Sometimes being a woman sucks. And I’m not talking about biology. I’m talking about sociology.
I’m talking about having to include in my thinking about what clothes to wear my willingness to endure catcalling and street harassment because of someone else’s decision to “comment” on my appearance. I’m talking about grown-ass people telling me that they feel sorry for me because I’m 30 and single, even when I don’t feel sorry for myself (and while simultaneously congratulating my 30 and single male friends for successfully remaining “unchained”). I’m talking about my sister having to file for disability leave when her “disability” is having become a mother.
Like I said, sometimes being a woman sucks. In that vein, I’ve run across a whole bunch of engaging, informative, depressing, and refreshing gender-related stuff as of late that I thought I’d share. Check it:
The female body
The female body is constantly under attack. We’re supposed to be young and skinny (aka scrawny) but also perky and curvaceous. It’s exhausting (whether you’re trying to abide or trying to resist). But, there are some folks trying to fight back.
The folks over at My Body Gallery have created a user generated space where women can send in images of what real women – themselves – look like. The site is not without problematic elements, however. (I, for example, see little reason to categorize my body shape as an apple, pear, banana, or hourglass or to list my height, weight, and clothing sizes. Plus, they unfortunately have an advertising problem. All the ads I've seen are for things like Victoria's Secret and shapewear. Boo!) But I appreciate the site owners’ intention. It will be interesting to see how the site grows or is used over time.
A friend recently created the website Evolve the Aesthetic (ETA) with the intention of engaging women in the reclamation of their own beauty and encouraging the capacity of women to define for themselves the concept of beauty. The project's objective is to shift cultural ideals of beauty increasingly towards how women really look in their amazingly diverse manifestations of beauty. I expect that exciting, innovative stuff will be coming out of ETA, so keep your eyes on it.
Ovens, an illustrator (who authors the webcomic Effort Comics) offered this gem of a tutorial on how to draw boobs and ladybits in general. Based on the representations of women we see everywhere – be it comics, advertising, video games, etc. – a whole world of folks could benefit from her instruction.
I watched this hard-hitting documentary last week called "America the Beautiful." It originally came out in 2007, but does a really heart-wrenching job at asking the question “Is America obsessed with beauty?” And it begs a response to “Who benefits when young girls and women feel ugly?” You can watch the movie in its entirety on Hulu (with an account), through this Love Isn’t Enough blog post (where you just have to enter your birth date), or right here.
Health care
Women’s health care has been all over the news as of late. Here’s a few things to ponder:
Did you see Stephen Colbert's response to the Department of Health and Human Services's new policy that insurance companies must cover women’s birth control and preventative health care services (HPV vaccines, STI testing, etc.) without a co-pay? The Colbert Nation-provided tag reads: “Free birth control will wipe out the American race and instantly turn daughters into wanton harlots with insatiable sexual appetites.” I laughed. A lot.
Click to embiggen.
(Yes, I know that is not a
real word, but I like it.)
There has also been word that women's health care costs are expensive. (Shocking, right?!) Looking at just the services that would be provided under the new legislation, here’s what we’ve got. This fabulous info graph is courtesy of the folks at Good. What gets me about all this political arguing is that men’s health care (to the best of my knowledge) is covered by insurance companies by default while women’s health care has always been an “add on,” considered non-essential. 51% of the population has non-essential health needs. Awesome.
Economics and educational attainment
Some utterly depressed pay gap statistics were recently reported by the Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce in their report “The College Payoff: Education, Opportunity, Lifetime Earnings” (pdf). Here’s one of the key charts of findings.
Click to embiggen.
And in case you’re worried that you misread the notes in red (or they're just too small to read), here’s what they say: “Women have to have a Ph.D. to make as much as men with a B.A.” and “Men with some college but no degree earn about the same as women with a Bachelor’s degree.” That makes me feel GREAT as I work to finish my Master’s. But, as you can guess, women aren’t the only one’s losing out. People of color, too, aren’t earning as much as their white peers. The study introduction summarizes things pretty well, saying: “The findings are stark: Women earn less at all degree levels, even when they work as much as men. On average, women who work full-time, full-year earn 25 percent less than men, even at similar education levels. At all levels of educational attainment, African Americans and Latinos earn less than Whites.”
During snack time a few weeks back, a table of my students and I got into a discussion about superpowers (meaning superhuman abilities, not countries with international world influence). One of my students was celebrating her fifth birthday and had kindly brought pudding cups for everyone, and each chocolaty treat was accompanied by a Tinkerbell napkin.
One of the boys at my table (while devouring his way through the pudding cup) said, "I hate Tinkerbell. She’s stupid. Superman's so much cooler." There were mumbles of agreement from the other boys at the table and general silence, but wide-eyed attention, from the girls. Six pairs of eyes turned to me. Waiting. I said something along the lines of, "I bet Tinkerbell and Superman know each other. I mean, they both have superpowers, and how many people do you know who can fly? I bet they hang out." (And in case the truth is in question: yes, I’m that teacher; you know, the one that says stuff like this on purpose with the intention of making kids think. Though sometimes it just makes them think I’m crazy…)
For a short moment everything stopped. Everyone was quiet. But, you could see the kids’ minds kick into high gear, imaginations at work, processing and weighing the possibilities. It was as if each was asking him- or herself the question, "Is that possible? Could Superman and Tinkerbell actually know one another?! How would that work?!"
Then one boy (the one who had already declared his fairy-hate) said rather defiantly, "No way! They aren't even in the same show!" (Ah, media culture...)
I pushed my real point – "But they have the same superpower." There was a mumbling of discordant commentary. Finally I said, "Well, Tinkerbell flies, right? I mean flying is a superpower, right? So she has superpowers. The same superpower as Superman." My words were followed by a few seconds of tense, thoughtful silence. Then one of the girls responded, using the ‘sometimes we have to remind silly adults things that everybody knows’ voice. She said, "Fairies have 'special talents.'" She didn’t overtly add “And ‘special talents’ are NOT the same as superpowers” but that was the clear message. There were nods of agreement around the table. Another boy said, “And she doesn’t even have a real cape. Superman has a real cape. She doesn’t.” I replied, “She doesn’t have a cape at all. She has wings. And she flies.”
One of my students recently attached this image of herself
as a superhero to her Valentine to the class. Yippee!
The intention of this back and forth conversation wasn’t (necessarily) about who was going to ‘win,’ but rather about trying to push the kids to think about language in a different way. I wanted them to notice the words that they take for granted, and – without overly naming it with fancy jargon – moving them to see the gendered connotations of the words they use and the consequences of those connotations. All of the children could agree that Superman and Tinkerbell can both fly. In this situation, being able to fly is gender neutral; the kids accept examples of both males and females who can absolutely, without question, fly (at least in their imaginations and in stories). But, because of the gender socialization they have received and continue to be taught, when I say that Tinkerbell has ‘superpowers’ (a word socially marked as strongly masculine), the children have a feeling of disjuncture that they seek to alleviate – which they do by pushing back – by denying Tinkerbell’s possession of ‘superpowers’ and/or renaming her abilities as ‘special talents,’ words socially marked with a feminine connotation.
