Sex and the City

http://thoughtcatalog.com/kelly-mcilwee/2013/11/is-upper-class-life-a-carefree-sexual-attitude-and-a-40k-shoe-habit-empowering/

Someone posted an article on Thought Catalog that has a lot of the same ideas as the article that I presented earlier in the semester about Sex and the City (Gerhard's “Sex and the City: Carrie Bradshaw’s Queer Postfeminism)! The article, "Is Upper Class Life, A Carefree Sexual Attitude And A 40k Shoe Habit Empowering?", looks at whether Sex and the City is truly empowering or not. The author of this article says no. Just like the article I presented on earlier in the semester, the author of this article suggests that SATC has some empowering aspects of what she calls the "New Woman" but it also has some key elements that limit the potential empowerment. She brings up three issues with the show: one dimensional characters, stereotyping, and man obsession. I think this is more of a down to earth take on the question and it really aligns with the points Gerhard was trying to make about post-feminism and the goals, groundbreaking aspects, and downfalls of SATC.

Blog Post for November 25-December 1

I found this article on Jezebel called “One Woman’s Dangerous War Against the Most Hated Man on the Internet” and it is so intense.  The article outlines a story of a woman who’s daughter had naked pictures of herself stolen and up on a revenege porn site.  The man who started this website name is Hunter Moore and calls himself a “professional life ruiner” and “regularly taunts victims, encouraging them to commit suicide.”  He believes that the women in these pictures are sluts and deserve to have their pictures thrown all over the place and to be shamed.  His “followers” go as far as to call the victim and spread the pictures around to her family and co-workers.  I use the pronoun ‘her’ because more often then not the victim is a female.  Then the author continues the article by talking about the other victims that Moore and his associates have hacked into their personal computers and published their naked photos. The story is incredibly moving. Please take sometime to read it.

http://jezebel.com/one-womans-dangerous-war-against-the-most-hated-man-on-1469240835

Woman's Studies Event

On Wednesday, November 20th, I attended a talk given by Nev Schulman of MTV's show Catfish. Although he did not technically speak on specific issues related to Woman's Studies, I think the talk was beneficial to the 95% female based audience and the 5% males at the event. I was able to listen and relate a lot of what he said to what we have talked about in class. He was able to use his own personal stories of success and fame and try to get his message out there about the important of being yourself and not judging others.

Nev talked a lot about self esteem and how important it is to be yourself and not let society dictate who you will become. For him, he thought the only way to be happy when he was younger was to be popular and to be popular, he thought he had to get with every girl and have the right look. I think this relates to the class because society is constantly telling us through media and pop culture that in order to be successful and happy, you must look a certain way, act a certain way, and be a certain person, regardless of whether or not you want to be that person. It is never about being who you want to be, it is only about being what society wants you to be. Nev said this was a blow to his self esteem because he did not believe he could live up to society's expectations. Once he discovered that he could do what he wanted and be who he wanted to be, his self esteem went up. He reminded the audience that this was the key to their happiness, not trying to please society.

Nev also wanted to let the audience know that everyone has a story, and you shouldn't judge them, you should listen. When Nev was younger, he would not treat people how they deserved to be treated. Since then, he has discovered that actually listening to them and knowing what they are about could really make all the difference. Society tends to put labels on people to give them a one-dimensional aspect of themselves that defines their whole personality. 'Gay' 'Slut' 'Freak'. If we buy into those labels, we will never be able to see people as anything other than how society has labeled them. Nev wanted to get the point across that knowing people's stories is a good way to change our perspective and take those labels away.

The last point that Nev made was to not try to over sexualize yourself because society makes it seem ok. With movies and shows and celebrities becoming more and more sexual, people feel like it's alright for them to do it, especially on social media sites. But this can end up hurting you and hurting others around you. If you are not comfortable with that, then don't do it. You should not let society make it seem like you have to be that way.  

Blog Post for Week of Nov 25th: Using 'Ugly' Women for Army Ads

http://blogs.militarytimes.com/outside-the-wire/2013/11/20/dont-show-pretty-female-soldiers-army-colonel-says/

I don't know if anyone saw this, but a female colonel sent an email saying that she thinks the army would be able to recruit more female soldiers if 'ugly' women were represented in the ads. This just made me angry because why would she even refer to people as ugly in the first place? Why not say normal looking or average looking? She said, “In general, ugly women are perceived as competent while pretty women are perceived as having used their looks to get ahead.” The article is specifically referring to one ad wear the soldier appears to be wearing makeup in the ad and she happens to be really pretty. The colonel makes the point that, "Such photos undermine the rest of the message (and may even make people ask if breaking a nail is considered hazardous duty)." Women in the army have to work just as hard weather they are normal looking or pretty and no one is going to have a better chance of getting ahead if they are attractive. 

What really bugs me is that you would never see this controversy if an ad used an attractive, buff male in combat. You would never hear, "Oh men are going to think you need to be good looking to join the army." If someone is set on joining the army, they will do so regardless of the ads. This is another way to use women's looks to say that that is the most important thing that a female should be focused on. Either you can't be too pretty or you can't be too ugly. These messages are everywhere and it needs to stop. 

Crime Against Nature

Artist Gween Seemel created a book containing a series of paintings that expose the true diversity of natural behaviors. Her book, Crimes Against Nature came about after she was diagnosed with endometrisos which is a disease that can cause infertility. She always assumed that she would have children one day so this came as a shock to her. After being told repeatedly that the urge to reproduce is primordial she turned to nature to look for where ours societies baby making assumptions come from. As a result she concluded that she had no control over whether she could have kids or not so she made this books. She says the book is meant for,  "the person who hasn't yet felt the pressure to conform, the one who still sees the infinite possibilites of being."

Here are some posters from the book.

  



Source: http://www.gwennseemel.com/index.php/paintings/from/category/crime_against_nature_posters/

The most sexist show on television?

