Category Archives: Objectification

Body Image, Feminism, Media Criticism, Objectification, Sex

Down With Cosmo!

Leave a comment

Everyday Feminism published “10 Things Cosmo Doesn’t Teach Women About Great Sex”. Attention readers, Cosmopolitan magazine is not the sex manual!

Cosmo

The articles and advice that Cosmo features regarding sex are heteronormative (a world view that promotes heterosexuality as the norm or preferred sexual orientation), sexist, and cissexist (“a cis person is one for whom assigned sex, internal sense of sex, and assigned gender and internal sense of gender all match up”, so cissexism is the discrimination or prejudice of individuals who do not fall into the “cis” category).

Cosmo promulgates advice and “crazy hot sex tips” that are disadvantageous for readers. Articles and tips almost always discuss pleasing “your guy” (ugh), but give no mention to pleasing yourself – not to mention, you would have to change your body to experience true pleasure. The sexual experience illustrated by Cosmo is laced with harmful power dynamics and fails to give their primarily female reader-base factual, unbiased, and inclusive information about anatomy, sexual psychology and the factors that influence it, sexually transmitted infections, and safer sex measures including consent. Next time you’re tempted to crack open a fresh issue of Cosmo with a retouched celebrity on the cover alongside a headline such as “75 Sex Moves Men Crave”, consider the personal implications and read it through a critical lens.

Additional reading:

Everday Feminism
Bitch Magazine
The Center for Sexual Pleasure and Health
Definitions of cissexism and binarism
10 Reasons Why I Hate Cosmopolitan Magainze

Activism, Archives, Art, Objectification, Terms You Should Know

Terms You Should Know #1: Street Harassment

Leave a comment

Here is a definition of Street Harassment, courtesy of StopStreetHarassment.org:

Unwelcome words and actions by unknown persons in public places which are motivated by gender and invade a person’s physical and emotional space in a disrespectful, creepy, startling, scary, or insulting way.

There are various definitions of street harassment, but all of them specify that street harassment occurs in public, between people who do not know each other, and is a physical or emotional intrusion.  The harasser usually makes reference to the victim’s appearance or gender.

Why this term it is relevant:

According to a nationally-representative poll,

87 percent of American women have experienced street harassment, and over one half of these women have experienced “extreme” harassment including being touched, grabbed, rubbed, brushed or followed by a strange man on the street or other public place.

Street harassment is not a compliment.  It is, in fact, harassment, and should be treated as such.  Let’s lower the numbers!

See Hollaback, The Everyday Sexism Project, and Can I Get a Smile? to start.

Archives, Feminism, Objectification

I’m Back with Some Breasts in a Box!

Leave a comment

Hoochies, I’m back!

I’m working on a longer post, but I actually just wanted to share with you a wonderful performance art piece from 1968. Valie Export, a Viennese artist, created what she called “Tap and Touch Cinema,” where she wore a box “theater” around her middle and invited passersby to reach in and touch her naked breasts… as she forced them into direct eye contact. I thought I’d draw this to your attention because I really think it confronted the objectification of women and was extremely socially provocative.  In a way she was saying, “you can fantasize about an anonymous body as much as you want, but can you look into a real woman’s eyes while you do it?” Incredible…

Archives, Body Image, Feminism, Media Criticism, Objectification

Matchmaker, Matchmaker… DON’T make me a match!

Leave a comment

Hoochies, I really don’t want to admit this, but I will. I watch The Millionaire Matchmaker.  Now, on many counts, this show is pretty despicable. The premise is addictive: Patti Stanger, a 3rd generation matchmaker in LA, sets up rich men through her Millionaire’s Club, the website of which looks like an advertisement for a brothel. These millionaires are allowed to handpick women who are usually a) way too nice or b) way too young.  Criticizing this show is like shooting fish in a barrel, but I’ll give you the highlights:

1)  If you want to marry a millionaire, and you’re above a size 6, good luck. Patti reserves “bigger” (i.e. a size 10) women for her “chubby chasing” clients. Now, I take offense at this on a couple of levels. First, the idea that a woman should be telling other women that they are fat and unworthy to compete for male attention is disgraceful. This kind of attitude teaches men that only the slimmest of women are worthy of love, and it teaches women that in the competition for rich men, their bodies are the greatest weapons.  Insidious female on female attack is destructive and demeaning.  If we tell men that they should only be attracted to certain body types and that the rest are undesirable, it feeds right back into a damaging sizist cycle that we need to end.