On the surface, this may seem like an innocuous, passing conversation, but to dismiss its implications so casually would be a mistake. Let me offer two similarly ‘innocent’ examples from the past few weeks:
First, a student and I were reading a children’s book about visiting other countries. The characters in the story travel by plane. We had a conversation that went like this:
Me: Would you ever like to be an airplane pilot, to fly a plane?
Her: No. [A perfectly acceptable answer.]
Me: Why?
Her: Girls can’t fly airplanes.
Me: Why not?
Her: Only boys can fly planes.
Through further conversation, it became clear that there was nothing I could say to convince her that women can, and do, indeed fly planes. She was firm in her belief that this was not an option open to her. (In the moment, I was so frustrated that I didn’t have a photograph or illustration showing a female pilot, but you never have those things when you need them.)
And second, on one of the recent days it was too cold to go outside to play, my student were watching a video adaption of the book Antarctic Antics: A Book of Penguin Poems by Judy Sierra and illustrated by Jose Aruego and Ariane Dewey. In one of the first poems a baby emperor penguin hatches and says, "I'm really hatched./ At last I'm free./ Hey, Dad, it's me!" My students immediately said, “That’s not the baby’s dad. That’s it’s mom,” to which I explained that male emperor penguins sit on the eggs to keep them warm 'til they hatch, so the ‘Dad’ would be the first parent a baby would see, not the ‘Mom.’ The kids were confused and somewhat resistant. As the video continued the children started seeing each penguin and shouting out, “That’s a boy. That’s a girl” – trying to identify the gender of each bird, even though the illustrations depict all of the birds as nearly identical. My students would say things like, “It’s a girl. Hear the voice?” To them it was like a playful game. To me they seemed almost frenetic in their determination to assign gender to the characters on the screen before them. It seemed intolerable and unacceptable to just not know someone's gender identity.
In all three of these examples – Superman vs. Tinkerbell, the gender of airplane pilots, and penguin genders – my students, who are four and five, have very clear ideas about acceptable gender categories and strategies for categorizing people and animals into those divisions based on appearance, other physical markers (like voice), and/or behavior. But even more so, they have concrete concepts of power attached to those gender divisions. On the whole, my students believe that Tinkerbell can’t have superpowers because she’s a girl. Only men can be airplane pilots. And it is important to be able to ‘read’ what gender category any given person or character falls into (and to my students there are only two viable categories – boy or girl). The implications of this are frightening to me. In addition to telling girls that they can only look and behave certain ways and only take on certain interests or work, the boys are being given equally clear messages, which seem to have quite a lot to do with aggression, domination, superiority, and entitlement. At the end of the day, everyone is screwed. And no one is truly free.
When I ask parents what they want or hope for their child(ren), they typically say (especially if they’re white and generally middle class or above) that they want their children to be happy and that they want their children to believe that they can be anyone or anything that they want to be. There is nothing wrong with those hopes. But, when everything about our culture – from media to books and from our schools to the socialization that takes place in our own homes – teaches kids from birth (and often before) that they can be whoever or whatever they want but only as long as they abide by very specific gender-based rules and norms, how does that make the world a more equitable place for children of all genders? How does that foster an environment where girls truly can be anything or anyone and an atmosphere where boys don’t have to be super-masculine to get their gender 'right'?
This figurine is in our classroom's
collection of pirate/castle gear. I adore
the unshaven, pink polka-dot look!
I don’t have my own children – which is probably a good thing because I think I would be the insane parent who no other parents would want to be around and no child would want to claim. I would likely go on tirades against pretty, pink princesses, I’d tell boys its okay to cry, and I’d be totally intolerable about all the research that talks about the ways we do our kids major disservices. But even without kids of my own, I do spend a lot of time with other peoples’ children. (Often, more time than they do.) And it’s fairly certain that I can’t singlehandedly change the course of how those kids think about (or don’t think about) gender and power issues related to gender. But I am in the position to push buttons, to instigate dialogue, and to challenge preconceived ideas. I’m able to ask my students, “Why do girls have 'talents' and boys have 'superpowers'?” And with adults I can offer a similar challenge: “Why are extraordinary abilities for female characters considered magical and used for things like making dewdrops and flowers and flitting daintily from blossom to blossom and being careful to stay out of the path of frightening humans? And why are extra-human capabilities for male characters considered outside the realm of magic (and more often contained in the realm of science) and such characters are fierce adventurers (as well as generally violent and destructive) who engage in battle, seek revenge, and expect admiration from the poor, weak populace? No, really, help a girl out. Why is it this way? I don't understand. And is this what we want our kids to learn about gender?”
At the end of the day, I want the world to look different. I want my students to believe that they can be airplane pilots, even the girls. And I want my students to believe that fathers are fully qualified and capable of being nurturing primary caregivers. I want me students to believe that gender is complicated and putting people in boxes can be limiting to everyone. If we feel free to be merely who we are, that’s more than enough.
And I want my students to know that fairies have superpowers.
It’s feeling about time that I get back to my “Video Spotlight” roots, as it were. Usually I post up short three or four minute videos. Not today. Today I’m asking you to take 13 minutes to listen to this BRILLIANT segment from this past Thursday’s The Rachel Maddow Show. Rachel discusses the rise of women candidates in the GOP and the logical analysis that women candidates can have an influence on women’s votes. She also explains that women (brace yourself) might not vote based on chromosomes, but rather on issues. Shocking, right?! Just as the number of women candidates in the GOP rises, so too rises that number of right-wingers, including women, who take the previously extreme view that abortion should be banned for ALL people, including victims of rape and incest. So, will women citizens vote for women candidates who propose greater and greater limits to women and girls’ reproductive rights? Hard to say. I hope not. They surely won’t have my vote.
In addition, the segment features a discussion with the wonderful Melissa Harris-Lacewell, a professor of politics and African American studies at Princeton University, who shares this gem:
"There is no place in the world and no time in history where restricting women's reproductive rights makes a people or a nation more free or more equal. These extreme positions on abortion are without any question a war on American girls and women, and the fact that there are women who are both complicit and participatory in it is really neither surprising nor unprecedented. It has always been true and it is incredibly important that we recognize that, despite the fact that we can be very proud of these women as women and as politicians, that the question is: how do women as citizens fair on the other side of them either being elected or not elected?"
And, if you need a little laugh/what-the-hell-is-wrong-with-you humor/sorrow in your life, you can give this little “Rachel Maddow is a lesbian vampire” segment from yesterday’s show a watch too. Wow.