I came across an article calling Sons of Anarchy the most sexist show on tv. The tv show follows the story of the SAMCRO motorcycle gang and the article claims that women are present in the show but are mostly their to provide sexual gratification, take the fall when the men get into legal jams and at times be their human punching bags. None of the women get to ride on motorcycles of their own and the highest title they can obtain in the motorcycle club is "Old Lady." There are two choices for female characters on the show. Women can either be a stone-cold, evil villain or a drug addict and or an escort or prostitute.

This is actually one of my favorite shows. When I critique the show I normally do it in terms of the amount of violence. The club sells illegal guns so there is quite a bit of violence. After reading this article I realized that this is an extremely sexist show. I did not even realize that I've never actually seen a woman ride a motorcycle on her own, only on the back of one. Also for as much work (even going to jail) as some of the female characters do for the actually motorcycle club they are never offered any type of membership.

Does anyone else watch this show and think its the most sexist show on tv?

Source: http://www.salon.com/2013/11/11/sons_of_anarchy_is_the_most_sexist_show_on_television/

If Disney Princesses Had Normal-Sized Eyes

I'm gonna go ahead and bring up another buzzfeed article, because I spend my entire life on there. This one is entitled "If Disney Princesses Had Normal-Sized Eyes." I encourage you all to follow the link and look at a few pictures, at least, to get an idea of what I'm going to be discussing here in a second.

At first glance, this seems to be pretty amusing. The photoshop genius behind the article so kindly gives us an idea of what Disney princesses would look like if they had a "normal" eye size, instead of the incredibly large, bashful looking eyeballs that they have in their depictions. The pictures definitely look funny when compared to the pictures we constantly see. However, this idea is helpful in revealing the unattainable standards that the princesses represent in almost all aspects of their physical appearances - ones that many young girls look up to and want to attain. The tagline of the article is "Forget hair. Disney princesses gave me unrealistic expectations of eyes." This line points out that Disney does give an unrealistic expectation of hair beauty and what that concept "means" in society. Of course, it leaves out the countless problems with passive personalities that these princesses represent, as well as the numerous other body image issues (small waists, large breasts, etc.). That being said, the small critique is an important one in my opinion.

With the change in eye size made to these images, the ridiculousness is put on the table and in the spotlight. I think one of the most telling images is that of Mulan. One can very easily compare her eyes in the original image with those of all the other characters behind her. And, looking critically, her eyes are SO much bigger than theirs. That was when it really clicked for me that this was something done only to the princesses to "feminize" them, sexualize them, put more importance on their physical appearance, and to create extremely unrealistic standards for female beauty.

One last thing that I also saw as very revealing of social problems was the first comment on the article. It read, "Movies that involve singing lobsters, dancing teacup, pumpkins that turn into carriages and you're worried about unrealistic expectations when it comes to eye size?" ----Wait. I forgot that people don't really think that these things matter. This commenter doesn't get that the "fairy tale" aspects of these stories aren't really all that problematic, nor that the disgustingly fake bodies of these women are actually a huge issue that lead to body image issues and eating disorders in girls and women of all ages. Ugh. Brb, banging my head against a wall. 

Museum Blog

    Wednesday I visited the St. Louis Art Museum. I also had a paper to write about a few Ancient Roman sculptures for Art History, so I was able to knock out two birds with one stone. One thing I've noted just from my Art History class is that recognized art throughout history has almost always come from male artists. Actually, I'm not sure we've studied one piece of art all the way up to the 14th century that has been from a female artist. Historically respected and art is considered a part of high culture and hence a sphere women are excluded from. I've actually done a lot of thinking about the idea of art as it relates to high culture, low culture, and women in the wake of Lady Gaga's latest album release for ArtPop. Gaga seems to be trying to infuse her status as a woman in pop music with high culture art. She recently has proclaimed noted artists Robert Wilson, Marina Abramovic, and Jeff Koons as her mentors, she had Jeff Koons sculpt her (featured on the album cover), and was photographed by Robert Wilson in a series displayed in The Louve. This week she tweeted, "I know my artiness + musical goals may seem lofty, but there is a POP STAR IN THE LOUVRE, right next to the Mona Lisa" I think that’s pretty amazing that she’s blurring the lines between the sphere of art that is considered legitimate and respected and that which is considered popular and less legitimate, especially as a woman. Both are creation so why are so many artists excluded from this sphere? I digress...
    Disclaimer that I’m not an expert on art and I don’t feel like I have the background to critique art so some of my thoughts may be slightly ignorant. The most obvious thing that struck me while wandering the museum was that obviously a lot of paintings feature naked woman... Naked women lounging, naked women sitting, naked women standing. In many works their bodies are not particularly overtly sexualized but presented as “art”. Don't get me wrong nudity is a part of art, both male and female, as the naked body is a thing of natural beauty. I don’t have any problem with this at all. However, as a blanket statement, I’d argue that considering art is a male dominated sphere the body of the women in many cases is still in some complicated ways exploited. One piece in particular was Two Female Nudes on Purple Drape by Philip Pearlstein. The placard stated, “Although the face of the seated model is bent toward the woman lying on the drape, the two do not interact. Pearlstein claimed, ‘I have never been interested in contact between model because that immediately suggests a story line.’” This left me confused. I feel like this means that the artist is painting an object, void of a story line or anything deeper than the visual representation. I still have mixed emotions about this. On one hand I understand portraying the female body as art, however the intentionality behind a lot of paintings of female nudity make me question the purity of the image. “Objectify” is a loaded word, but if there is no emotion or anything beyond the surface portrayed behind an image isn’t it simply portraying an object? Renaissance sculptural depictions of male nudity seem to imply strength, athleticism, power, and pride. Maybe if the art that featured female nudity portrayed the body as something besides just there...
    Another thing I noticed during my visit was that the one section that did feature quite a few female artists was the galleries containing textile arts and quilting which just seemed all too predictable (no offense or degrade meant to those artists). I think I could probably spend hours talking about all of the gendered things I saw in the museum but I’ll leave it at this. I think the museum is a great place to go to see some good old sexist patriarchy as it holds expressions of past times and of a world that is still heavily controlled by male thought and influence.