2) I guess money trumps idiot? These men are often rude, strange, misogynistic, witless and boring. And yes, many of them are pretty ugly. But millions of dollars seems to give them a free pass on many qualities one might look for in a mate. However, the few woman millionaires on the show have no such luck. They are still judged for their looks and admonished to let the man take control. It would appear that money only makes things harder for women because they have to prove that they are still “feminine.” Hoochies, I ask you: why does “feminine” have to mean docile and simpering? Unfortunately, in the Millionaire’s Club, women do not have power unless expressly allowed. In her 10 Dating Rules for Single Ladies, Stanger writes, “do not offer to outright pay for something: once a woman touches money/credit card in front of a male she becomes masculine energy, which is undesirable.” Basically, according to this line of thought, men are not attracted to women who are remotely self-sufficient – in Patti’s words, the penis will definitely not get off the couch.

3) Patti Stanger gives matchmaking a bad name. The whole point of matchmaking should be to make a match, but these women are never asked what they want in a man. Granted, it’s their choice to turn up for the vomit inducing “casting sessions” (really an appropriate name when you think about it, eh?), but the only criteria on their lists is “loaded.”  The Millionaire’s Club does not take into account what both sides are looking for, or even considers that a woman might want more than a rich husband. It is merely a vehicle for spoiled, rich and awkward men to sample the never-ending bounty of the LA babe buffet, and perpetuates the ever gaping gender divide.

Archives, Body Image, Objectification

“Boobquake” – Liberating or Limiting?

Leave a comment

As most of you probably know by now, boobs can cause earthquakes. No, really. During Friday prayers in Tehran, Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi, a senior cleric, stated that “many women who do not dress modestly … lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which increases earthquakes.”

Sedighi’s claim, naturally, has brought an outcry from the feminist community. In turn, yesterday “Boobquake,” created by Jen McCreight of BlagHag, took on Sedighi’s accusation full force. The concept was simple – by wearing cleavage baring shirts, women would be able to show that breasts don’t have a great cosmic power over the earth. At first glance, Boobquake seems liberating, and clearly a deep v-neck is not going cause a natural disaster. But I have to wonder: is baring cleavage a constructive way to combat Sedighi’s claim?

I’d have to agree with Beth Mann at Salon when she writes that she “appreciate[s] McCreight’s intentions behind this; she meant it as a feminist response to a ridiculous statement. Unfortunately, it seems to be turning into something else, with many men chiming in, with their “show us your tits” camera-ready attitude.” Society is constantly telling woman that we are only as good as our bodies, whether they are baby makers or eye candy. “Boobquake”, though well-meaning, feeds right into this limiting concept.

I think that whatever you choose to wear, you should be able to feel proud and happy. If baring cleavage accomplishes that for someone, then that is terrific. But by showing a lot of boob, you are inviting people to look. I’m not saying that’s necessarily negative, but I think it’s a fact. Dressing a little more modestly is not always a bad thing; in fact, I believe that it’s ultimately more productive than a low-cut shirt. Of course, showing a little less skin has nothing to do with earthquake prevention – only with changing the dialogues from women’s bodies to women themselves. A woman does not have to resort to using her body to get attention, even if it’s to take on sexism. By fighting a ridiculous and chauvinist statement by exposing our bodies I think we ultimately miss the point. Next time, let’s lead with our minds instead of our chests.

Archives, Media Criticism, Objectification, Politics

Oh it’s sooo serious.

Leave a comment

When asked about his involvement with super-sexy-super-witty-super-model-super-singer Carla Bruni, President Sarkozy responded: “It’s serious”, according to a CNN sound byte during NH primary coverage.

However, a little YouTube digging revealed his ACTUAL answer: a five-minute response that ranged widely through the historical precedents for asking a president such a question, the difficulties of human relationships in general, and the ludicrousness of the media caring so much about the personal life of a man who is fundamentally like any other… which goes hand-in-hand with the contemporary media misconception that being covert about one’s private life somehow corresponds to corrupt and nontransparent leadership (COUGH Bill Clinton).

I wish the current U.S. Presidential candidates could give this kind of response to media badgering. It was bitingly sarcastic, well-informed, and evinced a level of sophisticated contemplation beyond mere pre-press-conference maneuvering (“Being the President of the Republic doesn’t guarantee one the right to happiness–no more happiness than anyone else has. But no less, either”), and it certainly wasn’t cut into slogans meant for endless replay in news commercials. He reminisced about the days when “A chacun sa vie” (“to each his own”) was the reigning philosophy when it came to personal presidential matters, and it made me miss those days, too.

