-
BlogHer Ad Network More from BlogHer Advertise here BlogHer Privacy Policy -
"In my heart, I think a woman has two choices: either she's a feminist or a masochist." --Gloria Steinem
-
Apr
12
When you’re this big of an asshole, wishful thinking is your best bet
Filed Under assholes, beauty myths, media, misogyny, objectification, patriarchy, sex and sexuality, sexism, slut-shaming | 5 Comments
If you read or receive updates from Media Matters, or are masochistic enough to do your own right-wing media watch, you’ll have probably heard of Marc Rudov. He’s a frequent guess on The O’Reilly Factor, apparently has his own radio show now, and has made his pathetic career off of telling the world what exactly is wrong with women and how they fail to live up to his standards. Most of the time, it comes off as petulant whining about how women are such big whores who will fuck anyone but for some reason won’t fuck him.
I haven’t seen very much written about him in the feminist blogosphere, and I think it’s for a good reason. He has a bit of the Ann Coulters about him; getting pissed off at the things he says only pleases and encourages him.
Which is why personally, I believe that it’s better to mock. Two days ago, he was on The O’Reilly Factor discussing beauty pageants (because O’Reilly likes to cover those hard hitting issues and because the Miss USA pageant was apparently last night), and used the opportunity — again — to call women filthy slutbags for having bodies and stuff. Check out the video and partial transcript below — the video even rewards you with some of the old Fox News Porn.
Popularity: 20% [?]
Mar
25
Feminists Judge Beauty Differently
Filed Under beauty myths, feminism, media, objectification | 9 Comments
When I saw the headline Feminists More Open-Minded on Weight, I expected an article on the fat-acceptance movement (which the Times had reported on fairly recently). But no, this time, feminist open-mindedness on weight has apparently been proven!
I’ll say up front that I did not pay $30 to read the study in full, but here is the abstract:
The present study examined the effect of feminist ascription on perceptions of the physical attractiveness of women ranging in body mass index (BMI). One-hundred and twenty-nine women who self-identified as feminists and 132 who self-identified as non-feminists rated a series of 10 images of women that varied in BMI from emaciated to obese. Results showed no significant differences between feminist and non-feminists in the figure they considered to be maximally attractive. However, feminists were more likely to positively perceive a wider range of body sizes than non-feminists. These results are discussed in relation to possible protective factors against the internalisation of the thin ideal and body objectification.
Well, cool. I buy that. Actually, it makes a lot of sense to me. After all, the first step to changing your perceptions is understanding where they come from.
But based on the Times description of the study, there’s something a little weird going on here:
The photographs were of 10 women, faces concealed and wearing tight gray clothing, who ranged in body mass index from emaciated to obese.
I can only assume that this is part of the methodology, the idea being that the faces of the women could skew the results away from an assessment based merely on body size. But regardless, it does strike me as kind of fucked up to ask women to assess the “attractiveness” of other women only after their humanity has been erased. Of course, we’re asked to judge women in this way on a daily basis; women are constantly carved up and served to us as generic bodies and body parts. We see overweight women with their heads cut off from the field of vision as some form of “respect” every time there’s a story on obesity in the nightly news. We see thin women displayed sexually with their heads obscured or cropped out of the photograph for public titillation. One almost has to wonder if a few of the feminists in this study noticed the trend, got annoyed and overcompensated. After all, this premise seems to buy into the basic if false presumption that you can judge a woman’s attractiveness based on body parts that do not include her head.
And what the hell is up with the tight clothing? Obviously they were trying to not skew perceptions by dressing the larger women in looser clothing — but wouldn’t it have made sense to dress all of the women in well-fitting clothing? It seems to me that clothes showing body size and shape but not clinging to the skin would be fair to every woman, where as the tight clothes buy into a preference towards a certain body type, what with the popular idea that thin women should show off as much as possible and overweight women should wear giant sacks..