(I also learned that it is nearly impossible to take a nonchalant selfie at the Art Museum without being caught by one of the guards)

Buzzfeed recently posted an article about race and gender diversity on television in the United States. Alyssa Rosenberg of Think Progress divvided up the main characters of primetime scripted shows on NBC, ABC, CBS, and Fox by race and gender and compaired them to the actually population of race and gender in the United States. Her study included professional statistics as well. She also included a disclaimer that says that the numbers she found may be a little more generous than they might have been. Here are the results.



I was actually surprised that the percentage of White women on tv was more than the US population however the stats about women of other races did not surprise me. It was also interesting to note that the percentage of Asian or Latino men on tv is the same as Magical or Robots.

Source: Race And Gender Diversity On Television Vs. In The United States

Selfies Are A Cry For Help???

Jezebel.com recently posted an article arguing that selfies aren't empowering but a way that society teaches women that their most important quality is their physical attractiveness. They argue against selfies being a source of pride by saying that selfies don't often contain job letters or successful grant applications, only a picture of a woman's face not talking. They sum up their argument bu claiming that young women take selfies because they don't derive their sense of worth from themselves, they rely on others to bestow their self worth on them.

While I'm sure that there are women who post selfies just to get validation from others I don't agree with Jezebels argument. Our culture has these very strict guidelines for what is beautiful and what is not and these guidelines end up leaving a lot of women out. I see taking selfies as a way to express personal self love by saying  I'm confident with how I look and to me that's empowering. Seeing some one else who doesn't fit conventional beauty standards post selfies might inspire other women to challenge those beauty standards as well and it might even inspire society as whole.

So, are selfies a cry for help?

Source: Selfies Aren't Empowering. They're a Cry for Help.

UN Women Ad Campaign

New UN Women Ad Campaign

A friend of mine posted this on Facebook recently and I thought the ad is really thought-provoking and wonderful. It shows different Google autocorrect results finishing various sentences such as "women cannot, women shouldn't, and women should." The results are disturbing. All of the results are negative and some are violent. The ad does a good job showing diverse faces, however, they are all young and beautiful and none are old so I think the ad fails there. The comments on the post are all saying that they are not getting the same results and the ads are a hoax and bunch of other crap. Check it out for yourself!

Women artists in Museums

I was having issues as to why intro art history courses (it depends maybe also at what time period the class is discussing), never touched the issue of lack of women artists. I remember going to a panel last semester with profs on the panel from history and other subjects. But even they thought that it was important to talk about either the lack of women or the role of women even if it was not necessarily in the course book. When I talked to my art history mentor about it, the only prof that actually teaches feminism in art, why it isn't discussed in class. He mentioned the fact that there is a greater prevalence of women artists in this time period. And I do understand that there is a canon for art history, i still think that its very important to talk about it especially in an intro art history course.
     I started to look at the collection at SLAM, how great the differences were in number of women and male artists. There is such a huge disparity still within the numbers. But not only that some artists in the museum have more than 10 paintings or pieces at SLAM. With the image  from guerilla girls although that certain photo goes more for auctions/monetary value of art/the fact that art from women barely touch the price value of art works from males. I would take a big guess that for the most part the paintings from the males would have been much more expensive. The highest I have counted so far was from Max Beckner (german expressionism, which i didn't think would have been that popular here but hey why not) with about 23 paintings. I was wondering what if with that money they had bought female artists' artwork rather than having such a high amount of paintings from one individual.
    I'm not taking away that the male artists are not any good, but why are they far better distinguished and respected. I understand that idea might not be as heavily thought of compared to just the 1900s (an example being Steiglitz being unhappy with some of O'Keefe's works when she started to depart from flowers because it wasn't representing females anymore/essentialism). That thought still exists today, I don't think that any female artists any time soon would be breaking the most expensive painting auctioned like Francis Bacon's triptych for about 142 million.
   I'm not asking to be inclusive for the sake of bring more women artists into the space of museums, but I do not think that there would be such a lack of female artists in all styles of art. I thought that maybe the contemporary wing would have provided more since it contains work from post-modernism/closer to this time period. But it was about 61 male artists to 13 females, I don't get how there are only 13 females to 61 males especially within contemporary.

Disrupting the Pink Isle

Buzzfeed found a real gem today. I was pleasantly surprised. They linked a video geared towards recruiting more female engineers that was filled with so many little amazing components that i do not know if I can do it justice without you seeing it. So here's the link  http://www.buzzfeed.com/maycie/goldie-blox-rube-goldberg-beastie-boys-music-video


It starts out with three girls, not necessarily tom-boys, just normal girls in normal clothing reacting with absolute boredom to a commercial on television. The commercial is very familiar. Everything in the screen is pink and seems to be trying to sell either a tea party set or princess dresses; both obviously in various shades of pink. I really like this opening for two reasons. The first is that it mirrors the three girls on the screen with the three girls watching the television showing to me that the creator recognizes that there is a variety of tastes between women and both are acceptable. But at the same time their total boredom indicates that even kids, without any sort of knowledge of gender-ed toys and advertising, are able to break the conditioning and respond with indifference to the latest in tiara trends. Finally, I love that the girls make the choice to turn the television off themselves without an adult telling them that they should not like or be swayed by this coercive rose colored display. I'm not saying that I think this means that the fight is over against gender norms, but I think that children independently knowing that the system exists is a major step in dismantling early gender roles. In the same way that I think my mother's generation realized and distrusted racist and sexist remnants in society, despite the still racist and sexist opinions of my grandmother's generation, I think that this distrust shows that this generation is reacting against what the article calls the "pink isle". Finally, the visual power of using the pink engendered toys to create the Rube Goldberg that changes the channel, was very interesting. It was clearly not the intended purpose of the toys, so the act to me seemed very much like the girls were claiming the right to have an active and productive playtime reserved for boys.


The lyrics are just as fabulous.

