleagured brain said. I shouldn’t have been surprised. There’s a ton of people out there who literally think that marketing drives everything and everything in the world is the scheme of some brilliant marketer who created a desire in people through magic and then filled that desire with products and got rich. Kamy Wicoff emailed me after I reviewed her book about weddings, and said she had the same frustration with a lot of interviews about it. The issue that cropped up appeared to be just this; no one wanted to talk about anything but the marketing aspect of weddings, which is certainly part of her book, but again, when you restrict the conversation to saying, “People make a lot of weddings, all you need to know,” you’re missing the point. After the fact, large marketing blitzes that change a culture can seem like brilliant manipulations, but the truth is a lot of attempts to manipulate people’s desires fail miserably because people can’t be bothered to care. If you want to exploit people to make money off them, there has to be something exploitable, which is what Wicoff was getting at in her book.
Uploaded by JCriquet.
Echidne found the bloggers at The Corner talking about Halloween costumes and frankly, I think the whole debacle is just evidence that when you’re a Republican pundit, the never-ending process of taking the truth and spinning it into pretty-sounding bullshit has the culmulative effect of degrading your very ability to understand normal human language. Mona Charen kicks it off by linking this article in the NY Times that appears to have blown a circuit in her brain.
The article is about how hard it is to find Halloween costumes for women that aren’t sexed up. It was a little unfair to set it up that way—it seems to have lured Charen in with the promise that the article would be a refreshing blast about how lady bodies are disgusting and women need to cover that shit up.
But the lure of hating on the female body was just the bait and Charen got a nasty switch.
Glock is dismayed by all this, but not for the reasons you might think. You might suppose that a self-respecting, grown-up woman would be offended by the triumph of male adolescent fantasies in the costume aisles of leading retailers (though why any grown-up is shopping for costumes at all remains a mystery). You might suppose that she would resent this commercial assault on women’s dignity. But no, Ms. Glock lacks the vocabulary to object in those terms. Instead she protests that there was “no male equivalent of the Stewardess . . . no Hot Fireman [or] Sexy C.E.O.�
Sure, degrade men as well. That’s the ticket.
Fucking sneaky ass feminists. You think you’re in for a round of old-fashioned sex-hating and instead you get a tongue-in-cheek suggestion that the problem is the unfairness of sexual objectification, when everyone knows sexiness is wrong because the cunt is evil. Now Charen has to purge herself by dunking her head underwater 100 times while repeating, “The phallus is holy, I am dirty,” between dunks until the feminism is washed out of her brain.
It gets even funnier, though, as Jonah Goldberg demonstrates that his grip on language has slipped to the degree that normal English sounds like pages out of A Clockwork Orange to him.
For the record, my daughter will be a princess this year. Last year she was a cowgirl. In the future she wants to be a “doggy-doctor,” a cowgirl again, and a witch. She has plenty of ideas on the subject and feminism hasn’t entered into any of them as yet.
As Echidne points out, if cowgirls, witches, and vets aren’t feminist costumes, then Caitlin Flanagan’s actually a housewife and Ann Coulter is a symbol of Christian chastity. Goldberg doesn’t seem to know what the word “feminist” means.
But there is another explanation. Since Goldberg was responding to Charen’s post, there’s always the off-chance that he misunderstood what would constitute a feminist Halloween costume, and thinking, “Well, my daughter isn’t going to dress up as a Hot Fireman or a Sexy CEO,” he proceeded to deny she had feminist costume-leanings. Sure, it still means he has poor comprehension skills, but they haven’t slipped to the point where he couldn’t understand “Pass the sugar”, at least if my interpretation here is correct.
Does the man have anything better to do than pick on people in the press corps who don’t wear designer suits? Apparently not. I supposed we should be relieved that he’s paying attention to something. Or maybe these are just tired pick-up lines on his part. Who knows. (LAT):
Even as he talked about North Korea’s nuclear ambitions and other weighty matters, President Bush on Wednesday returned to his occasional role as fashion critic to the White House press corps.Speaking of designer suits, Charles in the comments brought up the infamous lump on Bush’s back during the debate with Kerry that was first explained away as a “bad tailoring“:“If I might say, that is a beautiful suit…. And I can’t see anybody else that even comes close,” the president told NBC’s Kevin Corke, who was wearing pinstripes, in the course of a Rose Garden news conference that focused on North Korea-related diplomacy and the Iraq war. Corke responded that he would convey the president’s comments to his tailor.
…By the time Bush called on Jim Axelrod of CBS, the reporter felt compelled to start with a defensive comment: “My best suit’s in the cleaners,” Axelrod explained to the president. “That’s not even a suit,” Bush retorted, eyeing Axelrod’s sport coat and slacks.
Bush, who has suits made by Georges de Paris, the tailor to presidents since Lyndon Johnson’s time, has teased reporters about their appearance in the past. In June, he poked fun at CNN’s David Gregory for his loud pocket scarf. “Gregory, fine-looking scarf — not scarf, what do you call that thing?” said Bush. “It’s strong.”
In August, while discussing the war in Lebanon, Bush took note of a suit worn by Ken Herman of Cox Newspapers, saying: “By the way, seersucker is coming back.” Later in the news conference, Bush again referred to the suit, calling it “that just ridiculous-looking outfit.”
