A recent Jezebel article showcases the fabulous Natalie Portman advocating for a pluralistic understanding of feminism in Hollywood. I’d go even further to say that movies and stories about cis-men, trans* folks, and all non-binary characters can be feminist works, so long as they maintain a particular respect and overarching consciousness. Feminism for all!
“I want every version of a woman and a man to be possible. I want women and men to be able to be full-time parents or full-time working people or any combination of the two. I want both to be able to do whatever they want sexually without being called names. I want them to be allowed to be weak and strong and happy and sad — human, basically. The fallacy in Hollywood is that if you’re making a ‘feminist’ story, the woman kicks ass and wins. That’s not feminist, that’s macho. A movie about a weak, vulnerable woman can be feminist if it shows a real person that we can empathize with.”
No other song has caused as much controversy recently as Robin Thicke’s Blurred Lines (ft. T.I and Pharrell). The song is hugely popular, despite the fact that it glorifies the dangerous notion that a woman’s consent is only a fuzzy guideline which a man can choose to abide by when he feels like it.
Then there is the music video, with the three fully dressed male singers surrounded by nearly naked female models who proceed to parade around them, acting as an accessory for the men. As if this isn’t enough, the second, unrated version features completely topless models in nude thongs. And finally, most recently were the 2013 VMA’s, where Miley Cyrus’s performance made headlines across the country.
THE LYRICS:
Selection of Lyrics:
….OK now he was close, tried to domesticate you
But you’re an animal, baby it’s in your nature
Just let me liberate you…..
…You’re far from plastic
Talk about getting blasted….
…I hate them lines
I know you want it
But you’re a good girl
The way you grab me
Must wanna get nasty
Go ahead, get at me…
(Further lyrics posted elsewhere)
In an interview with GQ magazine Thicke says when referring to writing the song with Pharrell, “We started acting like we were two old men on a porch hollering at girls like, “Hey, where you going, girl? Come over here!”” The anecdote is told with a laugh, something women who have dealt with sexual harassment from find far from humorous.
When questioned about the videos portrayal of women in the same GQ article, Thicke proceeds to give what he thinks is a defense of his video, but instead proves his own lack of understanding of this social issue.
“We tried to do everything that was taboo. Bestiality, drug injections, and everything that is completely derogatory towards women. Because all three of us are happily married with children, we were like, “We’re the perfect guys to make fun of this.”
So being “happily married” absolves these three men of the responsibility to respect the women around them and not take into account the larger social issues, specifically street harassment and rape culture, that are brought to attention with videos like these?
Thicke continued: “People say, “Hey, do you think this is degrading to women?” I’m like, “Of course it is. What a pleasure it is to degrade a woman. I’ve never gotten to do that before. I’ve always respected women.”
…. really? Thicke goes on to add to this preposterous argument:
“So we just wanted to turn it over on its head and make people go, “Women and their bodies are beautiful. Men are always gonna want to follow them around.” After the video got banned on YouTube, my wife tweeted, “Violence is ugly. Nudity is beautiful…”
So if that is the case, then why is it that the men are fully clothed? Where is this video showing the beauty in nudity or the female body? Instead of accentuating the positive attributes of a woman in a respectful and artistic way, the creators of this video have made the women purely accessories, objects to the men who can to stand around and have their egos boosted at the expense of the women.
Instead of calling out on the bullshit that is this attitude many in our society have by making fun of these men, Thicke, Pharrell and T.I instead succeeded in encouraging this culture. Perhaps this is something these married fathers can think about when their wives and daughters face street harassment and the pervasive fear of rape.
THE MUSIC VIDEO:
There are two versions of the music video, one being the “clean” version, and one being the unrated version. And thus I link you to two other interpretations of the music video:
Robin Thicke – Blurred Lines [Feminist Parody] “Defined Lines”
See comments on this youtube video for further reasons as to why this video needs to exist.