Anyway, if anyone has full access to the study, I’d be interested to learn just how much wider the feminist range of “attractive bodies” was to the non-feminist range– and whether it extended further for both over and under-weight bodies, or only one direction. Also, did the women actually identify as “non-feminists,” or did they just answer the question “are you a feminist” with a “no”? I’d say that there’s a clear difference between a woman who says “I’m not a feminist” (most women, sadly) and a woman who says “I’m a non-feminist” (Laura Schlessinger).
The Times does provide us one extra bit of detail about the results — and what a stunning conclusion it leads us to.
The study participants were asked to identify the thinnest and heaviest women they considered “physically attractive.” They were also asked to say which woman they thought was most attractive.
Feminists and nonfeminists tended to agree on which woman was the most attractive. But that woman was described by the researchers as somewhat underweight, suggesting that even feminists cannot fully avoid societal pressures to be thin.
Well I’ll be damned. Who would’ve thought that feminists were real people subject to socialization just like everyone else? Next thing you know, it’ll turn out that feminists have faked orgasms, worn lipstick, changed their last names upon marriage and been all human and everything.
UPDATE: Feminist Advatar answers many of my questions in the comments.
Popularity: 17% [?]
Feb
16
Offensive Remark of the Week: Glenn Beck Thinks He Can Call Other People Ugly Edition
Filed Under Republicans, assholes, beauty myths, feminism, media, misogyny, offensive remark of the week, patriarchy, sex and sexuality, sexism | 5 Comments
‘If we don’t tell anyone I’m a douche, they’ll never figure it out!’
If you’ve ever heard conservative TV and radio host Glenn Beck’s name, you undoubtedly know that he’s an asshole. Simple enough, no big shocks there. He’s also dumb as a bag of rocks. The other night, I was out for pizza, the restaurant TV was unfortunately tuned to CNN, and Beck was talking about the condoms that NYC handed out on Valentine’s Day. He made the ridiculous argument that handing out condoms to teenagers is encouraging sex, blah blah blah, but then took the stupidity up a notch — I kid you not –with saying that NY is a dirty city and it’s not a good idea to hand out condoms on the street because people should be having sex in more sanitary locations. I kept waiting for an indication that he was joking, and not actually so dense as to think that the moment you hand someone a condom, pants are dropped and fucking ensues right there on the sidewalk. It didn’t come.
This is generally harmless asshattery. But he often takes it up a notch and decides to implicate other people in his ignorant rantings. He did just that on his radio show, the morning of the same day that I watched him make his above comments. Media Matters only highlights the last paragraph here, but I think that the preceding paragraph they provided for context is just as offensive. Here are Glenn’s thoughts on a story he found called “Surprising reasons you’re not having sex”:
BECK: I mean, here are some other reasons. “You’re ugly.” Hello! I’m not a sex expert but I’m — you know, I’m thinking, you know, you’re ugly and, you know, that’s a tough one to overcome especially if you’re a woman. If you’re a guy, that’s not hard to overcome. I’m sorry. That’s just the way the world is. Have you — how many ugly guys have hot wives? Take me, for example. I don’t know why she married — I think it was low self-esteem. I do. No, really I think it was low self-esteem. I got in — you know, you buy when the market is low. You know what I mean? While everybody else is selling, you buy. And I think I got in there right at the right time. Low self-esteem, low, wait a minute, could go a little lower, she might come down to my price. Hang on, OK, sold! Now her self-esteem is going up. And if my income wasn’t going up, she would have ditched me long ago. She would have gone, “Wait a minute, I think I was depressed when I married you.” I’m just — look. I’m not Tania, but I am a thinker. I’m on to you, Tania!
