feminist blogs

Katrin B. sent in a page from the NatWest Bank magazine, Sense.  The page describes beauty products for the “new man.”  Katrin says she stared at it for a long time because it was just so…unfamiliar.

What’s striking about the page is that it doesn’t hypermasculinize the products, regime, ingredients, or outcome in order to appeal to the male customer by de-feminizing the whole idea of beauty products.  

In other instances, we’ve seen hair products labeled things like “maneuver,” “retaliate,” “stand tough,” “work hard,” and “bulk up”; make-up for men named with terms like “power face mask,” “confidence corrector,” “mission balm,” “battle scars repair cream,” “cream me face base,” and “blo-job bronzing powder.”; and shaving your pubes marketed with the suggestion that it will make your penis look bigger.

(View original at http://contexts.org/socimages)

Jillian York, of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, sent in this Yves Rocher ad in honor of Super Bowl Sunday:

So don’t forget, ladies: the Super Bowl, which you aren’t watching, keeps everybody else in the family busy so you have a little time to yourself, time best spent shopping.

Except when you have to refill the bowls of chips and buffalo wings, of course.

Also? Shut the hell up.

(View original at http://contexts.org/socimages)

In “Barbie and Action Man: Adult Toys for Girls and Boys, 1959-93,” Judy Attfield* discusses differences in two popular dolls, Barbie and Action Man (known in the U.S. as G.I. Joe). She points out that Barbie has very few joints–basically at her shoulders, hips, neck, and perhaps the waist) and is thus very limited in what you can do with her. Her arms are either entirely straight or permanently bent at the elbow. Some versions have slightly bendable knees.

Action Man, on the other hand, were designed with a number of joints in their arms and legs. Original models (available from the 60s until 1984) were marketed with an intentional emphasis on the movement the joints allowed:

Here’s the recent version of the character General Hawk, I believe from G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (from Pulse Figures):

At least some dolls in the current G.I. Joe line have joints in their hands so it’s easier to make them hold things.

Attfield’s argument is that the design of these dolls illustrates assumptions about gender. She says, “…the Action Man figure embodies the increasing possibility of complex movement. Conversely, the simplicity and minimal number of joints in Barbie suggests the priority given to posing rather than action” (p. 82). She is, essentially, for dressing up and looking at, but that’s about all (and getting outfits on over those stiff arms was often quite the task).

The New Living Barbie, which came out in 1970, has more bendable joints and was advertised with the line “as posable as you are”:

So even when a Barbie was introduced to have more flexibility, the emphasis was still on posing–the box doesn’t say “as active as you are,” after all.

Thus, according to Attfield, “…the cliché of ‘feminine’ as passive and ‘masculine’ as active is literally embodied in the design of toys” (p. 85). (She also points out that while doll lines aimed at boys include “bad” characters that serve as the enemies of the protagonists, those marketed to girls, such as Barbie, have yet to include “bad” characters. There’s no evil Barbie who tries to steal Ken away.)

I thought of this when I saw the image Brian Brock sent in (found at Tennis Forum) of a new Barbie meant to represent tennis player Kim Clijsters and her daughter, Jada. Unlike other Barbies, this one clearly has multiple joints that would allow a wider range of motion (though she’s still on her tiptoes, of course):

In this case, some of the design elements that allow more movement in G.I. Joe-type dolls have been incorporated into a Barbie, making her more able to hold things, swing a racket, appear to be running, and so on.

As it turns out, however, this Barbie won’t be available in stores. It’s a showcase model to be shown at toy fairs and the like. So we have a Barbie designed to be less passive…but she’s not actually for kids to play with.

UPDATE: Reader Holly points out that Mattel has experimented with more “action” oriented Barbies before with the WNBA line:

They were actually available in stores. However, I don’t think this really undermines the overall point. There’s no reason that ALL Barbies couldn’t be built like this and still fit into the regular Barbie clothes. But the increased flexibility is incorporated only into “special” Barbies that seem to be sports-related, not the main Barbie line.

* From The Gendered Object, edited by Pat Kirkham. 1996. NY: Manchester University Press, p. 80-89.

(View original at http://contexts.org/socimages)

Lynn S. sent us a link to a Carnegie Mellon story about a new robotic “nurse” for the elderly.  Her name is “Pearl.”

It should go without saying that robots do not need to be gendered male or female and that, in this case, gendering the robot female reproduces a wasp’s nest of stereotypes about who is responsible for caring for others.

I say it should go without saying but, in fact, it mostly does, in the most bizarre way.  The article is about trying to maximize Pearl’s effectiveness as a helper by testing various configurations of appearance, mannerisms, expressions, etc.  But they never address why she is female.  From the article:

To that end, a multidisciplinary team of roboticists, social scientists and interaction designers has drawn on theories of emotion from cognitive science and the principles of aesthetics to explore what happens when human characteristics are added—or taken away—from Pearl’s “persona.”
…
Appearance has a strong impact on a person’s expectations. Researchers want to learn whether facial characteristics will factor into the emotional reaction of people who interact with her. Pearl’s configurable head, the size and spacing of her eyes and the shape of her lips are all important elements in projecting a “persona.”