Robin Thicke “Blurred Lines” Sexy Boys Parody by Mod Carousel
“It’s our opinion that most attempts to show female objectification in the media by swapping the genders serve more to ridicule the male body than to highlight the extent to which women get objectified and do everyone a disservice. We made this video specifically to show a spectrum of sexuality as well as present both women and men in a positive light, one where objectifying men is more than alright and where women can be strong and sexy without negative repercussions.” – Mod Carousel
MILEY CYRUS AND THE CONTROVERSIAL VMA’S:
Right after the VMA’s, Miley’s scandalous performance, which involved barely there clothing and a foam finger,was the main topic of discussion. But within all this buzz, the fact that Robin Thicke performed as well was hardly mentioned. Before watching the video, I was under the impression that Cyrus had performed the song alone.
Rising to fame as a Disney star, it makes sense that the now twenty year old actress gets harsh criticism with her sexually provocative choices, but why isn’t the media talking about the thirty-six year old man who wrote the song to begin with? Is our society so comfortable with grown men objectifying women that we no longer address the issue?
I’m not excusing Cyrus’s performance or saying that it was appropriate, but why is she the only one being attacked by the media? When did we stop holding grown men accountable for their actions?
IN RESPONSE:
So when people ask why this video is still being discussed by the media, or say they just “don’t get why this song is such an issue”, they should take a moment to educate themselves about how constantly our culture disregards dangerous issues and the effect it has on the mindset of future generations.
Hello from Hoochie Woman, feminist thought from Boston University. We, your editors Madeline (lexicontra) and Dana (aboleyns), welcome you to the latest incarnation of this site.
Our goal is to make Hoochie BU’s go-to site for a feminist perspective on current events affecting BU and the greater Boston area, as well as provide a platform for student voice concerning all issues feminist. In doing so, we wish to do our part in improving the female student body’s experience, on both an individual and collective level.
If you are interested in participating in our effort, by writing for us, sharing an experience, or suggesting a topic you would like us to cover, please do not hesitate to send us an email at buhoochiewoman@gmail.com.
Two days ago, this article was published on xoJane.
A Boston University student relates her account of how the student newspaper, The Daily Free Press, reported the incident of her sexual assault using “a pun involving a popular rap song that describes the sexual appeal of a woman’s body” in the crime logs section.
Shockingly, this was not the first time that the DFP had trivialized a crime with a catchy pun or phrase. The author of the article gives several other examples of this practice. She goes on to say that when she brought it up to one of the student managing editors, she was told “that’s just what they’re like.”
The author’s words:
I felt less-than-human. The day in my life that I was sexually assaulted marked a before-and-after divider in how I felt about myself as a human being and as a woman, and this thoughtless, demeaning description of it by somebody who is a fellow student and supposed “journalist” minimized it to a fucking RAP PUN. This was over a year and a half ago, and I am still livid.
The DFP issued an apology, declaring that they would put an end to this practice of satirizing crimes by updating the past headlines as well as only using serious ones in the future. They also “plan to begin mandatory sensitivity training for new editors at the start of each semester.”
However, the issue doesn’t seem solved to us or the author of the xoJane post, who stated that “the apology did not come off as very sincere and I remain unhappy with them and their conduct.”
What exactly will this sensitivity training consist of? As aptly put by one of the comments on the DFP’s apology: “I’m not sure how sensitivity training will help anyone who finds humor in rape, hate crimes & violence.” And it seems that the real issue is with the current editors who were the ones who actually wrote the offensive tag-lines.
As a BU student, I want my school to be the type of community where things like this wouldn’t fly in the first place. Why have issues as serious as sexual assault been insensitively trivialized by the DFP on multiple occasions? Let alone, once?
The DFP is a student newspaper. It should be the voice of the student body – it shouldn’t alienate students with such blatantly offensive and distasteful content.
We at Hoochie will endeavor to hold the DFP to its promise to “improve its coverage of student affairs, its reputation and credibility and its sensitivity to crimes that continue to plague our campus.”
Please do not hesitate to contact us at BUHoochieWoman@gmail.com if you wish to be a part of our effort to improve the BU community.
Unsurprisingly, it is pretty difficult to stop a man intent on murdering his wife.
Though such men show warning signs by physically abusing, stalking, and raping their victims before actually killing them, it isn’t always as easy as it would seem to differentiate between the true killers and the domestic abusers.
Massachusetts has devised an effective system to determine just that, as well as manage the individual situations so that fewer women are harmed.
They do it by first assessing and rating each man based on how aggressive and dominating he is. The men who score high on this scale are monitored more closely, and their victims receive additional resources.