OK, so anyway, I was talking about ugly people. Ugly people, if you’re a guy, you can get past it. I don’t think you can as an ugly woman. I don’t — no, I don’t. If you’re an ugly woman, I apologize. Oh, you’ve got a double cross, because if you’re an ugly woman, you’re probably a progressive as well. Oh, jeez. I’m sorry. Today’s just not your day. But you know what? If you believed in God, you’d know that there’s going to be another chance for you. You don’t have to be ugly in heaven. You’re going to be your perfect self, and there will be another perfect somebody waiting for you on the other side.
Popularity: 21% [?]
Nov
16
Your Daily Dose of Hate
Filed Under assholes, beauty myths, cross-post, fat-shaming, misogyny, patriarchy, pop culture, race and racism, sexism, slut-shaming | 2 Comments
Here’s a beautiful example of male college students who think that being offensive is the same thing as being funny: The Sentinal “humor” piece “Mock of Love.” It’s a set of “spoof” suggestions for the second season of the VH1 Bret Michaels dating show Rock of Love. The irony is that if you’ve ever watched Rock of Love (you won’t admit to it, so I’ll do it for you), you’ll know that no one could mock the show better than its mere existence does. The jokes write themselves — including the incredibly misogynist ones.Now, I can’t say that we should expect much from a publication whose poll in the sidebar looks like this (the options are bad enough, but what people actually chose is even worse). But Antonio Ciaccia takes things to a whole new level of douchery, managing to insult everyone on pretty much the most vile terms possible, and miserably failing to actually be funny.
Popularity: 20% [?]
Nov
12
“Overweight” still doesn’t mean “unhealthy,” and related fantasies
Filed Under beauty myths, class and economics, discrimination, fat-shaming, objectification, patriarchy, stereotypes, women’s health | 8 Comments
A new study has just been released that shows, yet again, that those who fall into the “overweight” category on the BMI scale are actually the healthiest. Or, at least, they live the longest:
Two years ago, federal researchers found that overweight people had the lowest mortality rate of any weight group. Investigating further, they were able to link causes of death to specific weights. Obese people had more deaths from heart disease, they reported last week. And thin people? They had more deaths from everything but cancer and heart disease.
But there were 100,000 fewer deaths among the overweight than would have been expected if those people had been of normal weight. This is what might politely be called the chubby category, with body mass indexes (a measure of weight for height) of 25 to 30. A woman, for instance, who is 5 feet 4 inches tall and weighs between 146 and 175 pounds.
About a third of Americans fall into that range, defined, less politely, as “overweight” by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Interestingly, I am in the demographic that the article cites. Not just overweight according to the BMI chart, but I’m actually 5′4” and in the provided weight range. So that’s reassuring, I suppose.
[Side note: actually, I would much rather be called "overweight" than "chubby." WTF, Times?]
I will admit that I take glee in this study. No, it’s not because I think that I now have some ability to cheat death (I wish!). And it’s not because I want to see skinny people suffer. I don’t. And one of the things that pisses me off most about the weight discussion is when fat-pride takes the form of thin-hate. I understand where those feelings can come from, certainly, but I don’t think that it does us any good. And, believe it or not, thin women have body issues, too — like the fact that “pretty” not only equals skinny, it also equals big boobs, and it’s pretty rare to naturally have both. So, no, thin people, I don’t want you to die before I do. In fact, I’d like to find ways to help you, and the rest of us, live longer and healthier.
The reason I’m happy is because my point that the BMI is an absolute crock of shit has been proven yet again. I’m happy to know that I’m not unhealthy because of my weight (if I’m unhealthy, it’s because I don’t exercise enough). And I’m happy to have something to throw back in the concern trolls’ faces when they start whining about how “worried” they are about everyone’s health.
. . .
Popularity: 19% [?]
Nov
6
The Racism of Cosmetic Surgery
Filed Under WOC issues, beauty myths, class and economics, fat-shaming, feminism, marketing, media, misogyny, objectification, patriarchy, pop culture, race and racism, women’s health | 13 Comments
Beauty and the Breast has posted an article by Jennifer Cognard-Black, who has also written this great article on plastic surgery for Ms. Magazine. Her latest, Exporting American Beauty: Plastic Surgery and the New Culture of Worldwide Acceptance, was apparently intended for Ms., but they decided against printing it. I’d say that they missed out, and I urge you to go read the whole thing.