Asked about the president’s commentary, White House Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino called Bush “a personable man,” saying that “although he’s president and that’s a serious job, he does like to reach out to others in friendly ways.”
I guess we can add this to the list of ways Dear Leader brings a touch of class to each and every occasion…
Let’s hear it for ovulation!
From Samhita at Feministing, I saw one of those amusing stories about “the strange sexual behavior of the human female” is out. This one says that women try to dress a little more attractive (read: they “do” femininity a bit more) around the time we ovulate. The study doesn’t seem all that extensive to me, so it’s hardly much proof, but I guess I don’t find it as irritating as Rebecca at Broadsheet does. The media tee-hee-those-ladies-are-sure-silly spin is irritating, for sure. But strip away some of the sexist spin and the ramifications strike me as mostly interesting—if in fact women know when we’re ovulating on a subconscious level and we respond by being flirtier and trying to attract more attention, to me that’s an interesting example of how the nature/nuture argument is kind of bullshit. After all, what that would prove, in this case at least, is that people are adept at turning natural urges into culturally determined behaviors.
Naturally, the urge of the shallow, sexist media is to imply that this all means femininity is somehow inborn, but really the more legitimate way to look at it would be that femininity is a set of learned behaviors that produce certain rewards, particularly male attention. And if we have some internal drive that makes us, say, want to get laid, we apply the learned behaviors more to achieve that goal. (Wonder if they studied women trying to be attractive to women at all.) The media likes to spin these studies as evidence that women are slaves to our hormones, but what it really says to me is that human beings are remarkably flexible and creative about learning and employing behaviors to get what we want.
Now, the thing is I’m not sure this study is all that it’s cracked up to be, because they didn’t seem to have the biggest sample set and the difference in how women dressed was subtle. But if it is true, the unspoken ramifications are amusing—after all, if women have an urge to hit the town flirting with all sorts of people when we’re ovulating, that means that we might have desires that are a bit more promiscious than the male-dominated evo psychology theorizers, particularly of the armchair sort, would like to admit to.
Jessica sent this picture of a shirt from Delia’s to me. All I can think when looking at this is how quickly spandex gives out from multiple washings. An anti-douching T-shirt? Or a disturbing suggestion that one avoid showers altogether?
Bush-humping John McCain, so desperate to win over the fundies, has come full circle in embracing Bob Jones University in SC, the very state in which Dear Leader basically cut off the Arizona senator’s balls in 2000.
U.S. Sen. John McCain riled Bob Jones University leaders in South Carolina’s nasty 2000 GOP presidential primary by criticizing the Christian fundamentalist school - known for its ban on interracial dating and its anti-Roman Catholic views - and George W. Bush for speaking there.
Now McCain says he would consider speaking at the school himself.
“I can’t remember when I’ve turned down a speaking invitation. I think I’d have to look at it,” he told The State newspaper.
McCain, R-Ariz., says he would have to look at Bob Jones University’s latest policy statements. “I understand they have made considerable progress,” he said.
It’s amazing how John McCain has thoroughly degraded himself, seemingly with masochistic pleasure, tossing a formidable surface political reputation as a war hero down the rat hole by sucking up to Bush and the AmTaliban. Is the presidency really worth this:
Get a room, already. via Mike Tidmus.
***
BJU’s student handbook says “Loyalty to Christ results in separated living. Dishonesty, lewdness, sensual behavior, adultery, homosexuality, sexual perversion of any kind, pornography, illegal use of drugs, and drunkenness–all are clearly condemned by God’s word and prohibited here.” The campus bans all Abercrombie & Fitch logos because it has “shown an unusual degree of antagonism to the name of Christ and an unusual display of wickedness in their promotions.”
In checking out the dress code for women, the BJU guide provides a few good chuckles.
* The middle area of the torso may not be exposed, and tops must be long enough to meet the top of the skirt or pants.
* Sleeveless tops and dresses may be worn with a blouse, jacket, or sweater; otherwise, sleeves are required.
* Necklines may be no lower than four fingers below the collarbone–the choice of “four fingers” being only a convenient measurement.
* Tops may be fitted, but not clingy.
* Hemlines, slits or other openings may never be higher than the bottom of the knee. Denim skirts are allowed for casual dress but not in class or for other professional events.
* Shoes such as combat boots or hiking boots are not permitted.
* Hairstyles must be neat, “orderly,” and feminine. Masculine cuts and “cutting edge fads” should be avoided.
* Tattoos are prohibited. A maximum of two matched sets of earrings are allowed, and they must be worn in the lobe of the ear. Any other body piercings are prohibited.
The guys get off easy, though your hair will receive some scrutiny by the BJU staff:
* Men’s hair must be traditionally styled with a conservative cut. Hair must not be colored, highlighted, shaved, shelved, tangled or spiked. Sideburns may not reach past the lower opening of the ear. No facial hair is permitted; students must be clean shaven. (Some exceptions are made for older students.)
And there shall be no naked man-toes. Socks must be worn at all time.
PJs for Jeebus. Thus begins the indoctrination of the “Christian” youth. Visit the site if you dare. The mission of the company:
The whole Armor of God Pajama set will help your children to depend on God to protect them from their fears, doubts, and uncertainties at night so their sleep can be restful and peaceful.
Get the togs for $39.95.
Hat tip, Shakes Sis (who was tipped by oddjob).