Domestic abuse is so nasty because abusers intend to make their victims feel as though they will never escape from the abusers’ control. If the victim attempts to move on from the relationship, she faces being stalked by the abuser as well as violence toward herself or her children.
The Massachusetts system takes the power back from the abusive men and flips the situation. If an abuser is acting up, Massachusetts can restrict his ability to see his children, monitor and limit his freedom with a tracking device, and if his abuse continues, jail him or put him into a psychiatric hospital.
Massachusetts does to abusive men what they have been doing to their victims. Like their victims once did, the abusers must now monitor their behavior because someone more powerful is watching.
It seems one would be hard-pressed to come up with a more effective and poignant way to combat domestic abuse and homicide. Nicely done, Mass!
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.
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!
Let’s talk about that dirty F-word that people like to avoid: “feminism”. But why? There’s nothing wrong with being a feminist! Feminism is founded on a belief of equality, it’s as easy as that. Why run from it? Show off your feminist pride!
$5.00 from the sale of each sweater will be donated to Planned Parenthood. – Wicked Clothes
Despite being half of the population, women only make up 18.3% of the United States Congress. That’s a number that certainly needs to increase. Sport this sweater to show your support for current and aspiring women in politics. – Wicked Clothes
Unless you’ve been avoiding the news for the past twenty-four hours, you’ve heard the name Wendy Davis mentioned. On Tuesday, Davis stood up to the senate in an effort to filibuster a Texas bill on abortion that would provide even more limitations on a woman’s right to control her own body.
The bill would add further restrictions on abortion clinics around the state, including banning any abortion after the twenty-week marker and require all but five abortion clinics in Texas to be closed. The women who so badly need access to abortion to clinics would no longer be able to get to them.
Ms. Davis was nineteen when she had her first child, but managed to get herself from a trailer park all the way through Harvard Law School and eventually to the Texas Senate. “She’s carrying every woman in the state of Texas, if you will, on her shoulder,” said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood.
If Davis’ filibuster successfully continued till midnight, the legislature would be unable to take a final vote and thus successfully block the bill.
The rules regarding filibusters in the state degree that Davis had to remain on topic the entire time, was unable to lean on any additional support (including a desk or a chair), and could not pause for a bathroom break, food or water. After three strikes the filibuster could be called off.
Davis’ first strike came when she discussed Planned Parenthood’s budget, which according to the legislature did not pertain to the bill being discussed. The second when after standing for almost seven hours, Davis had a colleague help her adjust a back brace. Davis received her final strike when she discussed the current laws requiring a woman to have a sonogram before a doctor will perform an abortion.
When the Senate called an end to the Davis’ filibuster, state Senator Leticia Van De Putte spoke up saying “at what point must a female senator raise her hand or her voice to be recognized over her male colleagues?” resulting in shouts of support throughout the chamber.
Despite the senate’s attempt to silence Davis, her efforts resulted in the bills final votes being taken at 12:03, three minutes too late for SB 5 to be passed as a law.
Throughout this ordeal Wendy Davis got countless supporters. Tweets vary from actor Mark Ruffalo to president Barack Obama showing their support of Davis with hashtags such as #StandWithWendy. Her salmon colored sneakers that she apparently threw on as she ran out the door have become a symbol of her stand.
So deeply moved. What an amazing and satisfying display of humanity in the face of oppression. #standwithwendy
But why is it that a woman’s right to control her body is still being discussed? When was the last time a man had to stand for eleven hours so that he could have control of his own body?
And then to add to this, the protestors supporting a woman’s right to control her own body were called terrorists by Texas Republican legislator Bill Zedler.
We had terrorist in the Texas State Senate opposing SB 5
Since when did fighting for what should be your right make you a terrorist? People are furious and for good reason – it’s 2013 and women are still forced to fight for their right to choose.
The fight isn’t over, but at least people are listening.
![Image of [PREORDER] 'Feminism is the Radical Notion' Charity Tank Top](https://i2.wp.com/cache1.bigcartel.com/product_images/116929539/300.jpg)
![Image of [PREORDER] Tri-Blend 'A Woman's Place' Tank Top](https://i0.wp.com/cache0.bigcartel.com/product_images/113509662/300.jpg)