When discussing the social perils (rather than just physical risks) of plastic surgery, feminists generally comment on how an “ideal” cookie-cutter woman is being constructed that looks easy to emulate if you have the money and are willing to go under the knife, but isn’t. That model is generally blond, with big boobs, a flat, tight stomach, small but curvy hips, wide eyes, small nose, big lips, and high cheek bones. It’s a long list. And yet we also tend to fail to discuss that it’s not only white women trying to reach this strange blond ideal — plastic surgery patients who are women of color are using the same white model.
Yet while it’s clear that increasing numbers of women are choosing plastic surgery as a cure-all for aging or low self-esteem, what’s less clear is how such surgeries offer the promise of individual beauty when they tend to erase bodily difference in favor of a single, American ideal. This new culture of permissive plastic promotes a world in which all women can look “American”—and this particular American idol, as E. Ann Kaplan has noted, is an icon that stands for the nation-state, one that is created and sustained by pop culture but that only exists in the realm of fantasy. While this iconic woman’s body might wear many colors of skin, the most popular surgical procedures show that it will have the following “American” look: large, firm breasts; a thin waist and boyish hips; curved buttocks; long legs; symmetrical toes; a double eyelid; a smooth brow; a perpetually surprised look; bee-stung lips; and a nose like a small, pinned butterfly.
Such a limited and limiting ideal also means that these cosmetic procedures work to erase ethnicity. Caucasian women are prone to wrinkles caused by sun damage, and according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, more and more are choosing brow lifts and Botox injections. When Connie Chung had eye surgery before her brief stint as an evening news anchor, she made a procedure that shapes Asian American eyes from ovals to orbs all the more acceptable, and its popularity continues to grow. In turn, more African Americans are having rhinoplasties to slim their noses, liposuction to diminish their waists and buttocks, and breast reductions to mold their cleavage into the standard shape and size, while Hispanic women are undergoing ever more breast augmentations to achieve the same outcome.
In fact, even though some plastic surgeons claim they suggest aesthetic “improvements” to women of color that are specifically geared to maintain ethnicity, the popularity and end result of the most fashionable procedures tell a different story. Regardless of a patient’s ethnicity, race, age, or nationality, women are being cut into clones. As Kim Gandy, the President of the National Organization of Women, points out, “The ‘standard’ created for Latina and African-American women’s bodies was established [in] much the same way that standards are created for women in the US and Asia—through music videos, magazines, television, and movies.” The inherent assertion of plastic surgery is that the body can be re-shaped into a single, American ideal that all women have the possibility—even the right—to achieve.
Popularity: 25% [?]
Nov
1
The perfect gift for that boyfriend who loves to see you suffer
Filed Under assholes, beauty myths, misogyny, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, sex and sexuality, sexual exploitation and harassment, violence against women and girls, women’s health | 6 Comments
This is by far the most disturbing thing I’ve seen in a long time: on reasons why women might want to consider having her hymen surgically reconstructed.
Thanks to Lauredhel for breaking it down so beautifully. I wouldn’t have the stomach or the patience to do it myself.
This is absolutely one of those things that we can file under rape culture. Not because a woman losing her virginity to a man is akin to rape, or because purposely breaking a hymen is the same as rape. First penetrative sex can certainly be painful (whether or not you have a hymen in tact, which in fact many if not most women these days do not). But your sexual partner (in this case, your husband, of course) is supposed to care when you’re in pain, slow down, be gentle, ask if you’re okay, ask if you want to continue, and STOP if you don’t. He is not supposed to see that you’re in pain and then pound it in harder, or get off on the fact that his oh-so-impressive erection is making you bleed. I can’t even imagine what it would be like to have sex with such a man, and I don’t want to.