Girls.
You think you know what we want, girls.Pink and pretty it's girls.Just like the 50's it's girls.
You like to buy us pink toysand everything else is for boysand you can always get us dollsand we'll grow up like them... false.
It's time to change.We deserve to see a range.'Cause all our toys look just the sameand we would like to use our brains.
We are all more than princess maids.
Girls to build the spaceship,Girls to code the new app,Girls to grow up knowingthey can engineer that.
Girls.
That's all we really need is Girls.
To bring us up to speed it's Girls.
Our opportunity is Girls.
Don't underestimate Girls.

The lyrics are perfect they hit the issue from so many angles. It reacts to the idea that pink being for girls is an old and dated concept. It comments that women will not just grow up to be dolls, all pretty and inanimate. They are functional, awesome, verbal, powerful people. It calls out gender norms saying that pink is for girls and the rest is all for boys. They critique the toy companies for remaking the same products in a new shade of pink or purple and reselling the product. Where boys have toy-boxes full of a train set, various balls, water guns, superheros, remote cars, building blocks, and other active playthings; girls are relegated to a dress up box where the only diversity comes from which Disney movie their princess costume was based off. It all looks the same and has the same function. The lyrics a call for more active stimulating toys that confirm they have brains. My favorite lyric is when the girl sings, "we are more than just princess maids" I respond strongly to it because it doesn't exclude traditional gender roles and ideas as inherently bad or beneath gender neutral toys. I suppose it has a lot to do with being raise in a very pink and blue household to this day, but I dislike the idea that women or men should have to reject an activity they do enjoy simply because it is within the scope of traditional gender roles. If a girl really loves and is passionate at cheer, telling her she is lesser for not choosing to fight to play football is just as restrictive a standard.

The only time that I think that the video was anything but wonderful was a very small moment when the girls are gathering the supplies to get started and you see the tool kit that they girls plan to use. It is yellow and covered with flowers. So in my mind, either she had this tool kit which suggests that she was being sold diverse toys (even if it is covered in stupid flowers) which undermines the point that she was so restricted, or she was given it by a producer because it was cute and cute girls fighting the power should have cute things to dismantle the big bad system. A neutral or more adult centered kit would have solved this problem for me. 

Female Marines!

This article has got to be one of the most frustrating to read the comments. I know we say it all the time not to read them but I can't help it. DON'T DO IT ON THIS ONE FOR REAL. One male commentator says that from a biological standpoint concerning our population, women shouldn't be allowed allowed in combat because "1 man with four wives can marry and reproduce but 1 woman can't marry four wives and do the same." WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN? I get what he's implying but why is that relevant when our population is over 6 billion?  But I digress. On to what the article is about.

First Women to Graduate from Marine Infantry Training

This year's graduating class from the Marine Infantry Training Course which is approximately 2 months long will be the first class in the history of the Marines to include women. Given that the Marines celebrated their 238th "birthday" on November 9, you can see how this is a big deal. People are clamoring that women should have to complete the same physical, rugged tests that the men who complete this course are required to do, and THESE WOMEN DID. However, they will not be posted in front line combat units and instead are being posted to non-combat jobs throughout the Corps. The article makes mention that the Armed Forces are taking small steps to test how women will perform and hold up in various positions throughout the branches before placing any women into these positions. This is a small step, but for women who want to be apart of the Marines and serve in the same capacity as their male peers, a very large one. Most of my dad's side of the family including my dad were/are career military individuals so I find the gendered nature and mind-set of the military to be really interesting.

You're not a princess.

I came across this article this morning and I thought I would share it!  It is an article about an ad campaign for all-girls school in Louisville, Kentucky.  It is an ad campaign aimed at middle schoolers and high schoolers telling them “You’re Not A Princess” and encouraging them to “Prepare for real life.”  I actually love this campaign.  I love it because so many girls are told that being a princess is the best kind of life to have.  We grow up thinking that’s the epitome of what we should want as women.  This campaign encourages girls to save themselves and empower them to get the education that they need to succeed in the real world. 

Not everyone thinks that this is a good idea, one commenter thought that this campaign was “shattering dreams before they even have a chance to begin” and “conditioning children to be bitter and hardhearted before they are old enough to understand that it’s not that simple.”

Thoughts?  I have attached the article here!

http://mashable.com/2013/11/16/you-are-not-a-princess-ad/

Badass Disney Princess

http://www.buzzfeed.com/allyson/12-reasons-kida-nedakh-is-the-most-badass-disney-p-cepf

Before 'Brave' was released and we were introduced to the first Disney Princess who did NOT need to fall in love at the end, Disney brought us 'Atlantis: The Lost Empire', a little known Disney movie that was released in 2001. This movie did not do well in the box office, but I believe it offers probably the most badass Disney princess of all. First of all, this princess can fight for herself, and does not need a man to save her. Though she does fall in love, she is still the one that pretty much saved the entire kingdom. She is way stronger than the male lead and is able to defend herself. Second, she actually goes from Princess to Queen at the end, giving her all the power over the entire kingdom. I don't know many other Disney movies that have given a female that much power. Third, she is the only Disney princess to get a full name (Kida Nedakh) before marriage. This movie offers her, as well as a few other very strong and capable female characters. This movie isn't afraid to break gender norms (a girl in this movie is a mechanic while a guy owns a flower shop) and it really doesn't limit the power it gives to any of it's female characters. I really recommend watching this movie for anyone who wants to see a completely badass princess. (Also, while her clothes are a bit skimpy, this is how everyone in Atlantis is dressed, males included)

Lululemon and Fat Shaming

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4200762-video-some-thighs-too-fat-for-lululemon-pants-says-founder/  (link to the original story)

 http://jezebel.com/lululemon-founder-sorry-he-said-your-fat-body-was-fucki-1463219018
 (link to site hosting apology video)

This story isn't very "new" now, but I felt it was relevant to our discussion about beauty standards One week or so ago, the founder of Lululemon addressed the recent recall of some of their yoga pants. In an interview, he proceeded to imply that the defect in the pants wasn't do to a manufacturing problem, rather, it was due to the women who wearing them with such choice quotes as:
 "Quite frankly, some women's bodies just don't work for it,"
"It's really about the rubbing through the thighs, how much pressure is there over a period of time, how much they use it."