Life's busy, but I wanted to highlight that Dessa Darling, an Minneapolis-based author, spoken word artist, and emcee that I really dig just dropped her first full length album -- A Badly Broken Code (which you can get more info about, download a free track off of, and/or buy here). Dessa's a member of the Doomtree Hip-Hop Collective and is also a founding member of The Boy Sopranos, an a cappella group. And she teaches composition, songwriting, and hip-hop at the college level. (Awesome, right?!)
I love the strong voice and raw talent she brings to her music. Swing by her MySpace page to hear a great sampling of her work, and below is the first video single, Dixon's Girl, from her album:
Being a woman in music, especially in hip-hop is not easy. Dessa wrote up a little essay at the turn of the year about her experience being a woman in hip-hop. Here it is:
My membership in Doomtree has been the largest single factor in my career as a hip hop artist. I make music with with smart, funny, good-hearted guys who aren’t particularly concerned with the fact that I’m a woman. So my gender hasn’t played a very large role in my process of making music. My gender has, however, affected the presentation of that music.
The fact that I’m female seems to be more interesting to listeners and critics than it is to the people I work with. And I think I understand why. Women are rare in hip hop and novelty is interesting. My private fear, as a person who hopes to have a sustainable career as an artist, is that people might become interested in me for the wrong reasons. Youth is brief and beauty is fleeting, and I don’t want to tether my reputation to variables that are so temporary–and that are completely distinct from my art and from my character. The challenge for me has been to find a way to work as a rapper without diminishing my gender (in effort to fit into a pretty masculine environment) or exalting it (for some easy coverage). It’s a surprisingly fine line, and honestly I’ve made missteps on either side of it.
The other primary challenge is probably even better known to actresses than to rappers. It involves trying to understand the motivations of men who profess to be interested in professional collaboration. To be totally frank, I’m a little nervous that this paragraph will come off as whiny–but it’s an honest account of my experience, so here goes:
As an artist, it’s marvelously exciting when someone you admire offers you a professional opportunity–it’s one of the best feelings in this line of work. As a single, female artist in her late twenties, one of the worst feelings you can have is when you realize that someone has offered you a professional opportunity because he’s hoping for a romantic encounter. The artist part of you feels disappointed because the proposed collaboration was not motivated by a respect for your art. The female part of you feels insulted for being deceived. The human part of you feels embarrassed for having hoped…and then been duped. Repeat this experience at a regular interval, year after year, and it’s hard not to feel a little jaded about the way that people work.
But all said and done…I love being a woman. And I love being an artist. And I’m privileged to live in a culture that allows me to be both in almost any manner that I please. The challenges are offset by the genuine responses that I get from listeners, and by the thrill I get working with the other artists in Doomtree.
Just wanted to bring a little attention to this spoken-word piece by Minneapolis based artist Desdamona. The beauty of women is deep and more than can be fit in any little box.
Desdamona says "Too Big for My Skin is not just a poem. It's a mind state. ... It's about positive body image, acceptance and strength. It's about finding your voice and speaking."
If you'd like to read the whole misogynistic, heteronormative, patriarchal book cover to cover, go here. Published in 1970, Whitney Darrow, Jr.'s I'm Glad I'm a Boy! I'm Glad I'm a Girl! was 'normal'. Today we still aren't far enough away from these messages about 'appropriate' gender roles to make me comfortable.
This is what I spend my time fighting against. (But the book itself can be used as a great tool of subversion and teaching critical literacy.)
[M]y twochildren and my wife and I were sitting around the kitchen table, eating dinner. I was mid-transition. My older son, Zach, gave me a look.
“What,” I said. He was 7.
“We can’t keep calling you ‘Daddy,’ ” he said. “If you’re going to be a girl. It’s too weird.” ...
“Well,” I said to my sons. “My new name is Jenny. You could call me Jenny.”
Zach laughed derisively. “Jenny? That’s the name you’d give a lady mule.”
I tried not to be hurt. “O.K., fine. What do you want to call me?”...
“I know,” he said. “Let’s call you Maddy. That’s like, half Mommy, and half Daddy. And anyhow, I know a girl at school named Maddy. She’s pretty nice.”
His younger brother,Sean, who was 5, said, “Or Dommy.’
We all laughed. Even Sean. Dommy! What a dumb name for a transsexual parent!
After the hilarity died down, I nodded. “Maddy might work,” I said.
I spend a lot of time with kids, and one thing I am frequently reminded of is the beautiful diversity of who makes up our families and the strength that we draw from those foundations.
At the end of the day, it is truly heartening for me to see more and more voices speaking out in love of the community we can build in our differences.
If you've got half an hour, watch Not Yet Rain, a short film by Lisa Russell, produced in association with Ipas. (Yes, you can watch it online.)
In their own words:
[The film] explores abortion in Ethiopia through the voices of women who have faced the challenge of finding safe care. Through their stories, we see the important role that safe abortion care plays in the overall health of women and their families.
Every year, millions of women around the world risk their lives to end unintended pregnancies. While a law enacted in 2006 marked great progress toward reproductive freedom in Ethiopia, Not Yet Rain shows that changing the law is just the first step; much more needs to be done as women continue to die from unsafe abortions. Training for health workers and increased availability of care could save the lives of women in Ethiopia and around the world.
While I am a (more than) happy supporter of vegetarianism and veganism, I can't get behind People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Hasn't happened yet. Can't see it happening anytime in the future. I agree with their stance that animal rights are vital issues in our contemporary society, especially when so many of our "interactions" with animals and animal products are mediated through factory farms, animal product processing centers, product testing on animals, and the clothing trade. Seeking changes that protect animals from cruelty, inhumane conditions, and abuse are issues affecting not only the animals themselves but also our human population. While I do not have a problem with people naturally eating meat because of my personal beliefs about our evolutionary position on the food chain and our natural design to be omnivores, I think we as a culture have worked really hard to pull ourselves out of the natural way of things. There is little that is natural about the production of much of our food, especially meat and meat products. As such, I fully support the many reasons people choose to become vegetarian or vegan -- be it concern for their own health due to the unnatural conditions that intercede in the production of our food (including the use of antibiotics, chemicals, synthetics, etc.); disdain for the cruelty inflicted upon animals in their journey to our grocery stores, food establishments, and stomachs; a deep respect for animals as living creatures worthy of living those lives to their full and natural ends; a contempt for the conditions endured by human laborers as they power the food industry at all levels (including fields, slaughterhouses, and the service industry); an economic unwillingness to financially support any of the harmful practices in our food industries; a simple dislike for meat or animal products; or any number of other valid and worthy reasons.