Just LOOK at this shit:
Marina’s second “wedding” night was a rather painful experience for her. On the contrary, her boyfriend enjoyed every minute if it.
What the fuck? I don’t care what kind of kinky fetish you’re into, getting off on the fact that you are actually hurting your girlfriend during sex is wrong. This is, in fact about rape. It’s our rape culture that tells us women feeling pain during sex isn’t something to avoid, it’s something to get off on. It’s rape culture telling men that they have a right to the bodies of their female significant others — apparently extending to the right to cause her physical pain. It’s the rape culture that tells us men’s sexual pleasure comes first, at the expense of female sexual pleasure, in spite of female sexual pain and the expense of the female right to sexual autonomy — and that a “good” woman will accept this happily. Without rape culture, the kinds of views espoused in this article (as though they’re benign!) would not even exist.
Encouraging men to look forward to breaking their sexual partner’s hymen, not only in spite of her pain, but in fact very much because of it, is promoting violence against women. Period.
Popularity: 18% [?]
Oct
30
Man Makeup
Filed Under beauty myths, gender, homophobia and transphobia, marketing, objectification, pop culture, products, sex and sexuality | 7 Comments
Salon has an article up today on a slightly unusual topic: makeup for men. I remember a few years ago, some companies tried this out. And it was ruthlessly mocked pretty much everywhere that there was a platform from which to do the mocking. But apparently, the idea is making a comeback. Sort of.
It’s no secret that actors have been prone to powder their noses, but a growing number of high-profile guys are drawing notice for rocking suspiciously ruddy glows offstage. Alongside Efron, a bevy of pretty boys have been cited recently for egregious makeup application: John Mayer, Jesse McCartney, Ryan Seacrest. Fall Out Boy’s Pete Wentz, the world’s most approachable hipster and patron saint of “guyliner,” even gave a sober demonstration on applying eyeliner in People magazine a few months ago that would have made the late Tammy Faye Bakker proud.
So are we ready to embrace makeup on men? After all, the Beatles’ long-ish hair was once considered an affront to modest ’60s sensibilities. Or will men’s makeup go the route of the men’s skirt trend circa 2003 that never quite took off?
If foreign markets are any indication, we may be slathering on foundation soon enough. The U.K. drugstore giant Boots has started carrying a men’s makeup line, and H&M in London stocks mascara in its men’s section. In Asia, Japan’s Gatsby line of men’s makeup and South Korea’s Man Holding Flower line by Somang featuring “Color Lotion” are doing brisk business.
But the culture that gave birth to the rugged masculine ideal of the Marlboro Man may not be ready to reach for the blush brush just yet. A GQ survey in 2005 reported that “92 percent of men would not wear makeup even if it guaranteed them a more fulfilling sex life.” U.S. sales figures seem to confirm the ongoing resistance to men’s makeup. Tres Wilson, executive director of Clinique Global Treatment Marketing, said, “Clinique’s Skin Supplies for Men M Cover [a concealer that debuted earlier this year] and Non-Streak Bronzer products sell very well in Europe, much more so than in the U.S.”
Interesting.
You know, I think that the first liberal inclination might be to embrace a culture that accepts makeup on men. It would show a blurring of gender roles, an increased acceptance of varying genders and sexualities and a lack of concern about whether one might be called “gay.” These are good points, but I do have a slightly different take.
Popularity: 23% [?]
Oct
26
The most interesting thing about breast cancer is the breasts
Filed Under beauty myths, marketing, race and racism, sexism, violence against women and girls, women’s health | 8 Comments
AlterNet has published a really great article on Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Lucinda Marshall decides to take a look at many different women’s magazines and take a look at how they cover the issue. There’s a lot going on there, so I strongly suggest reading the whole thing.
Her first point: the reporting on breast cancer is often erroneous, insulting or conveniently incomplete.