In the wake of his comments, he's understandably faced much criticism, which prompted an apology video (which can found by following the second link). I don't have many deep thoughts on the matter, other then the thought that this kind of situation tends to be prevalent in patriarchal society in which we all live, which sees fit to dictate which bodies are acceptable (especially for women). If a product doesn't fit the way it was supposed to, it's easy for the head of a company to simply blame consumers for not having the body type that they decided was desirable, share that view in public, and not expect any criticism, not to mention the non-apology-apology....it's messed up. But I'm interested in your thoughts, so please, share them in the comment section!

Student Suspended for Carrying Vera Bradley

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/11/kansas_boy_claims_his_vera_bradley_purse_got_him_suspended_from_school.html

My Anthro class discussed this article in class last week and I thought it was pretty interesting. A boy at a Kansas school was suspended for carrying a Vera Bradley purse. There has been some debate as to the exact reason the teacher demanded the student remove the purse. The school claims it is a policy that students cannot take purses or bags into class but the student claims that other classmates carry bags and that he had been taking the bag to class for quite some time before the incident. It seems to me as though the school just tried to back pedal and save face. Regardless of the policy, I really appreciate that the boy felt very strongly that he was being singled out and didn't back down.

Blog for November 18-24

When I saw this article I became so frustrated that I knew I had to share it.  A public school in Dallas, Texas hosted a motivational speaker to talk about his dating rules.  It is also important to note that this speaker is also suppose to be a “religious motivational speaker.”  His entire speech is about reinforcing the gender norms where girls are “soft, you are gentle, you are a woman” he even says, “don’t try to be a guy. Guys like you because you are different from them.  So let your girly-ness soar” Essentially his tips for women are to shut up because when you talk too much you lose the “mystery.”  STOP THIS.  This is so absurd and I am SO disappointed a school would ever have a speaker come into their school.

Oh and FYI he has a R U dateable quiz and I took it and it says that I am “hopeless.”  Uh.. okay.

Thoughts? I would LOVE to hear them.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rachelzarrell/texas-school-hosts-speaker-who-encourages-girls-to-shut-up

"Am I Pretty Or Ugly?"

"Am I Pretty or Ugly" is a new trend among teenage girls where they record short videos on youtube asking the simple question, am I pretty or ugly. People view the videos and then make comments on the video about how the viewer looks.  This trend got alot of attention last month as an issue with teen girls but this month theres been more buzz about this because teen boys are also participating in the trend. The article I read said that the teen boys normal ask the question, Am I Ugly, not on YouTube but other places like Reddit to find out what people think about them.

I searched, "Am I pretty or Ugly" on Youtube and it came up with 281,000 results.  I clicked on a few videos and read the comments. I found people to have  mixed reactions. Some of them were obviously mean. I saw alot that said things like, You're pretty but you sound like a bitch/cunt/whore etc. I also saw alot of comments that said things like, you don't need to be doing this.

I personally find this trend to be disturbing. I don't understand why teens are seeking self validation from other people, especially from people they don't know.

Sources: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/10/15/_am_i_pretty_or_ugly_youtube_videos_alarming_or_maybe_ok.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/11/06/teen_body_image_while_girls_flock_to_youtube_s_am_i_pretty_or_ugly_boys.html

How Feminism Hurts Men

How Feminism Hurts Men Link

I don't know if you guys have seen this blog post going around on your social media sites but it has started popping up on a lot of mine. The post is written by a man and I expected when I clicked on the link to be upset/angry/annoyed at the post because I assumed it would be something along the lines of "What about the men? We never get any attention." Instead I was pleasantly surprised as I read it and I enjoyed the satirical point of view the author speaks on. While it's nothing groundbreaking, I think it gives the post-feminist thinkers something to really consider if we were in a world even close to being post-feminist. The author states various ways that feminism has "hurt" men and all are obviously false which helps emphasize the point. I know to some it can be taken a little crass, but like the planned parenthood t-shirt that we talked about in class this week, sometimes in your face is the only way to get the point across.

Museum Visit

Today, I visited the Saint Louis University Museum of Art and made a few observations on how women were presented in these artworks. First, a lot of these women appeared nude or sexualized, as the artist would typically focus on one particular aspect of the women’s body such as her lips or breasts. There was a certain sculpture that I noticed called ‘Meditating Girl’ made in 1958 that showed a girl crouching over, apparently meditating, while completely nude. I did not see why this was necessary to express the idea of a girl meditating. This gave the impression of the male gaze and, considering most of the artists of the museum were men, it gave a clear message that women are only to be seen as objects.

Besides the nudity in this art, I also noticed that there was far more painting or sculptures of men or structures rather than women. Women were hardly ever presented. I especially noticed this in the religious section of the museum. While there were many pictures of Jesus, apostles, and other important men, the only art works of women were only of Mary. There are several important women mentioned in the Bible, yet Mary was the only one that ever got painted. And even she was only in a limited amount compared to the amount of paintings there were of men.

Another element in the artwork that I was thinking about was that women were hardly ever painted alone. Usually, they were with a man or with a child. This was probably a way to confirm norms that women are meant to be child rearing or meant to serve man. With any pictures of men that I saw, they appeared independent and strong, while women were usually meek and fragile in comparison. This is a way to create oppression for woman, as though they cannot be anything but fragile without a man. 

Women Studies Event: Coffee With Cool Women

On Wednedsay Novemeber 6 I attended an event hosted by PEEPS called Coffee With Cool Women. This event featured the artist Ilene Berman. Ilene created NODhouse which is an art project that she used for social justice activism. She created NODhouse in order to bring attention the racial divide in St.Louis City Neighborhood. NOD stands for North of Delmar that she learned about after moving to St.Louis during her search for a place to live. People told her not to live North Of Delmar so Illene became aware of the invisible barrier that separates the city by race.

