May

19

A Quick Note on Misogynistic Body Standards

Filed Under assholes, beauty myths, fat-shaming, media, misogyny, objectification, patriarchy, pop culture | 13 Comments

in-touch

I know way, way, way better than to waste my time analyzing tabloid magazines.  Which is why I pretty much never do it, and I’m not going to bother saying much very now.  Because of course, we pretty much see the same shit above every fucking year around this time.

But I saw this magazine in the checkout line in the grocery store, and masochist that I am I had to see who was cruelly and ridiculously shamed on the cover this year with a “worst” label.  And upon seeing Uma Thurman there with the phrase “Saggy Boobs” emblazoned underneath her, it just hit me in the gut like nobody’s business. Because I’m at least used to butts similar to mine getting sneered at.

I’d say “way to go telling women that the way their bodies naturally look is repulsive,” but of course I know that’s the point of virtually everything in this magazine.  But. There is a little fucking thing in this world called gravity, and strangely enough, boobs are subject to it.  Especially big ones. (You know, the same kind women are supposed to feel bad about not having.)

It’s incredibly past the point of bad enough when we’re mocking the “lumpy butt” of a woman who is already thinner than most (while simultaneously mocking a woman for being too thin), as if bodies exist for judging and ones that carry an ounce of fat are hideous and shouldn’t be let out the house.  Can it get any worse when we’re mocking a body “flaw” that is not only shared by huge portions of the population, but that we also can’t even pretend can be “fixed” by spending every waking hour of your life in the gym?

Finally, they’re at least acknowledging the truth that it’s not about getting women to “take pride” in their bodies or “work harder” at them. It’s just about reminding us that close to all women’s bodies, no matter how much “pride” you take or how hard you “work,” will ever be considered good enough.

Feb

3

Shocking: Playboy Playmates Represent Increasingly Impossible Sexual Ideals

Filed Under beauty myths, media, objectification, pop culture, pornography, sexism | 13 Comments

playboyIn what comes as a surprise to absolutely no one who pays attention to media representations of women and sexiness, it looks like the overall BMI of women featured as Playboy Playmates has dropped dramatically over time.  Indeed, according to Wired Magazine (who did the analysis), “While real American women have steadily eaten their way up the BMI slope — just like American men — Playmates have gone from a sylphlike 19.4 to an anime-ideal 17.6.”

Of course, as previously covered, BMI is on many levels bullshit.  But I think that these numbers do still tell us something, when the graph shows such a steadily increasing disparity between the playmates and average American women.  Further, the stats go beyond mere BMI.  Wired explains:

Playboy’s Playmate data sheets (you know, where they claim to enjoy cupcakes and The Deer Hunter) provide height and weight, among other stats. Our analysis shows that models are shedding pounds and gaining altitude at an alarming rate. To be fair, Playmates provide their own measurements, so they could be exaggerating. Plus, we wouldn’t put it past the editors to stretch the truth (i.e., Miss March 2008 may not actually want to write “comedic short stories” — or have a 21-inch waist). But who cares? What’s interesting isn’t the veracity of the numbers, it’s what the magazine thinks its readers will find ideal.

They further touch on the delicate issue of breast size (while acknowledging that whether or not there is an increase in breast implant rates among playmates is unknown). While overall bust-size, or the measure of the chest circumference at its fullest point, has fallen dramatically, the cup size remained the same. What this means is that the breasts of women featured in Playboy are not necessarily getting larger overall, but they are getting dramatically larger relative to the size of the woman who has them.

What does this tell us?  Nothing particularly shocking.  Only that standards for women’s sexual attractiveness are getting more and more unrealistic as time passes, and steadily so.

However, Playboy does have a unique and firm place in our society as both pornography and pop culture, and that makes these trends particularly dangerous.  And I do have to smile a bit when a non-feminist and fairly mainstream magazine like Wired calls out this kind of bullshit for what it is — even when they include problematic statements such as those which suggest that women with similar measurements to the playmates aren’t “real,” and that the playmates likely don’t have interesting hobbies.

They’ve also put together a pretty nice graph — complete with (censored but still possibly NSFW) pictures which illustrate from older issues of Playboy that sexiness really is relative with the standards of the time.  If still almost always white, thin and existing solely for the male gaze.

Perhaps someday, we’ll look at today’s issues of Playboy and also marvel that their pages helped to set the ideal for female sexual attractiveness, only with much  more positive implications.  Here’s to hoping.

Thanks to Ian for the link.

Jan

26

Berlusconi: Women Are Raped Because They’re Just So Good Looking

Filed Under Europe, International, assholes, beauty myths, misogyny, objectification, paternalism, patriarchy, politics, rape and sexual assault, sexism, sexual exploitation and harassment, violence against women and girls | 20 Comments

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, known for putting his foot in his mouth in really offensive ways, has done it yet again. This time, it’s one hot mess of rape myths and rape apologism, and a revival of the “women are raped because they’re pretty (and therefore rape is a compliment)” meme, once more with feeling:

THE Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, has dropped yet another clanger, infuriating women with the suggestion that a recent spate of rapes will not stop until there “are as many soldiers on the streets as there are pretty girls”.