In the caption to this image, they mention the importance of her “configurable head” for her “persona,” but her gender remains conspicuously unexamined.

Only once in the entire article do they mention gender.  They say that they are “…studying people’s responses to a robot’s perceived gender by changing Pearl’s lips and voice.”  But they named her Pearl, so they seem to have rushed to a conclusion there.  It’s as if, despite the incredible range of concerns and experimentation, scientists are not seriously questioning her sex. 

And I think they should!  Not only because it’s good science, and not only to avoid sexist assumptions, but because the robot is being designed for senior citizens, who are disproportionately women, most of whom have spent a lifetime caring for children and husbands; I’d bet they’d find a nursebot named Peter to be quite a treat!

(View original at http://contexts.org/socimages)

As a white woman between 25 and 44 with a college degree, I am the least likely category of person to be unemployed according to an interactive graphic detailing the joblessness rate for people according to their race, education level, age, and sex (since Jan. ‘07).  It is a rather devastating look at social inequality.  I recommend visiting the site to see for yourself, but below are some screen shots with some comparisons.

For comparison, the overall joblessness rate which, as of Sept., was at 8.6 percent:

The joblessness rate for white people (notice it is lower by 1.4 percent):

The joblessness rate for black people is almost twice that of whites:

Let’s add education level.

The joblessness for whites who have not yet graduated from high school is 17.5 percent:

The joblessness for comparative blacks is 10 percentage points higher.  Notice that the scale on the right hand side has changed from 0-20 percent (above) to 0-50 percent:

If we look at young blacks (15-24 years old) who haven’t been able to complete a high school degree, the joblessness rate is 42.7 percent:

If we restrict the numbers to young black men without a diploma, we see a whopping joblessness rate of 48.5 percent.

For comparison, here is the same kid, but white (the joblessness rate is cut in half, but is still huge, even by recession standards):

Ever wonder why young men turn to the underground economy?  Well, this is why.  Somewhere between 25 and 50 percent of them can’t get a job in the “above ground” economy.  What’s a kid to do?  Add in the rational choice of choosing work that pays more than minimum wage, and you’ve got a whole group of young people who participate in illegal activities.

Then, of course, we police black neighborhoods more aggressively than white neighborhoods, convict black people more frequently than white people, and send them to prison more often and with longer sentences (see also this post).

And, too add insult to injury, after all is said and done, a black person without a criminal record is less likely to get a job interview than a white person with one.  A black person with a criminal record: his chance of getting a call back after dropping off a resume (even at a place like McDonalds) is something like five percent.  No I’m not joking.

<sarcasm>Oh, but if they just had a good attitude and learned to talk right, they too could be successful in this life.</sarcasm>

It’s almost too much to bear.

—————————————–

Via Matthew Yglesias.

(View original at http://contexts.org/socimages)

Bri A. alerted us to the marketing strategy for Love magazine’s current issue.  They posed the eight women “generally acknowledged as the most beautiful in the world” in identical poses.  The effect, editor-in-chief Katie Grand asserts, is to demonstrate “how much they differed physically from one another, which is why we also printed their measurements…”  You tell me.

Oh, maybe not safe for work, so after the jump…

Amber Valleta:

Kate Moss:

Daria Werbowy:

Jeneil Williams:

Kristen McMenamy:

Lara Stone:

Naomi Campbell:

Natalia Vodianova:

As Bri says, the idea that these women represent a range of beauty is “absurd.”  How can they seriously get away with this?  Why aren’t people protesting, or at least guffawing so loudly, that they go back to the drawing board humiliated, chagrined, schooled in the fact that what they say has to actually make sense/correspond to reality/not be exactly the opposite of what they do.  I really want to know.

Also, “generally acknowledged as the most beautiful in the world”?  Wow is that a can of worms.  In the world?  The Western world only, at best.  Generally agreed by whom?  The media industrial complex?  And “beautiful” by what measure?

(View original at http://contexts.org/socimages)

Tilly R. sent in the clip below of Bill Maher attempting to illustrate the oppressiveness of the burqa by staging a fake fashion show in which every model comes out in an identical burqa. You only need to watch the first couple models to get the idea (starts at about .20 sec.):

The comedy is tasteless, at best. And it brings out two interesting assumptions: that measures of women’s liberation include (1) the right to show skin and/or your body’s shape and (2) the choice to express your individuality through your clothes.

It is with a focus on the latter that I introduce a website submitted by K.L. The website, Zarina, sells burqas. While most of the burqas we see in Western media are blue or black, this website sells burqas of all stripes.