Ilene also found out that one of the many problems that resulted from this invisible barrier was that when the Grand Art Center hosts their art events they never hold anything past Delmar. In that way the Grand Art Center is deciding which part of the neighborhood is worthy of art and what part is not which further perpetuates the barrier.

Ilene started her project by creating a manifest and sewing it into cloth napkins, which symbolizes bringing everyone to the table. She then took the napkins into business on Delmar and Grand and asked the owners if she could hang them up on their walls. She said that the business owners were receptive and open to her project while the Grand Art Center was not.

One thing that Illene talked about that really resonated with me was about graffiti. She pointed out that past the invisible Delmar line there is not much graffiti to be found. When she said that I thought it was an odd statement. Most people consider graffiti to be defacing and devaluing but then Ilene explained her statement. She said that the part of the neighborhood was so run down and neglected that people are not adding graffiti to it because they don't want to claim it is their own. I had never thought of graffiti that way and I found it to be an extremely powerful statement that speaks volumes about the racial divide in this city.

Overall this was a great event. The dialogue created at this event was very inspiring and it was also a great example of how you can use your own personal interests and talents to create social justice and change. I hope to attend many more Coffee With Cool Women events.

More info on NODhouse: http://nodhouse.com/about-nodhouse/

Tomboy Beauty Pageant

http://www.buzzfeed.com/skarlan/tomboy-beauty-pageant-in-the-philippines-causes-an-internet

I saw this article while on Buzzfeed and it really struck me because I have really never heard of anything like it. Although this show identifies itself as a "beauty pageant" it takes away the part where the contestants are judged for their looks. It focuses on personality and talent. This competition is in the Philippines and is open to anyone who identifies themselves as a 'tomboy' or lesbian (although the American meaning of tomboy doesn't necessarily mean lesbian).

I have never really watched beauty pageants but from what I understand not many gay women have the opportunity to compete in them, especially not androgynous women. Even in shows like American Idol or America's Next Top Model, very few contestants are androgynous and fitting the beauty standard is priority Being thin and having the 'right look' can be the difference between some contestants winning and some losing. But this show can be a chance for these women to show their talent without getting judged based on how they look or dress. I don't know if America would ever be up for a show like this but I think this show has a good idea.

Lily Allen

I do not know if anyone has seen the new Lily Allen music video for her song “Hard Out Here” (I, obviously, attached the link to it here for you) but I have some thoughts.  The lyrics are wonderful.  So feminist, they speak to this double standard for women in the music industry.  She makes a point to mention the glass ceiling, body image issues, kitchen jokes, and slut shaming.  I thought it is feminist in those aspects but I still have a lot of issues with it.  First off, she attempts to make fun of Miley Cyrus and twerking but she does not do it in the best way.  She sings, “I don’t need to shake my ass because I got a brain” associating sexuality and the expression of anything sexual with being stupid.  Which I have a problem with.  Women can be smart AND be sexual beings.  It is possible.  Then she attempts to acknowledge the objectification of black women in music videos by objectifying black women in her music video.  Like… what? Why?  How is that supposed to solve the issue? 

Thoughts?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0CazRHB0so&feature=youtu.be

Italian Beauty Pageant Banned From TV

For the first time in 25 years the Miss Italia beauty pageant was banned from tv. Anna Maria Tantola the president of public broadcasting network RAI decided on the ban. Tarantola known for her feminism said, "It was not considered - and I was in full agreement on this- a programme that valued female talent."



She says, "A woman must make a name for herself because of her talents, her ability. She must have the opportunities to express her capabilities...You can become someone if you are committed, know how to value [your] own talent, know how ti highlight it and cultivate it."

Tarantula who spent 41 years working at the Bank of Italy is also an outspoken advocate for positive discrimination in order to get more women into decisions making roles and combat Italy's relatively low level of female employment.

In her position at RAI she is convinced that the public broadcast has an ethical responsibility to start showing women in a more realistic light.

I think the idea behind banning the beauty pageants was one with good motives but I get nervous at the thought of one person deciding what a realistic woman is like. What if Tarantino did not have a feminist background and had a negative view on what a realistic woman is like and banned shows based off of that view. I think it gets tricky when it comes down to one person or a small group of persons deciding on what is good or not so I wonder if banning this beauty pageant from tv really as useful as it seems. I also feel like saying that beauty pageants don't value female talent kind of discredits some of the work that the women put into their participation.

Source: Why This Italian Beauty Pageant Was Banned From TV... - GirlTalkHQ

"How Slam-Dunking, Gender Bending WNBA Rookie Brittney Griner Is Changing The World Of Sports"

Elle Magazine recently published an article about WNBA player Brittney Griner. Brittney played college basketball for Baylor Univeristy and just started her first season in the WNBA.

I remember while she was still playing at Baylor there was a lot of buzz going on in the media and on social media sites because of her level of athleticism. Brittney has dunked a few times during basketball games and because this is a skill seen as something only men can do properly there were alot of people referring to her as a man and comparing her to NBA players. Sports analyst questioned whether or not she should play in the NBA and an owner of an NBA team even suggest she come play for them but Birttney said she would never do that because it does a disservice to other WNBA players in the sense that the only way for you to a be a good basketball player is for you to be a man, women will never be good enough.

This was a pretty interesting article that highlighted the issues that come from having strict societal norms about gender and there is more than one way to be a girl.

Things I Found Interesting From The Article:

• Nike signed Brittney to model their menswear

• During her WNBA rookie orientation she said she declined to participate in a session about make up application and how to dress. (It was noted that NBA rookies are taught to beware of gold-digger groupies who might prick tiny holes in condoms.)

• During her time at Baylor school officials told her to keep her being a lesbian a secret because the school classifies "homosexual acts" as sexual misconduct.

• WNBA league marketing used to focus their efforts on appealing to female fans that are drawn to the league more for the opportunities it afforded women than for actual basketball playing.

• The author of the article notes that as she trailed Brittney from appointment to appointment she felt like a guy to her but she later goes on to say that she found her face attractive because she found it feminine. 

