Showing posts with label image. Show all posts
Showing posts with label image. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

At least that's the appropriate use for "bitch"...

I stumbled upon this while I was surfing the web in search of ideas for a Halloween costume for my dog...

Not only can modern, post-feminist, empowered women dress like slutty schoolgirls/nurses/prison wardens this Halloween, but they can also dress their pet as a slutty [insert chosen variation on the theme of sexual objectification here] girl-dog!

How lucky are we!

*sigh*
I don't know what's more disappointing:
a) the mere fact that someone thought this was a great idea
b) the fact that some women - and men - will actually buy those costumes; or
c) the fact that they felt the need to remind their audience that women are human beings, just like the men who objectify and commercially exploit them, by naming that section of the website "matching costumes for female dogs and female humans".
Ugh.
***
*Surprisingly*, this website didn't seem to have a similar section of sexy matching Halloween costumes for men - even though they are sensitive enough to gender differences to distinguish between "male dog costumes" (such as the pimp dog, the cowboy dog, the astronaut dog...) and "female dog costumes" (such as the "doggie bride", the fairie princess dog, and the dog cheerleader costume)...
***
This, on the other hand, is cute.

Monday, February 25, 2008

Newsflash: PETA confirm they're anti-fur, anti-women

Actually, it's no news that PETA has frequently resorted to objectifying women as a medium to get its message across.

To my eyes, this blunt and often quite gory objectification of the female body, and the distasteful sexualization of violence against women could already be characterized as pornography.

But now they've officially crossed the line between the radical feminist interpretation of what constitutes pornography, and that of the mainstream public.

As a matter of fact, PETA has teamed up with Suicide Girls, a so-called "alternative" pornography website for its new campaign against fur. Seemingly nubile, skinny pornography models strike falsely coy poses, and are tagged with the slogan "I'd rather go naked than wear fur."

Please do complain to PETA if you feel shocked by their exploiting women to promote their ideas. (And prepare yourself to get a patronizing, "you should know that there's nothing shameful about the female body, you should learn to love yourself", touchy-feely kinda crap of an answer.)

***

Just a few quick facts about Suicide Girls (no, I won't link to their website).
  • Although they flatter themselves for allegedly featuring "alternative porn" and models, they mainly feature very young, skinny, conventionally beautiful, able, hairless, White women (though apparently, some of the models are "alternative" to the extent that they've got tattoos, piercings or still a little pubic hair left);
  • They objectify women for money;
  • Suicide Girls is - no shit - run by men;
  • The company's managers have been accused of exploiting their female employees - yes, the very same people who are being objectified in such a progressive way;
  • And please, what's with the name? Since when is suicide considered as sexy? Since when one's self-destruction gets people off? WTF.

Thursday, December 6, 2007

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

The End of Real Women

I'm not making this up. The signs are everywhere. Real women - of the thinking, feeling, natural kind - are facing extinction.


We are being replaced. We are being replaced by pictural and mechanical versions of ourselves that are better than we'll ever be. The pornography industry is more powerful than ever on its own. In addition, it is fueled by the creativity of misogynistic inventors from all over the world, and by the fierce marketing of products that target to women.


Slowly but surely, real women are being replaced. The notion of genuine womanhood is being replaced, with a more aggressively marketed, manufactured femininity ideal, that is impossible for real women to compete with, let alone attain.


Real women are facing a choice: they can either try to run with it and try to commit to the rules of this pornified femininity, or disappear.


Or rather, the notion that it is acceptable to call ourselves women when we cannot or do not want to conform to these norms will disappear.


***


After all, the utility and likeability of rea women is so limited. We don't come anywhere close to being acceptable, porn-grade women.


Real women think, feel and express themselves. We are not silent, passive and cannot be shut down at will by our male owner.


Real women are complex sexual beings. We do not orgasm at the mere push of a button, and we don't have knobs and switches that make us moan.


All real women don't moan.


Real women don't always want to have sex with their partners. Nor can they follow their husbands wherever they go just so they will be sexually available if and when he feels like getting off.


Real women have a mind of their own, a life and a history, with which their life partner necessarily has to cope.


Real women don't have "perfect," plastic bodies. Real women have hair, wrinkles, and uneven skin. Real women don't wake up in the morning with their hair done and their make-up on. Real women don't perpetually look like they're 14. Real women age.

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Finally, an intelligent film with ... um... bite?

There's a new film coming up called Teeth, that sounds really interesting and that I'd really like to see (that is, if and when it's released in Canada).

It's the story of Dawn, an introverted high school student, who, as a typical female teenager, feels awkward about boys, dating, sex and her own body. Dawn tries to deal with her contradictory feelings by being part of some abstinence club, and keepings things platonic with her boyfriend.

The twist is that, when he attempts to sexually assault her, she discovers that her vagina actually has teeth, which leaves her boyfriend in a sorry state and herself in possession of an unexpected weapon against male violence.

From the reviews I have read so far, this "horror comedy" is a pretty good commentary on sexual education politics, male attitudes towards female sexuality, and women's relation with their bodies:

"If you get over the rather distasteful subject matter and focus on what's beneath the surface, you'll find a flick that's got a whole lot to say about young women and their fear of burgeoning sexuality, society's general distaste (and, let's face it, fear) of the female sex organ, and the ways in which men do a serious disservice to womankind by treating their "naughty bits" as if they're something to be ashamed of. Teeth covers all this ground (and a whole lot more), and I suspect it's more open-minded and honest than most of what passes for "sex ed" these days. This movie offers enough meaty subtext to fill three semesters and it does so in a shocking, humorous and strangely compassionate fashion.