Ironically, carrying on about this for so long–even though he was criticizing the nature of the question–actually lowered his approval ratings, since citizens complained he was spending too much time talking about his relationship and not about real politics… imagine THAT public response in OUR country…

Sarkozy’s tone and perspective remind me of Hillary’s sarcastic response to the fact that people don’t find her “likable”: “That hurts my feelings! …but… I guess I’ll just have to carry on, somehow…” And, to reference the over-played Hillary-tears-up tape, her message that behind the rehearsed responses to debate questions, beyond the stark polling numbers, she is deeply and personally invested in making our country a better place and in pointing it away from what she sees as a darkening future is… refreshing (and sounds a little like that guy who just won the peace prize). As much as I don’t like Sarkozy, and though I am reluctant to vote for Hilary, that kind of meta-level perspective is what we’ve been sorely missing in the presidency lately; without it America has gotten into serious trouble.

These little glimpses of politicos’ evolution States-side and abroad give me at least a little hope. But if I have to go through a whole election year watching CNN cut rich, challenging rhetoric down to “It’s serious,” and furthermore have to watch candidates cater to that simple-minded standard, I’ll have trouble believing my vote is in any way ‘informed,’ or that our election process is anything more than a tabloid-triggered shot in the dark.

[This cutting diagnosis of media’s preference for sound bites over reasoned responses — and for sexual gossip rather than political intelligence — comes from Julie Johnson, editor of Clarion at Boston University. When she told me how CNN had chopped President Sarkozy’s responses, I shook my head first not at the infantilitzation of our public discourse, but rather at the sad fact that media outlets find it profitable to fix their cameras on the face and body of politicians’ partners like Carla Bruni or Camilla Parker Bowles. How offensive that mascara should play any role in a campaign plan; that it can and does speaks to the pervasive view of female companions as possessions owned by men in power. Are the male companions of female candidates subjected to this scrutiny? I don’t believe they are, since that deep-rooted tradition of political dimorphism lodged in our media psyche favors men, demeans women, and altogether ignores those outside the heteronormative groove. –CivilizeMe ]

Archives, Objectification

Peeing in bushes: you’ve come a long way, baby.

Leave a comment

Over one hundred and fifty THOUSAND Facebook members have joined the group *30 Reasons Girls Should Call It A Night*. Among these reasons, numbers 11 (“You talk to stupid skanks you really hate and tell them you really do like them and that ya’ll should be friends.”) and 14 (“You become overly enthusiastic when someone offers you $20 dollars to make out with your friend when you totally would have done it for free”) stand out as first-rate examples of how popular culture demeans women. Because, like totally the only way for a female to have a good time is strip down, smear some makeup on her face, and wade out into debauchery.

Number 18: “Your make-up is smeared all over your face and somehow you have still managed to make out with 5 different guys. very classy.” It’s clear that what’s going on here is veiled self-reproach; when someone does something which they would be embarrassed by if they had any sense, they mock the same behavior in others while remaining aloof to their hypocrisy. In an article for the UK Daily Mail, Alcohol Concern spokesman Frank Soodeen was quoted as saying that this group is “symptomatic of the culture of acceptability around drunkenness.” Of course, drunkenness is a means to an end, namely, the dismantling of dignity and mores which stand between women and objectification. A very non-scientific study of the members of “30 Reasons” reveals that 40% are male — a ready audience for the photos and videos of drunken foolishness that college women are being convinced is the finest way to spend one’s time.

Archives, Objectification

Heineken Robots

Leave a comment

I don’t know why I continue to let myself get shocked by these things. The first time I saw this commercial, I sat on the couch stunned, my jaw resting contemplatively on the floor. I know I should expect such objectification from advertisements, especially beer companies, but it never ceases to amaze me. As I watch a green sexy robot who eerily resembles a futuristic Stepford wife dance around, spout extra arms, slap her own ass, pour a glass of beer, and then open up to reveal two more, different-colored, but equally sexy robot-women, I begin to realize it’s no wonder we live in a rape culture. It’s no wonder men think it’s OK to treat women as less than human. Look at what they’re being told!

And the worst part? As the horror of the commercial finally ends, I turn my aghast face upon my mother’s only to find she is completely unaware of the blatant objectification, sexism, oppression, I could go on and on, screaming out from the TV screen! And this is in no way a comment against my mother. Instead, it is a lament to the fact that beer companies (along with many others) are showing ads such as these, and not only the men are buying into them. This form of objectification is becoming so mainstream and normal in our culture that we’re completely desensitized to it and don’t even notice when we’re being objectified right in front of our faces.

How are we supposed to fight and change our rape culture when men are constantly being told women are objects (i.e. robots), and women don’t even see the problem with this??