Source: Brittney Griner Profile - Brittney Griner Interview - ELLE

   I'm not 100% what to make sure of Lily Allen's new song/video. I get what she's going for and a part of me does kind of love the song, but some parts of it I do find it questionable. I found the video problematic, taking into consideration her whole feud on twitter with Azelia Banks a few months ago, I think it started with Azealia Banks saying Lily Allen's husband and children were ugly. Where Lily Allen responded to Azealia Banks (towards the end) on twitter linking a picture, of a penis with a wig on it saying that it was Azealia. And I don't think that this is the first racist comment that Allen has made, which is why I get the idea of the video itself but coming from her I feel put off by the video.

Today in Awful Beauty Standards...

I recently came across this article while doing some internet browsing:

http://hollywoodlife.com/2012/10/11/lana-del-rey-no-makeup-pics/

It contains "before and after pictures" of Lana del Rey with and without makeup. Now, I have enough of an issue as it is with these types of before and after pictures. They blatantly compare women (most often) with themselves in order to determine the state in which they look the best, according to social beauty standards. This often times relates to weight, as in "omg I lost so much weight!" or "omg look at how much weight this celebrity gained!" Both of these clearly rest on the notion that the thinner you are, the better you look. (Tangent: I also get extremely frustrated when people post weight loss before and after pictures on facebook or other social media, and people comment about how great they look now. Because, why didn't they look awesome and beautiful and great before? And, also, why is physical beauty/outer appearance the most valued thing a woman can achieve? I'd like to see pictures/posts of, like, before and after I learned something new, or was courageous, or was kind, or SOMETHING other than physical beauty. End longer-than-expected tangent.)

Back to this article... These before and after pictures show Lana del Rey, as I said, with and without makeup, showing the contrast in how she looks both ways. HOWEVER, this is no typical before and after, celebrity "no make-up" shot. The pictures of her WITH makeup come as BEFORE, and her WITHOUT makeup is AFTER. I can't believe we live in a place where a woman is seen as "in her normal state" with makeup on, and her without makeup is anormal. I guess I can believe it, because I think I've seen something similar done with photos of Oprah or something. Anyways. I'm disgusted. That is all.

One Direction

In my search for a topic to blog about, I happened to stumble across an interesting read regarding a subject often spoken of : boy bands.

In an issue of GQ magazine released earlier this year, an author proceeded to describe One Direction fans (particularly women who happen to be fans) in ways that can, and perhaps should be seen as offensive.  Such descriptions included statements like these:

       "By now we all know the immense transformative power of a boy band to turn a butter-wouldn't-melt teenage girl into a rabid, knicker-wetting banshee who will tear off her own ears in hysterical fervour when presented with the objects of her fascinations. Hasn't this spectacle of the natural world - like the aurora borealis or the migration of wild bison across America's Great Plains - been acknowledged?"

      "These women don't care about the Rolling Stones. They don't care about the meta-modernist cycle of cultural repetition. They don't care about history. All these female fans care about is their immediate vociferous reverence."

     "Inside the venue a hormone bomb has gone off: 20,000 females all turning themselves inside out, some almost literally, to the sight of Harry Styles, Niall Horan, Zayn Malik, Louis Tomlinson, and Liam Payne...an ocean of 20,000 wide open mouths, hundreds of pleading white eyes, 40,000 palms raised skywards, a dark pink oil slick that howls and moans and undulates with every impish crotch-thrust from their idols' plinths. Thousands of female fans caught on the cusp of their own sexual awakening.

Of course, many feminist writers/blogger has a field day analyzing such categorizations, two in particular catching my interest.  To begin with, we have Aja Romano from the Daily Dot. Romano’s central point focuses on the reaction of the fans to the GQ article, and the media’s counter response to the fans (GQ included). She accurately points out that the vicious reaction of the fans against their misogynistic portrayal in GQ, and the mockery of said reaction is deeply rooted in the patriarchal society in which we all live, which demands that women remain silent and smiling despite being under constant pressure to conform to a societal ideal, and being criticized for interests that lie outside of said ideal. Of course, anger is a natural and justified response to this kind of treatment, but because GQ and certain other media outlets routinely exploit the misogyny of their primary base of readership (straight men), they are quick to dismiss the valid complaints of 1D fans as naught but hysteria and insanity.

Another author, a blogger from Jezebel, brings attention to another dynamic, the inherent misogyny of focusing in on one particular fandom composed of primarily teenaged girls as if it was some kind of bizarre spectacle. The author points out that sports fans, a demographic composed more of boys and men, are given a certain amount of respect, even though sports fans have routinely caused riots resulting in property damage. This seems to indicate that more respect to interests that appear to be dominated by men, then given to interests which appear to be dominated by women, but even that analysis doesn’t completely address the problem, as women often face difficulty becoming a part of supposedly man dominated interests, revealing that the true issue lies with the interests of women themselves. This indicated a deeper level of misogyny, where women are expected to have certain interests, yet, they are simultaneously condemned for those interests, or for branching out into other interests that they haven’t been allowed (by society) to like. With a system like this in place, it’s simply not possible to win….. women will face criticism simply for existing in society that places men ahead of them.

Overall, it was interesting for me to delve into this kind of though, because boy band related topics aren’t something I personally have a great deal of experience with. I’d invite everyone to check out articles, and well as the original GQ article, and leave thought below!

http://imgur.com/LJPymXa,QBQTgYx,A7mCWzN,jm9n65L,5n3jbz7#0 (GQ article)

http://groupthink.jezebel.com/boy-bands-and-sexism-can-we-stop-hating-teenage-girls-991624796 (Jezebel)

http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/one-direction-fans-gq-outrage-is-valid/ (Romano)

Blog Post for November 11-17

I came across this speech by Joss Whedon, a famous writer in Hollywood.  He is talking about feminism and  I think it’s something everyone should check out.  He has this quote about the word feminist,

“Ist in it’s meaning is also a problem for me.  Because you can’t be born an ist.  It’s not natural… so feminist includes the idea that believing all people to be people, is not a natural state.  That we don’t emerge assuming that everybody in the human race is a human that the idea of equality is just an idea that’s imposed on us.  That we are indoctrinated with it, that it’s an agenda”

The speech is wonderful.  He even pokes fun at Katy Perry who said she wasn’t a feminist but believed in strong women.  Pop culture has an influence on how the world views feminism.  Icons like Katy Perry influence how little girls are expected to feel about the word feminism, without understanding the whole concept and history.  Whedon even makes a point by saying “People feel removed from sexism. ‘I’m not a sexist, but I’m not a feminist.’  They think there’s this fuzzy middle ground.  There’s no fuzzy middle ground.  You either believe that women are people or you don’t”  It’s so wonderful, everyone should take a look and let me know what you think.

http://www.eonline.com/news/478718/joss-whedon-goes-on-the-most-perfect-rant-about-feminism-calls-out-katy-perry-in-the-process

Why Girls Should Not Cut Their Hair Short

http://totalfratmove.com/why-girls-should-not-cut-their-hair-short/

This article was published by Total Frat Move "TFM" a few days ago all about why girls should never cut their hair short. I don't think I even need to comment that much on this, the article speaks for itself. It seems like everything that comes from TFM is mildly offensive but this is above and beyond. The authors make it clear that a woman cutting her hair short is the single most disastrous thing that can happen. They also make it clear that a woman will not recieve the attention she needs if her hair is short, further enforcing that a woman's appearance is not her own, it is only a product of the male gaze.  They even go as far as to insult Jennifer Lawrence for her weight. The degree of ignorance has left me speechless...

How to be a Man

       It seems that every single year Esquire magazine (although probably not alone in this among men's magazines), they have one issue that is completely devoted to 'how to be a man'. And this year I bought an issue, it was during summer break, just to see what they would say. The concept to me seems so weird to have a complete issue that is completely devoted to 'explaining' how to be a man. Why would you need someone to tell you how to be your own sex? Besides showing how constructed gender is. But also what does it say about the readership that is involved in the interaction with the magazine.
       I remember one of the articles in particular, something along the lines of crises in fatherhood. It seemed so overdone to me, since it that concept is not new at all. It seems that in intervals, some magazine or mode of publication comes out with an article or issue pertaining to issues of fatherhood or manhood. Reading the article to me seemed kind of stupid as harsh as that is to say. To me with any part of parenthood I thought that it would be completely blatant of how hard it is, and how much work and effort one has to do. In the article it was talking about issues of not having enough time for their children. Or thinking that they might be inadequate for the job. Personally I just kind of don't understand, because it seems like a parent issue rather than a crisis of fatherhood. The only way that I would see it as a crisis, is a different set up of expectations of what it means to be a parent.
      I do know that every magazine does cater to its audience. But with Esquire's reason why it even exists in the first place, being a propeller of what manhood is and similar to why Playboy started, a part of me doesn't understand its purpose. I do get it, but at the same time if it is so natural how would there be crises of manhood and why have a whole issue devoted in being a man.

this article is from 2009, but esquire is like cosmo regurgitating the same falsehoods as some form of truism. http://www.esquire.com/features/what-is-a-man-0509

Art Museum Visit!

In my experience, often artist like to believe that their artwork is above “pop culture.”  However, when I visited the Saint Louis University Art Museum I found plenty of connections between pop culture, the artwork presented there, and the presentation of gender.  When I first walked in the very first artwork I saw was called Rodeo Queen Study by artist Luis Jimenez.  It’s a drawing of half naked woman on a saddle.  The artist did not include her arms in the picture and created her breasts to be the main focus of the piece.  In the second piece that I saw was drawing by Jim Dine called Cubist Venus.  In this drawing, the artist formed a woman’s body out of cube like shapes and did not include her arms.  This theme happened several times as I walked around the exhibit.  Women’s bodies made out of objects and without their arms or their bodies completely distorted.  I have no issues with women’s bodies.  However, it seems to me that by taking off women’s arms the artist was taking away their ability to accomplish tasks (not that it’s impossible to accomplish tasks without arms, as many disabled individuals have proven to us that it is possible) but without arms puts women at a disadvantage.  By literally creating women’s bodies into objects it makes it easier to dehumanize them and think of women in the context of them being objects and not people. This is a disturbing theme that we have discussed in class before with advertisements.  Women’s bodies have become this canvas to create products for the general public to buy.  The combination of objectification and the overly sexualization of women’s bodies in art creates a dangerous atmosphere were sexual violence against women festers and has a safe space to grow.  Now as I examine art, I need to keep in mind that art has an influence in popular culture and should be given the same criticism as such. 

'Get Real, Barbie'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/galia-slayen/the-scary-reality-of-a-re_b_845239.html

I found this campaign that began a few years ago called 'Get Real, Barbie' which was started by a college student in order to express the unrealistic beauty expectations that society sets. For this campaign, the girl who started it, Galia Slayen, made a real like model for what Barbie would actually look like in real proportions. Her findings showed that at Barbie's height of 5'9" and weighing 110 lbs, she would have a BMI of 16.24. This actually fits the criteria for anorexia. But Barbie is an incredibly popular brand that every young girl usually owns at one time or another and the way she is always portrayed gives these young girls completely unrealistic expectations of how they should look.

This campaign was started to raise awareness on eating disorders and to get people thinking about how serious body image issues are. Galia will set up her life model of Barbie and interview people about what they think about how Barbie is presented. Most say that she is way too thin, no "normal" girl looks like that, and it appears to be unhealthy. The campaigns main goal is to get people talking about these issues and to get people to agree that the world has these expectations that are not possible for any normal person. 

On a side note, I just thought this bit of it was disturbing. In 1965, there was a 'Slumber Party Barbie' who came with a bathroom scale permanently set at 110 lbs with a book entitled "How to Lose Weight" with directions inside stating simply "Don't eat." To send that unhealthy message to girls who are between 3-12 years old is beyond ridiculous.