The comment, made after a decision to deploy more military to combat an epidemic of violent sex crimes, was described immediately by the Opposition Democratic Party leader, Walter Veltroni,as the umpteenth gaffe “by a leader lacking in responsibility and sensitivity for the human beings who have suffered such a crime”.

Mr Berlusconi, who has pledged to mobilise 30,000 soldiers to combat sex crimes after a series of rapes in the capital, Rome, described Mr Veltroni’s comments as obscene and said he believed rape to be “a crime of incivility, execrable and shameful, full stop”.

You know, on second thought, I’m really not sure whether I feel more offended that Berlusconi thinks us women are raped because there are “pretty girls” (not women) who don’t have the sense to stay home, or that his highest condemnation of rape amounts to stating that it’s uncivil.

Read more

Nov

14

Message to the Guys: Donating Your Organs is Almost Like Sex

Filed Under beauty myths, marketing, media, misogyny, objectification, patriarchy, pop culture, sex and sexuality, sexism | 15 Comments

 

This ad promoting organ donation appeared in a Belgian men’s magazine.

The message at the bottom reads: Becoming a donor is probably your only chance to get inside her.

Nice way to objectify women to get across your “altruistic” message, suggest that women are only good for “getting inside of,” imply that women who don’t fit the above ideal of (poorly photoshopped) beauty aren’t quite as deserving of life, and portray men as so shallow that this is the only way to get them to do a good thing, all at the same time. It’s really quite impressive.

And yet, while I really do want to be pissed at this level of objectification, condescension and sexism, and on some level I am, I’m ultimately just incredibly bemused. I mean, who the hell thought this was a good idea?

Also, let’s just consider the menz for a minute, can we? Think about it. You’re some poor guy who donates your organs for the purpose of showing the world how very macho and heterosexual you are, and then you die and your organs go to — oh noes — another man! That would, like, make you totally gay, dude!

Or, um . . . something. I don’t know, I find homophobia almost as confusing as heterosexuality so insecure and compulsory that it requires comparing organ donation with a sex act.

cross-posted at Feministe

Oct

29

Strip Club Holds Sarah Palin Lookalike Contest

Filed Under 2008 election, Republicans, beauty myths, feminism, media, misogyny, objectification, patriarchy, politics, pop culture, pornography, sex and sexuality, sexism, slut-shaming | 8 Comments

Via Sociological Images — a truly great blog I discovered recently — comes this story about a Sarah Palin lookalike contest held at Vegas strip club (oh, sorry, “gentleman’s club”).  Lots of bikinis, sexualized use of guns and sexism abound.  You can view more photographs of the event here.

The saddest thing is that it’s not the most offensive display of sexualized misogyny that has been directed a Palin.  The sex doll came close, but I’d say that award goes “Nailin’ Paylin,” the Larry Flint pornographic film starring yet another Palin lookalike, the existence of which all of us should have seen coming.

There are two problems with both the porn film and this strip club contest, and neither one of them is about porn and stripping in general.  The first issue is consent.  Sarah Palin did not consent to having her image used in this way.  Portraying her sexually like this without her consent is a violation — and contrary to what many people apparently think, existing as a woman in public is not the same as consenting to use of your body as public property.  This isn’t satire or parody; it’s just sexist and degrading.

Read more

Aug

20

Link Round Up

Filed Under beauty myths, blogging, gender, media, misogyny, patriarchy, race and racism, rape and sexual assault, violence against women and girls | 6 Comments

There’s a bunch of stuff hanging around that I’ve finally admitted I won’t get the time to write about. And a few other things I wanted to share.

What About Our Daughters has a post on the sexual exploitation and violence committed against young black teenage girls.

Via FRIDA comes this excellent Washington Post Op-Ed on why Tropic of Thunder is being boycotted by disability rights groups, and why ableist slurs like the ones used in the film are so harmful. (Note: I honestly had absolutely no intention of seeing the movie. That being said, if you’re not participating in the boycott, you really should be.)

Speaking of voting with your wallet, I’m glad that I don’t shop at Forever 21 and definitely do not have plans to ever start now.

DHHS Secretary Mike Levitt has a new blog post defending that proposed regulation which would seriously undermine Title X funding and classify birth control as an abortifacient. In doing so, he managed to entirely miss the point, and won the praise of a bunch of dumb ass anti-choice commenters. Go leave a comment telling him (more nicely than this) that he’s an asshole who is going to harm women and is being completely disingenuous about his motives and the potential results of his stance. (Mine has yet to be approved.)

Skin-bleaching creams are having devastating effects in Uganda. And I imagine that until we stop the racist and colonialist mindset of light skin as pretty and dark skin as ugly — and the misogynistic mindset of a woman’s “beauty” as the demarcation of her worth — it will continue.  Clearly, bans only do so much.

Lisa Harney wrote a really great post about the triggering of domestic and sexual violence survivors, and how this phenomenon is being improperly used to justify trans-exclusion and other forms of transphobic prejudice.  Definitely check this one out.

Whoa. Now there is one unbelievable rape apologist justification.  Nice catch, Marcella.

How SD abortion providers are handling the new anti-choice law.