But, when it comes to PETA, the organization's utter and repeated failure to recognize the intersections of social justice issues prevents me from having any willingness to support their work. Whether intentionally or out of ignorance, their continual focus on animal rights, to the extent of perpetuating and reinforcing other social problems, serves (they think) to advance their cause while actually harming the equally vital efforts of other social movements. Allow me to give a number of examples to help clarify my frustration:
I. Most recently PETA wrote a letter to the commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection
We think that Mexicans and other immigrants should be warned if they cross into the U.S. [that] they are putting their health at risk by leaving behind a healthier, staple diet of corn tortillas, beans, rice, fruits and vegetables.
America is no longer the land of the free and home of the brave; it's becoming the land of the sick and the home of the obese.
In his Houston Chronicle article, reporter James Pinkerton described the proposed ad (see the picture), saying:
PETA says its billboards would picture "fit and trim" Mexicans in their own country, where their diet is more in line with the group's mission. Another image on the sign would portray obese American children and adults "gorging on meaty, fat- and cholesterol-packed American food."
While the government is expected to reject PETA's offer because it would limit visibility through the fence (a whole other topic I'm not touching today), the fact that PETA would be so ignorant of the larger social issues at play baffles me. Do they really believe that their "target audience" (which is who exactly? folks scaling the wall?) are going to be interested in their message? Or that it would deter them from crossing? I would think folks crossing the border have other things on their mind. Plus, does PETA think Mexican and other immigrant populations never eat meat or cook with meat products (uh, lard, anyone?!), or that they have the resources to eat healthily all the time, or even that healthy eating is not possible within U.S. borders? No offense, but I tend to believe that people desire to move across borders for a reason, and I think those reasons probably outweigh the food warning on a billboard. While I appreciate PETA's apparent concern for immigrant's diet and health, I am confused by their choice of actions. Rather than addressing the exploitation and dehumanization of immigrants and people of color working in the food processing industry, or addressing economic conditions that encourage people to leave their home nations to begin with (where apparently they have a better diet), instead PETA wants to put up an advertisement. I'm honestly lost. They are volunteering to participate in racist and economically oppressive action to further their cause.
II. PETA has a history of using women's bodies as sexual symbols to grab folks' attention and sell their message. In their "I'd rather go naked than wear fur" and "Be comfortable in your own skin. Don't wear fur" print campaigns, as well as a number of public protests, they've featured attractive women -- nude or nearly nude -- selling their message. Setting aside the sexist reality that they feature only conventionally attractive women and no men in their ads or public displays, when called out on the misogynistic nature of their ads and public protests, their response seemed to echo a "we'll do whatever works" ideology.
In a letter to the editor of the New York Times, PETA president Ingrid E. Newkirk said
While cruelty to animals is a serious matter that should elicit widespread public outrage, efforts to reach the public through more serious means often fall on deaf ears in a world in which sex sells and there are both a war and an economic downturn. ... Forgive us our bikinis and our shock tactics, but our message that all beings — both human and nonhuman — deserve compassion and respect is one that we must work hard to make heard.
So, if understand correctly, what they're saying is that sex sells. Well, no shit, but that doesn't mean you should use it. Disrespecting woman to promote animal rights does not seem like a progressive, forward-moving approach to me.
(And on an equally depressing side note, did you hear about the world's first vegan strip club? Casa Diablo Gentlemen's Club in Portland. According to Fox News coverage (of course, and caution: totally raunchy website for video link), the club's motto is "Vixens not veal, sizzle not steak. We put the meat on the pole, not on the plate." Sick. As Ann at Feministing says so well, "[They're] using the 'ideal' female body type -- something men want and women want to be -- as an incentive to go vegan. This is deeply fucked up, especially because there are dozens of real, compelling reasons to switch to a vegan lifestyle -- none of them based on sexist bullshit.")
III. On July 31 of this year, Tim McLean, a passenger on a Greyhound bus en route to Winnipeg, was brutally stabbed and beheaded by a fellow bus passenger, a stranger. Apparently the assailant, Vince Weiguang Li, began eating part of McLean's body. And PETA's response was an attempt to run a newspaper ad with the following text:
"Manitoba... An innocent young victim's throat is cut... His struggles and cries are ignored... The man with the knife shows no emotion... The victim is slaughtered and his head cut of... His flesh is eaten. It still goes on!" ... "If this ad leaves a bad taste in your mouth, please give a thought to what sensitive animals think and feel when they come to the end of their frightening journey and see, hear, and smell the slaughterhouse. Try switching to a healthy vegetarian diet and save lives every day, including your own."
I don't know about you, but as much as I support a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle, using such a tragedy to get people to eat more veggies doesn't sit well with me. I understand what PETA wants to say and the passion with which they're trying to say it, but I think they went about it in a pretty insensitive, disrespectful way. (That's an understatement.)
While it isn't every day that a human is violently attacked and eaten by another human, it's worth noting that it is the norm for many people not to give any thought to the fact that restaurants are serving flesh that comes from innocents who were minding their own business before someone came after them with a knife. How amazingly and conveniently compartmentalized the human mind is…
Now, to the best of my knowledge, the ad was rejected by the local paper, but even the thought that trying to run it was a good strategy just doesn't work for me.
All that said, where do we stand? In efforts to support animal rights PETA uses racism, sexism, and the exploitation of tragedy to further their cause. Ignoring the trade-off they are willing to make to further their intentions does not, and will not, convince me to support their version of "social justice."
UPDATE: These people never stop. 2 quick hits: 1. PETA recently submitted a commercial they hoped to air during the Superbowl. It got rejected by NBC for "depict[ing] a level of sexuality exceeding our standards." The commercial is part of PETA's "Veggie Love" campaign. When will they learn that there are better ways and means to promote vegetarianism than using sex(ism) and women's bodies? They really, really suck at understanding the whole intersectional exploitation thing. (To read more, Melissa over at Shakesville has laid out the argument quite clearly.)
2. PETA is using KKK imagery to protest the American Kennel Club, meaning that PETA protesters are dressing up like the KKK in both video campaigns and live protests (standing on the street outside Madison Square Gardens handing leaflets to passersby -- the ones who stop to strangers dressed like the KKK). I am not shitting you. I am trying to understand how dressing up like the most notoriously racist terrorist group in American history is okay and I just can't figure it out. As Cara over at Feministe suggested:
This is not progressive. Do you hear me? This is not progressive. And the progressive movement needs to cut off this organization entirely and let reasonable, smart animal rights organizations that fight just as hard without sacrificing the dignity of humans take over. Now.