...

"I'm of the opinion that audacity is something to be admired in today's cinematic world, and Teeth has audacity to spare. Fortunately for the brave movie-watcher, the film is also very smart, slick and entirely unashamed to throw a few nasty shocks into the equation ... if that's what it takes to get the point across. As Dawn begins to realize that her privates possess a decidedly unsavory set of dental features, the phrase "sex as a weapon" begins to take on a whole new meaning. Lichtenstein bravely refuses to shy away from the sticky questions and icky repercussions, which elevates Teeth beyond the label of "interesting curiosity" and right into the realm of 'brazen brilliance.'"

(Click here for the full review.)

Teeth was shown at the Berlin Film Festival 2007, and at the Sundance Film Festival 2007, where actress Jess Weixler (who plays the lead role) won the Special Dramatic Jury Prize for Acting.

***

Here is the trailer:



The only thing that makes me tick with this film is the fact that its trailer calls it a "cautionary tale for men."

Why would it be? Because hurting women is OK? Because our ladyparts are, indeed, weird and dangerous? *sigh*

Monday, October 29, 2007

This is really fucked up...

... not to mention incredibly disturbing.

What more is there to say? Besides the fact that it's hateful and creepy? That it makes you want to kill the guy in the picture, the genius who came up with this brilliant concept, and every person on this earth who considers this funny and/or socially harmless?

More about creepy commercial uses of dismemberments of the female body here and here.

Friday, June 22, 2007

Just how many things are wrong with this?

Here's a disgusting ad for Vagisil.



Hum...

If you've answered that:
  1. It actually compares the smell of one's vagina to that of a skunk or a lobster;
  2. It says "down there" instead of "vagina", despite the obvious clue from the product's very name;
  3. It associates vaginas with animal, subhuman and unpleasant creatures;
  4. It suggests that unless you have a plastic-like and perfectly sanitized and germ-free vagina, you can't call yourself a "real" woman;
  5. It suggests that vaginal infections are a valid reason for feeling ashamed of your body;
  6. All of the above

...you've got it right. Have a cookie.

This is just irresponsible marketing. How many of us women already feel ashamed and uncomfortable with their normal bodily functions? How many women can't say the V-word without blushing - let alone say it at all in public?

I just hate the whole "feminine hygiene" products thing. The whole aisle. As if one's period was inherently dirty. As if having a vaginal infection is necessarily attributable to one's lack of hygiene. To me, it just seems that this industry aims at - or at the very least, is complicit in - perpetuating outdated shame-inducing ideas about the female body.

***

It's interesting to look at anthropological data, namely with respect to First Peoples, to get different perspectives. Take the Innu, for instance, a traditionally matriarcal society. In the Innu culture, menses were considered as a time of rest and meditation. A menstruating woman would be left alone in a special tent, and would be discharged from her daily chores and activities. Other people would cook for her, as she was expected to meditate and to thereby facilitate the purification of her body. It was believed that if a man were to touch her, he would instantly go blind.

When the Innu were christianized, mainly by Catholic missionaries, those traditional beliefs started to change. Women stopped teaching girls about their bodies, and instructed them that they were to consider sex outside marriage as sinful and menstruation, as a time of impurity.

***

Why the vagina-hating? It's the patriarchy, stupid!

Sunday, June 3, 2007

They did NOT just do that...

I guess it was bound to happen, sooner or later. Brace yourselves folks, because there's apparently a Bratz movie coming up.

From the trailer, it looks and sounds pretty daunting. Four "best friends" who are separated by an evil classmate and equally evil high school cliques, but who ultimately get (1) revenge over their bitchy classmates and (2) the guy.

I mean, the trailer contains spoilers. Talk about an intellectually challenging films for girls...



***

For those who have been living on another, non-oversexed planet for the past fews years, the Bratz in question are a line of raunchy dolls, who wear too much make uk, strike porn-inspired poses, dress up as hookers, and yet are - du-uh! - marketed at grade-school girls.

Why the shock and outrage? After all, dolls have been used to dumb down little girls for ages and to indoctrinate them into accepting patriarchal norms of female sexual behaviour. (After all, Barbie's ancestor Lili was a pin-up cartoon character/sex toy.

But the Bratz go way beyond that. We live in a world where we are just starting to realize the adverse effect of an oversexed culture on children and teenagers - and particularly, girls. Yet, Bratz maker MGA Entertainment somehow figured that it was cool and advisable to sell, pornified toys to little girls, like say, a thong-wearing baby, or a doll sold with a "secret date", glasses and a bottle of champagne.

***

Friday, April 13, 2007

Gender and discrimination issues finally addressed at Duke...well... sort of...

I recently found out about the Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy, which recently published an entire issue on "Makeup, Identity Performance and Discrimination".

The entire thing is available online, and features such articles as "Gender Performance Over Job Performance: Body Art Work Rules and the Continuing Subordination of the Feminine".

An interesting read for any woman who is contemplating a career in traditionally male disciplines. (It should also constitute a mandatory reading in first year law/engineering/business administration/economics...)

***

Meanwhile, the Globe and Mail just reported some shocking news: trying to balance your job and family obligations limit your productivity at work and hinders your chances of promotion.

No shit, Sherlock.

I guess that means the "glass ceiling" is not a fairy tale after all. I mean, that must be true, since it's men who are whining about it this time...