OT: Yeah, I’m sure you are, fuck face. Seriously, shove it up your worthless ass. (Note: asshole was seeking fame, therefore I refuse to use his name and we do use it in the comments on this blog.  I prefer to call him Fuck Face McGee, if need be.)

And lastly, while I still have yet to have time to go through it all, this looks great: the Women of Color and Beauty Carnival.

What have you been reading?  Or for that matter, writing?  Feel free to shamelessly self-promote.

Aug

14

Are they serious?

Filed Under beauty myths, marketing, objectification, pop culture, products | 25 Comments

When I saw an email in my inbox with the subject “BEAUTY SECRET Bust-Firming Bra: 4 Weeks to a Firmer You,” I thought it must be spam with strangely correct spelling. But then I saw that the email from from Victoria’s Secret (whose emails I get virtually daily and delete unless they actually happen to have a good deal). The picture to your left is a Victoria’s Secret model showing off the new advertised bra.

From the product description:

The secret’s out: 4 weeks to a firmer looking you. Introducing the only bra proven to tighten, firm and enhance the appearance of your skin – all you have to do is wear it. Beauty Secret™ gives your bust a more uplifted effect in just 4 weeks. Innovative firming and renewal treatments diminish signs of aging and improve skin’s ability to retain moisture, resulting in a naturally firmer-looking bust area. Beauty Secret™ is an unprecedented breakthrough in the world of bras…and now it’s yours to experience. Lightly lined. Contoured shaping. Underwire cups. Adjustable straps. Back closure. Imported nylon/spandex.

• Gives an 18% boost in skin firmness after 4 weeks of continuous wear (8 hours daily)
• Safe to wash (hand-wash preferred): retains renewing power for the life of the bra
• Feels just like any other bra: no inserts, creams or lotions
• You’ll notice results after 4 weeks of continuous wear (8 hours daily), with maximum rejuvenation in 8 weeks

Wow.  I guess they are serious.

The bra is, of course, $68. Which means that unless you want to regularly hand-wash your bra at night and cross your fingers that it’s dry in the morning, you’re going to have to buy at least two. But what a small price to pay for an 18% boost in skin firmness! A firmness that, if similar creams are any indication, you will never actually see.

I’m not sure which is sadder: that Victoria’s Secret thinks women are so dumb that they’ll actually buy this thing, or that women are so beaten down with regards to their appearance that many probably will actually buy this thing.

Just out of curiousity: anyone have any clue how they’re even pretending that this bra really firms your breasts?  What kind of bullshit pseudo-cure talk are they going to use to “back up” their claims here?

Jul

24

HRC: And One Other Thing

Filed Under beauty myths, fat-shaming, feminism, gender, media, misogyny, objectification, patriarchy, politics, sexism, stereotypes | 8 Comments

I’ll be entirely honest: when I saw Hillary Clinton, one of the first things I thought after “wow, that’s Hillary Clinton” was “wow, she’s so pretty.”

Hillary has been attacked for her appearance an awful lot throughout her career. She’s been called ugly, “too” masculine, fat and so on. Allow me to be clear: even if I personally found Hillary Clinton to be the ugliest person on the face of the planet — and obviously I do not — that’s still no good reason for anyone to debase because of her physical appearance. And mocking someone’s features is not only juvenile and mean-spirited, it’s about as far as you get from a genuine political argument. On the other side, if a politician is someone who would be considered very conventionally attractive, “hot” even, it would not be okay to debase her because of her appearance either — you know, calling her stupid because she’s pretty, or making crude sexual comments. None of this is okay — and it’s something that is done far, far more often to women in politics.

The question of why our culture mocks and judges women based on their appearance is a well-worn one. I think we know those answers: it’s a means of keeping women in their place, outside of political discourse and rendering them nothing more than sexual objects for public consumption. Basic stuff.

But when considering this, my mind went elsewhere. The question is not why Hillary Clinton is judged on her appearance, it’s why she’s judged so negatively on her appearance. Why is she called ugly? What’s up with all of those “fat thighs” jokes?

Read more

Jul

4

Do. Not. Want.

Filed Under beauty myths, marketing, misogyny, sex and sexuality | 12 Comments

You know what would have made me really happy? Finding out that this was photoshopped and just a really fucked up joke.

But. No, it seems that it’s not. Oh my.

You know how a lot of guys seem to involuntarily tense up and bring their legs together when they see another man get hit in the balls? The moment I saw this ad, I believe that I began to know the feeling.

Just in case any of you are still unclear on this: the vagina is SELF-CLEANING. And though modern douches are probably better for you than Lysol, they do also fail to act as effective contraception, and in terms of hygiene are just plain bad for you. Don’t douche. Your vagina will thank you. (And if your vagina/vulva really does have a very strong unbearable smell, you probably have bacterial vaginosis or an STD. Go see your doctor.)

Via. Thanks to Mary for the link.

Jun

27

Target Women: Botox

Filed Under beauty myths, feminism, fun, media | 4 Comments

Personally, I think that Sarah just keeps getting better. The “parentheses” bit just about had me rolling on the floor. Thanks for sending it along, Kai!

Next Page →