So I've been thinking a lot about sexism, patriarchy, and feminism lately... (What an opening line, right?! Gimme a break. I'm an academic in denial.) And, in a seemingly unrelated and perhaps contradictory vein (just wait), I've been reading a lot of fiction this summer, trying to ease my mind with the joyful nature of written language before the looming school year forces me back into writings' excruciatingly complex, theoretical, and brain-mushing side. On Thursday morning I finished reading Stephenie Meyer's debut novel Twilight which has been on my reading list for a little while now. I tend to find a lot of pleasure in reading young adult fiction, a genre too often highly underrated. Upon completion of my chosen light reading, I have found myself quite conflicted. Why? Sexism, patriarchy, and feminism.
First of all, I think Twilight is a brilliant story. (I'll do my best not to write any spoilers for those who haven't read the book but would like to. Read freely, eager readers, read!) Meyers has written, in Bella Swan and Edward Cullen, rich lead characters, paid exquisite attention to detail, and penned a story that literally raises your pulse and makes your heart ache with exhilaration, anxiety, longing, and general emotional conflict. She has essentially written the eternal love story -- two star-crossed individuals tempted by a forbidden love and thus living out their relationship with the heartbreaking understanding that they are destined to be one another's destruction. While Meyer doesn't focus on it, the story has a deep core of melancholy, impossible desire, and breathtaking sadness. Think along the lines of the most tragic rendition of Romeo and Juliet you've ever seen or read, add vampires and a lot of rain, and you've got Twilight. In a number of ways the story reminds me of several ancient Chinese or Japanese legends, so many of which end tragically and heartbreakingly: a lover drowning him or herself in the sea from sorrow, broken promises that destroy love and goodness, magical transformations that show the heartbreaking true nature of persons -- stories that show utter sadness and sorrow in ways often missing in Western tales. But, I felt it in Twilight.
That said, as I read Twilight, I found myself mentally reliving fantasies of "love" from early adolescence in which I would be in some horrible predicament and my beau would swoop down and rescue me in his big, strong, brave way -- saving the day and protecting me from harm. (Gag me.) Twilight exactly mirrors these depictions of love that rely on ideas of men as brave, strong protectors and women as innocent, meek, mild flowers in need of being taken care of. Stories of utter dependence and domination. (Puke.) Seriously, I've spent the past 15 years redefining my ideas of relationships, intentionally working to counter these lies we've been told about how the perfect love story is lived out. And here it is today, in print, in my hands, presented in beautifully, heartbreakingly devastating prose telling me again these falisies. I want to wilt in the sadness of that recognition.
Just as a recap, the essential story of Edward and Bella's relationship is something like this: Edward's been a vampire for a hundred years or so, but always alone. Then he meets Bella and is fascinated. (Gotta love the "I've roamed the earth for a century and never found anyone who makes me feel like you do" motif. It pulls at the heartstrings of girls and women who never learned better. Do I sound bitter?) On the flip side, in an interview with Entertainment Weekly Meyer said,
Bella is an every girl. She's not a hero, and she doesn't know the difference between Prada and whatever else is out there. She doesn't always have to be cool, or wear the coolest clothes ever. She's normal. And there aren't a lot of girls in literature that are normal.
Being 'normal' and 'everyday' is fine and wonderful (really, I mean it), but if Bella really is 'everyday' and 'normal,' I'm a little scared. While Bella is feisty, quick-witted, and intelligent, she also spends most of the book falling all over Edward, who just happens to like her back. Lucky her. Envision the most "Oh, I love him so much. I can't live without him. I don't know why he likes me. But, he's gorgeous and I would do anything for him" angsty teen image you can drag up. That's Bella. (And, true-to-God, I say that with love. Cuz Lord knows, I love these characters.)
When it comes down to it, I am really concerned about the power dynamics in this whole thing. And when I say "power" I mean a number of things. Yes, physical power. Edward could kill Bella in a second. No questions asked. He could do anything with/to Bella, with or without her consent. Physically, he's got that strength. But, emotionally and psychologically, he controls himself. And we're supposed to love him for it. (And we do.) Bella, on the other hand, what's she got? Undying love. That's about it. She's okay with Edward spying on her at school and watching her while she sleeps and asking her to tell lies to protect their relationship -- because she loves him. But, take that love away, and what do you have? A stalker. Once again, I've gotta say, I love Edward, but seriously, if Bella ever put her foot down -- which she wouldn't -- their whole situation would look so different. So, when I say "power" I'm talking about something much deeper than physical power. I'm talking about that exceedingly fine line between permission and domination. About the role of an individual's will as it interacts with someone else's. We accept Edward's behavior because Bella accepts it, sometimes even welcomes it. Does that make her, or him, wrong-minded? Not necessarily. It's just a reminder of how emotions filter our understanding of the world. Significantly.
So, what am I saying? Um, I think Bella, despite her displays of strength and perseverance, is in a supremely unbalanced relationship which seems to be tied up in the difficult grey spaces surrounding issues of will and domination. Plus, we've got that added layer of the female character as the submissive, household duty fulfilling, "I'll do anything because I love you" role, which mostly sucks cuz we as a society are still fighting, fighting, fighting to offer alternative views of womanhood. If this is the role you choose for yourself, fine, but I want to know that you think you had an option, a true choice, not that your womanhood was defined in this way because it's the only way. Do you see my distinction here? (And on a side note, I also read the whole Uglies series by Scott Westerfeld this summer. It's an excellent series critiquing the consumptive, beauty and fame dominated ideologies of society, and the main character is a strong, take-no-crap girl named Tally who embodies femininity and womanhood very differently than Bella and STILL gets the guy(s). Check it out.)
Now, to Bella's credit, at one point in the book (p. 473-474) she says
I'll be the first to admit that I have no experience with relationships, but it just seems logical... a man and a woman have to be somewhat equal... as in, one of them can't always be swooping in and saving the other one. They have to save each other equally. ... I can't always be Lois Lane. I want to be Superman, too.
So she sees this inequality, this power-differential, and identifies it as a problem for her. But I can't say I'm in love with her solution. (Uh, changing SPECIES for a guy?! Uh...)
Leonard Sax, in an article for The Mercury News in Silicon Valley, talks about the gender roles in the Twilight series this way:
The lead male characters, Edward Cullen and Jacob Black, are muscular and unwaveringly brave, while Bella and the other girls bake cookies, make supper for the men and hold all-female slumber parties. It gets worse for feminists: Bella is regularly threatened with violence in the first three books, and in every instance she is rescued by Edward or Jacob. In the third book she describes herself as "helpless and delicious." ... For more than three decades, political correctness has required that educators and parents pretend that gender doesn't really matter. The results of that policy are upon us: a growing cohort of young men who spend many hours each week playing video games and looking at pornography online, while their sisters and friends dream of gentle werewolves who are content to cuddle with them and dazzling vampires who will protect them from danger. In other words, ignoring gender differences is contributing to a growing gender divide.