A blue, embroidered burqa:

A “hot pink” burqa:

A saddle brown burqa:

A Turkish flag burqa:

An Afghan flag burqa:

An American flag burqa:

A camouflage burqa:

I have no idea if this website is legitimate (though it seems to be) and I have no idea whether women in (which) different burqa-requiring/encouraging societies can actually choose to wear these. I really have no idea.

But I do think it prompts us to interrogate our own assumptions about what women’s liberation looks like and if being able to choose your own style really is a good measure of it.

I’d bet that most Western women feel like being able to choose her clothes is a central part of her sense of freedom. Does that translate in this context? That is, if women were required to wear burqas, but could wear any burqa they like, does this mediate how oppressive the burqa seems to you? Conversely, does the seeming freedom that comes with choosing your clothes become less convincing once you think about it in this context?  I know this is tough to think about, but I think it’s an interesting thought experiment.

————————————

For related posts asking us to think about the relative freedoms represented by the burqa and the power of the male gaze, see here, here, and here.

(View original at http://contexts.org/socimages)

In honor of Black History Month I thought I’d post this Family Dollar ad from last February, sent in by Gloria K.:

As Gloria says, “I guess nothing honors African-American heritage quite like cream relaxer.” Indeed. If only they’d included some skin lighteners, we’d really be set.

[Random advice: As a person with super, extremely, extraordinarily curly-for-a-White-person hair, I am telling you: do not let anyone convince you that you should try these products to straighten your hair. This stuff will burn the shit out of your scalp. You will feel like it is on fire. I can't imagine that it doesn't feel about the same for Black women. This is a product invented to torture people.]

(View original at http://contexts.org/socimages)

via The Awl, this is one of the worst articles I’ve read in a long while. The New York Times decides to take a look at the girls vs. boys TV networks Lifetime and Spike – and concludes that men are sex-addicted idiots and women are fat, fearful and desperate world-savers. No, really:

We can, from these observations, construct the perfect day as imagined by a gal and by a guy.

In the gal’s perfect day she is kidnapped on the way back from putting the kids on the school bus but vanquishes the kidnappers in time to go for a fattening lunch with her single-mom pals, at which they lament their lack of dates before donning designer gowns to go to a school board meeting where they successfully address all major educational problems.

In the guy’s perfect day he awakes and, still sleepy, sticks his hand down a running garbage disposal trying to retrieve the bottle opener he has dropped in it; an ambulance crew made up entirely of strippers rushes him to the Hospital for Advanced Trauma Care and Stripping, where naked but highly trained female surgeons sew his hand back on, then take him home and wash his entire house as well as his car with their breasts while answering questions like: Does being spanked make a woman want to have sex?

So, clearly, members of one sex are living in a sad, unrealistic fantasy world, trying in vain to compensate for the drabness of their day-to-day lives. Members of the other are living a rich life of the imagination, at peace with their self-image and excited by what the future might hold. Which is which goes without saying.

The whole article seems to be a case of the author confirming what he already believes to be true. For example, he asserts that Lifetime is full of true-crime scary-tales, whereas Spike is full of men getting kicked in the balls. Which is kind of true, on both counts. Except that I watch Spike three or four times a week because they play CSI over and over again, right around the time that I go to the gym, and I always want to see who the killer is so I stay on the StairMaster longer. Maybe that’s only because my ass is fat from watching too much Lifetime, but, point being, mainstream and men’s television is chock full of scary-time crime-dramas. I guess Lifetime is just noteable because it’s the only network where women usually save themselves instead of being rescued by whatever dude is playing their cop partner. Which isn’t to say that Lifetime is great and totally feminist — it’s really not. And it does play into the “your gonna get raped!!” culture of fear that women live in by constantly presenting story lines where women are raped, abused, etc etc. But that’s pretty much the entire premise of Law & Order SVU, so I’m still not sure why Lifetime is really breaking the mold.

But anyway, the crime soaps are the least egregious part of the article, and I am in full accord with the author in his characterization of Spike as hyper-masculine douchery (also, yes, I know CSI is a shitty show; it is, however, an unintentionally hilarious show, hence my gym-wating). Crappiness of both Lifetime and Spike aside, though, the article gets even worse:

IN GAL LAND THINGS WEIGH MORE THAN THEY DO IN GUY LAND.

By “things” here we mean, basically, “women.”

Haha did you see that? He called us fat! Good one, bro.

Plump women are almost never seen on Spike, and hotties are almost never seen on Lifetime. It’s a tough call as to which is the more cynical ploy: brazenly playing to a female audience that probably could stand to lose a few pounds or shamelessly playing to a male audience that likes to fantasize about women more gorgeous than actually exist in real life.

Hmmm, yes, which is more shameless… including actresses that look like actual real women on a network that targets actual real women, or only featuring actresses who are Playboy-perfect because, look, boobs? Clearly those things are the same on the cynical scale.

Photo via After Ellen

Lead singer of the The Cliks, