Loving Because, Not Despite

Today is Love Your Body Day.

I've been thinking the past few days, about bodies. Bodies is a big old topic. When we talk about "loving our bodies", we're usually silently adding "...despite our weight/size". And for good reason - one source indicates that more than 50% of young women would rather be hit by a truck than be fat. It makes me wonder, of course, how many of the women included in this study were fat? How many of those fat young women indicated that they would rather be hit by a truck than be themselves?

The thing about loving our bodies is, we shouldn't be loving our bodies DESPITE of anything. We should be loving our bodies BECAUSE of everything, fat included. Nomy Lamm has written an excellent piece on this topic. Me? I don't identify as fat, because I don't think fat oppression has affected me, at least not any more so than it affects any thin person. I don't want this to seem like I think being fat is a bad thing, something I was to disassociate from, or that I think there is some magical specific weight/shape where fat ends and thin begins. I just don't think it would be right for me to call myself fat when it's not something that actually impacts my life on a day to day basis. That said, I have fat, and I do not see my fat as an inherently negative trait. I'm squishy, and I love that about myself. Kittens sleep comfortably on my belly. People of all kinds find me quite cuddly.

Fat hatred isn't the only thing that keeps us from loving our bodies, though. In my case, I spent a lot of time and energy hating on my hair. My body hair, I mean, and not just on my legs and under my arms - hair springs profusely from my neck, chest and stomach. Growing up, a lot of people told me that hair on women was unattractive. I didn't meet or even see hairy women until I was a legal adult, and by then, it was too late. I was thoroughly dependent on my (fairly ineffective) hair-ridding rituals. Even after I got the message that hairy women were real and could be successful and beautiful and awesome, a lifetime of self-hating left me a lot of insecurities. I'd say it's only in the past six months, as I've increasingly identified as gender variant, have I been able to fully embrace and display my body hair with real love and pride. While the relief and self-love have been super amazing (seriously - you may not understand the impact of this statement unless you've been paralyzed with fear at the mere thought of it, but I actually like to wear shorts in public), it strikes me, of course, that only in recognizing my gender as non-binary could I recognize my body hair as beautiful. To be a truly empowered hairy woman may elude me forever.


In my mind I see this woman, this normal woman. We know she's normal, because we see her everywhere, but she doesn't actually exist.

It's almost easier to describe what this normal woman is not than what she is, because almost everything she is becomes invisible in its ubiquity.
This normal woman is thin. We know fat women are not normal, because we don't see them, and when we do see them, they are a cautionary tale.
This normal woman is able-bodied. We know disabled women are not normal, because we don't see them, and when we do see them, they are to be pitied.
This normal woman is white. We know women of color are not normal, because we don't see them, and when we do see them, they are exotic.
This normal woman is cis and gender-conforming. We know trans and gender non-conforming women are not normal, because we don't see them, and when we do see them, they are the butt of jokes.

I'm simplifying a lot of issues here. The point is, loving your body is discouraged on many different fronts. Loving your body can not be about loving your body despite. Loving your body despite means accepting a non-reality: that this normal woman exists and everyone should/can aspire to be her. There are too many bodies whose realities can never, ever line up with kyriarchal standards of beautiful, or even of normal.


Love Your Body Day may be over by the time you read this, depending on what time zone you're in, but I encourage you to spend a little time anyway thinking about the things you have been taught to love your body despite of - the things about you that you have been told are ugly, abnormal, or just the things you have never been told are beautiful. Loving these things is a radical act.

Love everything about your body - and, I think this is crucial, also love everything about someone else's. The more we realize the vast variety of things we can love in others, the more we feel worthy of love ourselves.

Read More...

The Theme of the Day Is, Themes

I am endlessly amused and impressed by collections of clips displaying themes in pop culture that we take for granted. And so today I have amassed for you a COLLECTION OF COLLECTIONS.

Cool Guys Don't Look at Explosions (Lonely Island):


I'm Not Here to Make Friends (FourFour):


Finally Tonight, Jesus (Everything is Terrible):


Put the Camera Down/Turn It Off (FourFour):


Medicine (Target Women with Sarah Haskins):


I could actually use a lot of other Sarah Haskins videos, I'm sure. I'll leave just this one for now, since I was shocked that I never noticed this stupid black and white theme.
I'll add more as I find/they inspire... please leave any I've missed!

Read More...

Today in Victim Blaming

Alright. Am I the only one who saw this ad and legitimately thought the message was going to be "don't be a shithead when your friend might have alcohol poisoning"? No, unfortunately, actual medical information about the dangers of binge drinking is not the way anti-drug ads tend to roll. Shame is the way anti-drug ads tend to roll. Whatever people do to you when you're incapacitated is your fault, not theirs, apparently.

Read More...

Are you fucking kidding me?

I'm constantly bewildered by facebook advertisements, trying to get me to shave all my body hair, or telling me to OBEY this new diet tip, but seeing this yesterday was a whole new low:


The media has had a series of fucked-up and dangerous reactions to this relationship and the violence against this woman. This takes the cake though: trying to make a quick buck with direct victim-blaming.

I marked this shit as offensive, but, really? Does a giant site like facebook really have NO standards for their advertisements outside of user preferences? I shouldn't have to mark this offensive. I shouldn't see it.

Read More...

Nice Try, Facebook

There's a new ad being targeted at me on Facebook. They seem to be trying to make up for their recent offense.


Awfully suspicious, eh? Alas, I know that they never try to appeal to my feminist sensibilities, just playing to my gender. And often to the fact that I have a Buffy the Vampire Slayer application? They advertise Buffy DVDs a whole lot.

Read More...

What the hell is this, facebook?

Listen, I know facebook isn't exactly a great place for social responsibility, and this one may not even be their fault. It just irked me.

Facebook has specialized advertisements, which means I usually get to see an ad for Buffy the Vampire Slayer DVDs when I'm checking my friends' notes. Today, however, I was looking at some Harry Potter application, and I get this shit:



What the hell? Who measures themselves? Furthermore, does the kind of person who measures themselves really need to see a picture of measuring tape and the word "fat" when they're checking their facebook? I have a pretty good self-image and this still had me somewhat unsettled. I'm wondering, since a lot of ads are specifically targeted, is this? How would they target this? Women? Hufflepuffs? (Geek tangent: why in the first book are Hufflepuffs loyal, just and fair, but by the fifth book they're "the rest"? Hufflepuffs got fuckin' Mary-Anned.)

Anyway, Facebook isn't exactly proving itself to be a great place for women. Besides this, there's the breastfeeding photo ban, and, well:


Thank you, facebook, for reminding me of my slowly dying faith in humanity. It's great that so many said yes, and it's horrifying so many people said no, and it's downright despicable that this is a serious question.
If you want real horror, though, scroll down a nudge. After some people are having the right reaction, we get to the colorful message boards:


I won't expand on what these delightful threads contain. Let me just reiterate a point I've made before: social justice courses should be a college requirement.
Also, someone let me know if there's a better umbrella term for the wonderful word of gender studies, ethnic studies, queer studies, disability studies and so on. I'd like to know it.

Read More...

Fuck You, Guinness.

I haven't finished the candidate series. I haven't posted about the Project Runway finale. I'll probably do the former but not the latter. Let me just give you the words running through my head about Christian's collection: isosceles, fungal growth, top-heavy, dirty (dirty-dirty not sexy-dirty), and why-the-fuck-will-puffed-
sleeves-tight-pants-and-ruffles-never-cease-to-amaze-these-
people. The thought "he needs the money" almost soothed me except I remembered he's twenty-one, he's not SUPPOSED to have a nice apartment, especially in New York.

For now, though, I've got ventin' to do.
Fuck. You. Guinness.


Guinness is sponsoring the oh-so-cleverly titled Proposition 3-17, which would affectively turn a religious and cultural holiday into a nationally recognized day for Guinness to make a few extra bucks. Don't even try to tell me that Guinness is doing this for Irish pride- the write up of 3-17 includes some bullshitting about "allow[ing] people to express their Irishness" but ends, predictably, with the suggestion of enjoying "a pint of Guinness stout or two". I know appropriation happens all the time, but alcohol companies are particularly fond of perverting holidays founded by people who stereotypically drink into excuses for drinking, and nothing, nothing else. I'm sure Corona will be all over a petition to officially recognize Cinco De Mayo soon enough.
The text of Proposition 3-17 states that on St. Patrick's Day, "everyone reveals a little bit of their Irish side". Translation: On St. Patrick's day, everyone reveals a bit of their drunken side. There is absolutely no indication on their site of how we're supposed to commemorate St. Patty's Day except through drinking, and the occasional plastic shamrock, the meaning of which is surely a mystery to them. This is not about pride. This is about pushing beer.
Irking me further, Guinness posted people stating "why they signed the petition" on their website:


I think this is the only Saint's day that has ever been described this way. You know, St. Joseph's day, celebrated by and associated with Italians, is two days after St. Patrick's, and I never see anyone on the streets celebrating that one. Nobody drinks themselves stupid or throws big parties on Easter, either, and that seems like it should be a happy occasion. I wonder why?


Again, I'm reading this as being Irish as directly related to one's intake of alcohol, unless she cooks corned beef and cabbage and listens to Celtic music in inordinate amounts every March the seventeenth. Considering the video going along with this quote was filmed in a bar, I doubt it.

Saint Patrick's Day came up in one of my classes a few days ago, and half the people there didn't know who Saint Patrick was, or even if he was a real guy. But on March 17th, I wager, they'll have a headband adorned with glittering shamrocks on springs resting upon their heads and a cool, refreshing Guinness in hand. I'm not saying that we understand the other holidays we do officially recognize (we don't, none of them), I'm just saying, why continue the fucked-up trend? Especially when we understand this holiday through a stereotype.

Read More...

Film Advertisers Seem to Be Unable to Grasp the Concept of Original Concepts

Ever since a friend rented "The Last Kiss" which was touted on back cover to be a quirky romantic comedy and turned out to be one hundred and fifteen minutes of bleak, uh- bleakness, I've been wary to not view movies based on what they advertise themselves as.

So, I'm in a quandary with the movie Teeth. It was discussed on Feministing a while back, and a friend saw it at the Williamstown Film Festival (which she covered for the school paper, you can read here). She seemed to like it a lot, and certainly the subject is interesting, so I've been anticipating a chance to see it. However, the advertising has created some confusion as to what the tone of the film is- you see, the first poster looked like this:


It's very fluffy, and our hero strikes an almost Clueless-esque pose, but without pants, of course. The writer at Feministing took issue with this, and rightly so- there is rape and castration going on, and this poster looks like an American Pie sequel- but I was at the time at least hopeful that this indicated satiric humor. I thought some humor might not only bring people out to theaters to see a movie about, you know, a vagina with teeth, but also could be useful in discussing the sad state of sexuality in the country. Abstinence clubs and purity pledges are inherently funny to me.

This afternoon I was browsing movie trailers when I saw one for Teeth, and I was obviously excited. However, my excitement faded when I see the advertising spin switched from fluffy teen movie fare to straight-up horror. Not fluffy to dark comedy (as I had hoped), not fluffy to riveting drama- there is no mistaking, if I knew nothing about this movie, I would think it was a bizarre and even tacky (every rose has its thorns? really?) low-budget thriller instead of a feminist Sundance gem. You can watch the trailer out on the official website. Also observe the black-and-red horror motif of the website itself, which seems to clash with the blue tint of all the screen shots I've seen. There is also, less importantly, poor grammar- the tag line, Every Rose Has It's Thorn, implies Every Rose Has It Is Thorn. Tsk!
Here's the new poster:


From what friends and reviews tell me, the film is an interesting (though intense) way of confronting society's fear of sexuality, particularly female sexuality, and is generally empowering. However, these ads just seem to be exploiting this fear- the quote on the film states that is an "alarming cautionary tale for men". Herein lies the problem, or at least my problem.

Why is the film suddenly about/for men? I'm sure there's something to be learned for men here, but is it comparable to Fatal Attraction, in which the female antagonist tortures a family and eventually gets killed? I don't want to spoil the ending of Teeth (though I obviously don't know all the details yet, I do know the general arch), but the answer to the conflict here is not violence, and the woman is certainly not a threat to be eliminated. She is, you know, the heroine and everything. But you wouldn't know it from the trailer- the protagonist (or at least her vagina) is made out to be the monster and her touchy-feely gyno to be one of many hapless victims (by the way, the friend that covered it stated that in a Q&A following the film, one male viewer expressed he did see the gynecologist as an innocent victim- a statement to which anyone in the audience who had ever been to an actual OB/GYN appointment scoffed).

Revolutionary idea: pitch the film about female sexuality with a complex female protagonist to women for what it is, instead of a sexy teen comedy or a tacky rehashing of an old horror story.

Read More...

Stereotypelicious!

So, obviously advertisements are made to play on our insecurities and biases, but why do fast food commercials continue to be goddamn oppressive? You're selling food, for goodness' sakes, it's a basic human need, all you should need to do is make it look appetizing. Even "edible, cheap and not revolting" is a good marketing scheme. But, no- as I've discussed before on this blog, men are attacked if they don't act like men, and apparently eating meat is a masculine trait. Of course Burger King's "I am Man" commercial made that clear, and a new spot from Wendy's has made the point a little more subtly, by cutting up and pasting together male and female bodies so that they can have the series of events they want but without any pesky gender role variation.

The ad freaks me the fuck out. If you haven't seen it, go to their website and click the black and white cut-and-pasted head on the bottom right. They did not put regular male actors in this commercial, because, duh- being overexcited, fanatic and hysterical are totally femmey. Please, talk to some wrestling fans for ten seconds if you want to prove male fanaticism exists. You would also find a ton of female wrestling fans, and surprise! Women eat bacon, too! But you'd never know it from a fast food commercial. Women actors couldn't be cast in this commercial because, duh, meat is for men! So the obvious solution is to impose pictures of men on the bodies of women, so the womanly parts can act crazy and the manly parts can eat meat. What the fuck?

Another commercial currently on the air that bothers the fuck out of me with its subtle prejudice is KFC's heartwarming family's-favorite-moments commercial. After some searching I thankfully found that I wasn't the only one that has an issue with this one. It seems like a sweet moment over dinner at first, but after they panned around the tables a few times I realized it was a black family, enjoying a bucket of chicken, and they were fatherless. Oh, dear.

Anyway, if you're here it's probably due to Project Runway and not my analysis of advertising. Though I would love to draw an analyzing-advertising audience because, hell, it's just as entertaining as watching PR and feels way more productive. But, I'll end with my prediction for the next episode. From the previews it's pretty obviously a men's wear challenge, but that by itself is a little boring. Even if it wasn't, PR always needs a second twist (you're designing for SJP's line- with $15, ha ha ha!), so I'm hoping the real challenge is designing a look for Tim Gunn. Though it may be problematic were he walking around giving advice during the process, but think about it- Tim could finally be on the judge's panel! Also, Tim Gunn objectification ahoy!

Read More...

Men Should Act Like Robots.

Hello, my five loyal readers. I only caught the second half of Project Runway's reunion special, and that's never, ever the good part, so I'll hold off writing about reality TV for another week. Since I got to college, TV makes me feel dirty.

Speaking of. I was working in the women's center the other day, and after finishing up the newsletter and bringing our Love Your Body Day posters to the copy center, I browsed a couple of feminist blogs and sites. Feministing brought me to this site for some stupid beer. Before you can view their commercials, they will ask you if you're "old enough to play with the big boys". Listen, buddy, I go to college. Girls drink beer, too. This also implies that only people of legal drinking age can look at alcohol commercials, which is pretty hilarious. Any kid with access to a TV already knows that beer is for boys, hard drinks that taste like fruit are for girls and alcohol makes everyone more fun and sexy.

Does anyone remember the very first commercial for Bratz? Their very first tagline (which I'm left to assume was quicky pulled off the air- but how the did it get on in the first place?) was said by two pretty young ladies in unison: "Don't Theorize, Accesorize!" I know that I for one, after overcoming the sheer disbelief, began freaking. the. fuck. out. How did NOBODY in the room when that one was thrown out go "you know, that could be construed as sexist"? Maybe there were no women in the room. Maybe they should make a Bratz playset that comes with a glass ceiling. After all, I've been told Bratz are all about girl power. Girl power through fashion, girl power through diamonds, girl power through buying more shit. Girl power in that Barbie was getting a little too frumpy, what with changing her classic features so she almost looked kind of like a real human being, so Bratz kicked it UP and cornered the market for peddling gender roles and unrealistic standards to extremely young girls.

Anyway, my point being, these beer commercials are so blatantly destructive on their own, and yet, like Bratz's original tagline, they felt the need to point out their own idiocy. For the crimes of swatting a bee, enjoying a trampoline and wiping the grease off one's pizza, the offenders are put to death by a giant can of beer. There seems to be a backlash from the days of the metrosexual (which I've heard more often than ever since I got to school- people still use this word seriously? Why do we need to throw a ridiculous label on a hetero man with a couple of "feminine" qualities?). Ads have always been pretty sexist, but now more than ever I'm noticing attacks on men- you don't like red meat, alcohol and fast cars? You're not a man, prepare to be ostracized.

As if the kick in the balls wasn't enough, then comes the punch in the face, a deep voice making no allusions about the message: "Men Should Act Like Men." So, I had a couple of ideas to expand their already large library of things un-manly. (They are not family friendly, apologies to my main linker BPR.)
Enjoy.



MEN SHOULD ACT LIKE MEN.



MEN SHOULD ACT LIKE MEN.



MEN SHOULD ACT LIKE MEN.



MEN SHOULD ACT LIKE MEN.



MEN SHOULD ACT LIKE MEN. DRINK. OBEY.

Read More...

In Which I Question The White Hollywood Machine

Ok. I wasn't sure if I ought to post this in "Congrats" or here. It's not really anyone being an asshole- it's more so a face-into-palm, you-can't-be-thinking-clearly situation.

Looking for creative ways to waste my time, I played this game a few days ago. I'm not promoting the game- it's a Nickelodeon game, who apparently think kids are too stupid to do more than play one level, so they made essentially the same level with ten different themes. The thing is, it's based on their new show, "Genie on the House", which I couldn't find much internet information about. Why was I looking up a kid's show no one (my age, at least) has yet heard of? Because I care.

If you clink that link, you'll be greeted with this image:



Now, you may be wondering why "Adil" looks like someone photoshopped his face to match his shirt. If you look at his hand, it's not hard to tell that his skin has been tampered with. This was not the image that appeared when I first played the game. You can see what the kid is supposed to look like in this tiny picture, the only one that comes up when you search for "Genie in the House":



It seems someone has painted the young white actor playing the genie a light brown. I guess this only struck them as insensitive a few days after they released an online game about it. I was hoping, in vain, that it was his natural skin tone, and only looked like brownface due to lighting or something. The touch-up just added to my worries. They can filter out their bad idea on the internet, but what are they going to do with the show? Digitally edit every scene? Claim it's a natural tan?

Look, if you're going to do a kid's show about genies- and first of all, why are you doing a kid's show about genies? As if genies haven't been done a million times, there's already a popular show on Nickelodeon about kids getting wishes.

Now let's pretend having a show with a genie is still an original idea. Why oh why would one put a teen actor into that puffy, creepy, old-timey, stereotypical genie outfit? Thankfully they omitted the typical pointy ears and bizarre ponytail, why not just totally westernize him and throw him in jeans and a t-shirt? You could give him wild green hair or something to identify him as "supernatural".

Of course, most importantly, if you're really committed to that classic Western image of the ornately dressed Arabian genie, why not get an actor of Middle Eastern descent? They do exist, and would probably be delighted to get a role on a widely viewed television station. If you've been watching TV lately (or, well, ever) you might noticed the dearth of Middle Eastern (and Indian, and Asian, and Native American, and etcetera) performers in major roles. Unless, of course, they did try that, and every single kid walked out in horror when introduced to the creepy outdated genie costume he would have to wear. So they hired a white teen actor, and by paint or by lamps, changed his skin. I guess the minds at Nickelodeon thought kids are also too stupid to tell the difference.

edit: Genius as I am, I neglected to click the "Nick" logo above the game and figure out that this is currently only airing in the UK. I'm no less worried- aren't they supposed to be smarter than us?

Read More...