This year there is even [a magazine] called Beyond Breast Cancer that cheerfully proclaims that there are “10 Good Things About Breast Cancer.” Who knew? And just what are the pluses of getting this dreaded disease? According to the bubblegum-colored magazine, one perk is a pair of new boobs that “will face the horizon, not the South Pole.’ Better yet, they will be paid for by insurance. Oh, and you get lots of cards and flowers.
Meanwhile, both Good Housekeeping and Woman’s Day give incorrect information about mammograms. Good Housekeeping claims that “[N]o one disputes that all women 50 and over should be screened annually.” Yet physicians in different countries disagree on how often women over 50 should be screened. While doctors in the United States recommend annual mammograms, those in Europe say every two to three years. In Australia, where a study out last year shed significant doubt on the extent to which mammograms save lives, the recommendation is every two years. Interestingly, in some of these countries, the incidence and death rates for breast cancer are actually lower or comparable to the United States.
When they’re not spewing misinformation, the October issues of the traditional women’s magazines are offering overly simplistic information about breast cancer risk factors and tips for preventing it. Woman’s World (not to be confused with Good Housekeeping) discuss factors you can change, such as smoking, and those you can’t, like genetics. Missing is any mention about the purported connection between breast cancer and hormone replacement therapy. Also absent is information on parabens, phthalates and other carcinogenic chemicals, which are disturbingly common in consumer goods from lipstick to lotion.
Popularity: 20% [?]
Oct
18
Love Your Body Day
Filed Under activism, beauty myths, feminism, marketing, media, misogyny, objectification, pop culture, products, sex and sexuality, sexism | 4 Comments
Happy Love Your Body Day!
The annual Love Your Body Day by NOW is a celebration of female bodies in all their natural forms, an opportunity to raise awareness about harmful media images and a day to fight back.
To the left is my all-time favorite winner of the Love Your Body poster contest. You can check out this and previous year’s winners here — I’m partial to the 2007 Category 2 winner, myself.
You can also send an e-card to the women in your life, telling them about the day and how great their bodies are. And check out the ways to celebrate. Enjoy!
Popularity: 14% [?]
Oct
12
Poison Makes Me Pretty
Filed Under beauty myths, marketing, products, women’s health | 10 Comments
So lipstick not only tastes like a bizarre combination of paint, paste and chalk, costs way too much money and dries out your lips, according to a new study it might also be dangerous to your health. Maybe all of that lead makes it last longer? Or makes the color prettier?
Lipsticks tested by a U.S. consumer rights group found that more than half contained lead and some popular brands including Cover Girl, L’Oreal and Christian Dior had more lead than others, the group said on Thursday.
The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics said tests on 33 brand-name red lipsticks by the Bodycote Testing Group in Santa Fe Spring, California, found that 61 percent had detectable lead levels of 0.03 to 0.65 parts per million (ppm).
Lipstick, like candy, is ingested. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a coalition of public health, environmental and women’s groups, said the FDA has not set a limit for lead in lipstick.
One-third of the lipsticks tested contained an amount of lead that exceeded the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s 0.1 ppm limit for lead in candy — a standard established to protect children from ingesting lead, the group said. Thirty-nine percent of the lipsticks tested had no discernible lead, it said.
“It’s critical that manufacturers reformulate their product,” said Stacy Malkan, a co-founder of the coalition. “It’s possible to make lipsticks without lead, and all companies should be doing that.”
Lead can cause learning, language and behavioral problems such as reduced school performance and increased aggression. Pregnant women and young children are particularly vulnerable to lead exposure, the group said in its statement. Lead has also been linked to infertility and miscarriage, it said. (emphasis mine)
This is one of those days when I’m glad that I found feminism in college and stopped wearing almost all makeup instead of, like many women, started wearing more. I say that not to judge women who do wear makeup or say that makeup-wearers are not feminists, but because, well, I am really glad.
Popularity: 12% [?]