So, why am I blathering on about all this? Here's the big reason: I, as a grown-up, trying-to-be-critical-of-the-world-around-me woman, can have this whole little conversation with myself (see above) about the power dynamics in this vampire-human love story. But I'm not the target audience for this book. The book is marketed as a young adult novel and has been supremely popular with the 12-17 year old girl bracket (aka - middle school, high school girls). And it worries me. (Do you wanna see what I'm talking about? Check out this short vid from Twilight's reception at Comic-Con in San Diego. Couple key quotes, in additional to all the adolescent screaming: "She skipped school [to come]..."; "We screamed! It was awesome!"; "Obsessive Cullen Disorder." Sigh...)
Do I think young people should be prevented from reading the book? Absolutely not. If they want to read it, read it. (I'm not into banning books, or restricting who reads what books. I think banning books is bad. And mean.) But, are young people talking about the power dynamics of this love story? I don't know. But I haven't been seeing signs that they are.
Plus, I think the series is about to get way more popular, possibly with a wider audience. Twilight, the movie, is coming out November 21, 2008 (taking the release slot Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince vacated when their release got moved to Summer 2009) and is likely to draw big crowds. Lots of folks say the book/movie franchise is likely to be the next Harry Potter. I don't think it's going to go that far, but it might make a stir. Think about this: The movie cast is led by Kristen Stewart (of Jumper, Into the Wild, Zathura, and Panic Room fame) playing Bella and Robert Pattinson (who's best known for playing Cedric Diggory in two Harry Potter films) playing Edward. Add Catherine Hardwicke as director (Thirteen and The Nativity Story), Melissa Rosenberg as the screenwriter (writer/producer on Dexter, The O.C., writer of Step Up, etc.), and Carter Burwell on the score (No Country for Old Men, Intolerable Cruelty, A Knight's Tale, Being John Malkovich, The Big Lebowski, Fargo, etc. etc.) and WHOA. (And, on a side note, Meyer's stipulation when she signed over rights for the movie was that the film had to be rated no higher than PG-13, which I assume it tied to her desire to support a film she feels comfortable watching as a practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. To read more about how Meyer's Mormon philosophy affected her writing of the Twilight series, check out this article in TimesOnline. The book is brimming with sexual tension and implied violence, but Hardwicke is on board too, so I expect the PG-13 goal will be met.)
Just for fun, here's the film's trailer:
All that said, do I plan to read the other three books in the series? Absolutely. Do I plan to watch the movie? Probably. Does any of that abate my concerns about the messages being reinforced about the roles of men and women in relationships? No. It's just a reminder that issues of feminism, sexism, and patriarchy are crazy complicated. And just like in Meyer's story, sometimes you're tempted by the "evil" but the real question is how you deal with it.
UPDATE: So, I finished New Moon, book two in the series, and I'm disappointed. I keep seeing other people with these little decorative buttons sayings "Bella takes feminism back 100 years." Now I know why. (If you're not into spoilers, stop reading.) The first hundred pages demonstrates very clearly that Bella does not exist as a complete and individual person outside the context of her failed relationship with Edward. Then the next 150 pages describe her apathy towards life and self, her deep emotional imbalance, and her self-destructive tendencies. I can cut a girl some slack for being heartbroken, but the heartbreak Bella lives is a denial of her own worthwhile humanity, and I think it sucks, sends bad messages about women and love, and is frankly annoying. Moving on, I really like Jacob, but think Bella treats him like shit. She's a user and drops him in a second when it suites her. Regardless of her 'remorse' or 'guilt' or whatever, the ease with which she treats her self-proclaimed best friend with such lack of concern or consideration is crap. She's fickle, and once again willing to sacrifice literally EVERYTHING for the love of her man. It makes me grumpy. - 9/10/08
UPDATE: No time like the present for yet another update, eh? So, I watched Twilight the movie the weekend after Thanksgiving, finished Eclipse in early December, and wrapped up Breaking Dawn on New Year's day. (Happy 2009, y'all.) My response? (Spoilers are included, so stop reading if you don't wanna know.) Ho-hum. That's my response: ho-hum.
I guess my summary would be that in the last two books we lose some of the richness that could have been our main characters (Bella, Edward, and Jacob). While the action is rich (and highly compatible with film-making), true emotional depth and complexity gets a bit lost, I think. Eclipse was essentially an angsty book -- Edward being his overbearing, overprotective self (which got annoying), Jacob being his heartbroken teenage self (which also got annoying), and Bella being endlessly selfish, failing to be decisive about how she deals with others' emotions, and thus hurting everyone more than necessary (also annoying). Though, I must admit, the battle at the end of the book was pretty amazing.
Breaking Dawn was LONG, at 756 pages, and became a series of plot points that really reduced our characters to predictable protagonists. Meyer's writing is compelling, so you are engrossed and keep reading, but I think she betrays her own potential (that sounds harsh in a way I don't really intend it to...) by truly transforming Bella into a Mary Sue. She becomes a vampire and is PERFECT. Lucky her. Our fallible (and thus humanly lovable) Bella is gone. In the end, the story is resolved as a happy ending, ride-off-into-the-sunset series. Worth reading. (And a quick read.) But, a bit disappointing.
The Twilight movie was okay. I took my dad for an "outsider's" perspective, and he liked it. I did too, I think. Nothing amazing, but good. I would say all the reviews (the good and bad) are pretty on par.
Also, there was a very interesting conversation over at Racialicious titled "The Politics of Wizards and Vampires" about the ideological differences between the left-leaning Harry Potter books and the right-leaning Twilight series. (The post was written by the awesome Alisa Valdes-Rodriquez, who I know best from having written the wonderful ChicaLit novel The Dirty Girls Social Club.) While I agree with most of the analysis, I think it's important to be careful not to paint one side or another as 'right' or 'wrong,' because we are talking about deep ideological differences. In the end we will all choose our stances, but it's important to think about the many sides of every story before (and after) we do so. The entry is definitely worth a read, especially for those that have read both series.
Also, Stephenie Meyer has posted an interesting response to some folks' claims that Bella is an anti-feminist heroine. I'm not really interested in discussing it in-depth, but I agree with Meyer that feminism is about choice and I agree that Bella should be free to make whatever choices she wants (to end her mortal life, to get married at 18, to abstain from a life-saving abortion). Rock on, Bella. Do your thing.
My critique is that I think feminism is something bigger. It's about creating free-will choices for everyone -- men and women -- with less social pressure to choose certain paths. Meyer says,
"I never meant for her [Bella's] fictional choices to be a model for anyone else's real life choices. She is a character in a story, nothing more or less. On top of that, this is not even realistic fiction, it's a fantasy with vampires and werewolves, so no one could ever make her exact choices. ... Also, she's in a situation that none of us has ever been in, because she lives in a fantasy world."
The argument that "this is fiction; it doesn't mean anything in real life" doesn't work for me. I believe that all artistic creation and expression is a reflection of our understanding of 'real' life and impacts the ways we live life. Thus, saying the Twilight stories have no impact on the thinking or living of readers is a fallacy.
Is Bella and the whole Twilight saga an anti-feminist set of writings? I don't know. And I don't think the answer matters. The value of the question is in the conversations that emerge around the ideas and the ways those conversations impact our understanding of ourselves, our world, and the place of feminism in it. -1/3/09
Yesterday was Father's Day, and sadly, I wasn't able to spend it with my father. And while I sent him a card, I feel like the card itself was a shoddy representation of the importance of fatherhood and my father's role in my life.
As I sifted through the available cards early this week I wanted to puke. If the cards are any representation of our culture's understanding and expectations for fatherhood, we're in some serious trouble. Most of the cards displayed images of 'typical' fathers: men engaged in the sports of fishing, golfing, and hunting; men working with tools in the garage or grilling in the backyard; men watching TV or having a beer with his buddies. But the unstated, common theme was this removal of the man from his family. I didn't see any representations of families together, of fathers with their children, and certainly no men HAPPY to be with their families. Most of the cards seemed to say that the reward of Father's Day was that the man could have a day of freedom, a day to do whatever made him happy, which inevitably meant doing something separate from his family, something removed from the apparent shackles of family responsibility.
Now, I am in no way saying that men shouldn't have the freedom to enjoy and support their own individuality. I'm ALL for that. I believe individuality is part of wholeness and part of being able to be a part of functioning family. What I'm afraid of is the way that all these greeting cards show men as individuals trapped in a family, restricted, living a life lacking freedom and repressing their masculinity. As if no man chooses fatherhood or enjoys it or values it. I've got to admit, that crap makes me really angry. The way we paint masculinity in our culture denies everyone -- especially men -- the potential joy and importance of living a real, rich fatherhood. We still draw this divide that deems the home the place of the woman, of family, of femininity -- a place stifling to manhood and 'true' manliness. How many times have you heard the jokes about sissy men who stay home to take care of their children or are supposedly not 'real' men because they go to their child's dance recital or join the PTA, or for heaven's sake, give up watching a football game with the boys to have an afternoon with their children. We chastise men ALL THE TIME for trying to be good fathers and dedicated members of their families. And deny them the opportunity to even see their efforts positively reflected in the media -- like those damned greeting cards. We have this unstated fear/loathing/distrust of men who live out fatherhood as a privilege, a joy, and a huge responsibility demanding of effort, compassion, and love, rather than just a societal obligation to their spawn. I'm finding it difficult to articulate, but think about it this way: Father's Day cards typically show men being 'masculine' -- playing sports, being independent, etc. etc., NOT being with their families. Mother's Day cards, on the contrary, frequently show women with their children or families, with tons of flowers, or with other girly stuff. You don't see Mother's Day cards of women getting their nails done, shopping at the mall, having coffee with a friend (more gender stereotypes...) -- aka, disconnected from her children, the thing that makes her a mother. Do you see what I'm saying? Why do so many Father's Day cards (just as one tiny example) separate fathers from their children, the definition of their fatherly identity? My problem here is the division created in our culture by divergent expectations for male and female gendered behavior and parenting.
That said, HUGE thumbs down from me to all the greeting card companies, and in domino effect, to us as a culture, for their/our failure to make Father's Day truly representative of the potential greatness of fathers. In the end, I got my dad some lame card with geometric squares all over it, and I wrote him a little polemic (similar to this, but shorter) about why I'm so grateful that he isn't the image of fatherhood represented by all these other media images. I have been blessed with a father who understands that Father's Day is about the gift of family, and I love him for that. And I am truly lucky to know that he loves me. What a wonderful reason to celebrate!
Now, if only everyone else could see the world my way maybe we could look at Father's Day as a celebration of real fatherhood, not a denial of 'real' masculinity. Am I asking too much?
UPDATE: I was just catching up on reading my beloved Boston's The Dig and read an article my friend Bridget Pelkie wrote titled "Golf, Fish, Pigeonhole: A Word Against Father's Day." I think we're on the same wavelength here! (And B, if you're reading this, nice article, girl!) - 7/19/08
Let's round out the month with a shout out to spoken word with a side dish of feminism.
I think Rafael Casal is the shit. His flow is sick, and his message critical. (And there I go again cross-breeding two language sets that are too often kept in separate corners.) Rafael's a talented young voice that gives thoughtful, heart-felt attention to very real issues through the fresh eyes of a generation seeking their (our) way in a mixed up world. He just came out with a hip-hop/rap LP – "As Good As Your Word" – at the end of January. And if you want to read "Barbie & Ken 101" in its final form (the piece was only about a week old in the vid) go here.
UPDATE: I recently read a short chapter written by Rafael entitled "Teaching Poetry Workshop" in Handbook of Social Justice in Education (2008) edited by Bill Ayers, Therese Quinn, and David Stovall. Good read. -- 8/2009
March is Women's History Month, so as a little shout-out to my fellow sisters, I wanted to post up a video tied to a relevant women's issue (so many to choose between). (And, really, women's issues are everybody's issues. Just as a reminder.) So, I'm posting a video that just came out in January celebrating the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, which was decided in January of 1973 (NOT all that long ago, really). With all the political talk intent on overturning Roe v. Wade today, it should be apparent the controversy and relevance this issue still holds. Put together by Naral Pro-Choice America this video speaks to the complexity of real women's lives. Women's decisions concerning choice are anything but simple and emotionless, and the video does a nice job of placing that complicated reality in the social, historical context of our world. As a woman, I want to know that my actions, my body, and my reproductive rights are MY choice, not the decision of lawmakers who know nothing about my life, my journey, or my needs. It is my responsibility to protect that right for myself, my friends, and my loved ones.
(And if you're interested in Faith Pennick's film, which is mentioned in the video, go here.)
Hey y'all. It's been a bit. I hope the new year is bringing good things your way. As for me, I've had a bit of a bee in my bonnet as of late (honestly, when do I not?). So, back in June I shared a short digital video I really dig -- Dove's 'Evolution.' (It looks like the original link is outdated. Here's where you can check out the video.) As part of their Campaign for Real Beauty, Dove released a follow up video a little while back entitled 'Onslaught.' Here it is:
Essentially the film highlights (subliminal-speed style) the advertising industry's common portrayal of women -- a highly sexualized version of womanhood -- and they close with the message “Talk to your daughter before the beauty industry does.” Rock on, right?
In and of itself, yeah, maybe. But, here's the part that gets my goat (not that I have a goat to be gotten, but for the sake of literary flow...): Dove's parent company is Unilever who, as we'll get to, seems to have some conflicting intentions. In describing the Dove brand, Unilever say things like:
In a world of hype and stereotypes, Dove provides a refreshingly real alternative for women who recognise that beauty comes in all shapes and sizes.
and
Our ground-breaking campaign for our new Dove Firming lotion, which features women of all shapes and sizes, ... underlines our commitment to breaking down stereotypes and enabling you to celebrate your beauty.
Yay! A brand that cares about me as a REAL woman -= no supermodel, no 100 pound, flawless youth decadently pretending the world is mine because of the body I've got to master it with. A company that believes women are more than boobs and asses. Finally. Woohoo! Raise a flag, do a dance, sing a song, and for the love of all that is good, buy Dove! Right? Perhaps not...
Unilevel is parent to a large number of brands, including Slimfast, Bertolli, Pond's, Country Crock, Hellman's, Knorr, Sunsilk, Vaseline, and Axe. You know Axe, right? It's the world's most popular brand of male grooming products (sold as Lynx in the UK, Ireland and Australia). On the Axe website, they describe the 'work' of their brand as follows:
The Axe Effect is the internationally recognized name for the increased attention Axe-wearing males receive from eager, and attractive, female pursuers. Regardless of where you live (shout-outs to Cindy and Diane in Dawson City, Yukon!) you can "get you some" Axe Effect by going to a store near you and purchasing one of our fine products.
With its coolly seductive fragrances and packaging, the brand has established itself as the world's top male grooming brand by coming up with a constant stream of new ideas to keep guys a step ahead in the mating game.
Um, uh, what? Axe is body spray (and other products for men) to help the male members of our species get a little leg up on the "mating game." You got that "get you some" innuendo, right? Yeah. Thought so. Hard to miss. Axe is a brand that's sole purpose is to help men get into girl's pants. Awesome. I feel so clean and wholesome now. And a bit objectified. Just a bit.
And, just to stress the point, if you visit the Axe website, you get an even clearer image of their view of women. After you get through Flash loading, oh, excuse me, I mean "Your mojo is loading," you have a couple options. You can watch a video about The Axe Vice Naughty to Nice Program designed to 'rehabilitate' all those unfortunate sweet women who have fallen victim to the irresistible lure of Axe products and as a result committed crimes. (It's the 'good girl gone bad' scenario, 'cuz really, does anyone want a bad girl who's already been bad? Seems not.) You can watch The World's Dirtiest Film. (I'm sure you get it. What more do I need to explain about that?) You can play the Dirty Rolling game to see 'how much dirty fun you can get into.' Mind you, if your digital giggling self and lip-locked partner roll over women to join your rolling trout in the mud you get bonus points. If you roll over men, you lose points. We only want one guy per dirty game, apparently. Or, and this may be my 'favorite,' you can download a "Long Lasting Axe V.I.X.E.N.S." (Very Interactive Xtremely Entertaining Naughty Supermodel) for your online pleasure. Is it fair for me to say yet that I hate these people?
(Okay, and for my own satisfaction, I also have to highlight that Unilever introduces Axe saying, "In the film The Matrix, Keanu Reeves is given two choices. He can either take a blue pill and wake up in the morning as if nothing has happened or pop a red pill and enter the unpredictable 'wonderland' of the Matrix. As millions of guys around the world know, Axe has taken the red pill." Just so we all know, The Matrix was inspired in part by a book written by Jean Baudrillard called Simulacra and Simulation. Simulacra and Simulation, like Baudrillard's other works, is a critique of contemporary consumer society, suggesting that our obsession with material things and the societal meanings we ascribe them (example: body spray makes you irresistibly sexy) leads to our own apathy, nihilism, and eventual destruction. We live in a world of constructed lies -- false images obscuring the truths of our existence. Essentially, everything we come to believe is in a falsehood. In The Matrix, Neo's acceptance of the red pill doesn't take him to a 'wonderland' where deodorant makes him every woman's sex dream; it takes him to a reality stripped of the images we place upon it -- exactly the opposite of the result Axe suggests. Just needed to point that out. Yeah, I'm a nerd. And I'm cool with that.)
And, just to make it more fun, Axe has fronted this 'band' called The BomChickaWahwahs who taut themselves as "the world's naughtiest band." And who are they? Well, a group of four lingerie-clad Axe minions whose theme song (uh, only song?) includes the lyrical anthem:
Bom chicka wah wah. It’s the labido’s mantra.
Yeah it goes bom chicka wah wah. Mmm, baby come to mama.
The scent goes up through the nose and then into the brain
Attacks the common sense, whose always super lame...
It invades a woman’s mind. Her limbic region goes insane.
She’ll start aching for a man and acting so profane.
It’s a sexual turrets. Strange words break out your mouth.
We’re here to warn all you girls: there’s a monsoon headed south. ...
How to explain this sensual feeling,
Somehow my panties end up on the ceiling.
Even guys we cannot stand have us eating from their hands. ...
Bom chicka wah wah...
(There is also a music video, which I can't quite bring myself to post here, but if you want to see it, go here. It's also on the band's website.)
Have I highlighted enough examples yet to demonstrate the demeaning way women are portrayed by the Axe brand? So, then how do we (you, me, whoever cares) reconcile the reality that Unilever actively promotes Dove, a brand claiming a desire to break from the traditional messages of women as sexual objects and promote a more realistic view of women, while also pushing Axe, a brand centrally grounded in the promotion of women as sex-objects to be mastered/owned/conquered (whatever language you prefer) through the purchase of products? (This is the stuff that keeps me up at night, folks. Seriously.)
So, what do we do about it? Do we deny the value of Dove's messages? Well, no. If they impact positive growth or change, I wouldn't deny them that power, nor would I want to. But, recognizing the purpose-serving motives of advertisers is important as well. Unilever, through Dove, promotes 'real' women as a marketing ploy, just as Unilever, through Axe, promotes women as sex-objects as a marketing ploy. They create the same material they warn us to save our daughters from. Unilever's mission says
Our mission is to add Vitality to life. We meet everyday needs for nutrition, hygiene and personal care with brands that help people look good, feel good and get more out of life.
And regardless how it is framed, the company's purpose is to stay in business, to make money. And apparently it doesn't matter whether you do that by portraying me as a 'real' woman or as a sex object. Whatever sells. And it's too bad, really, because I've got this soft spot for companies that are interested in serving real people, not the almighty dollar. And my cash follows my interest.
P.S. - If you'd like to do something about Unilever's hypocrisy, one option is to join a letter writing campaign being led by the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. You can encourage Unilever to consider the mixed messages they endorse in their expressions of concern for girls' and women's well-being while also positioning women as sexual objects.
i don't know what i am anymore, and i think that's just fine. i've returned to academia, taking the good with the bad. if you ask me what i do, on the bad days i'll say i'm a "slave to an instituationalized oppressive system." on the good, i'll say i'm a "student who is an adventurer in the art of learning" (P. Freire).
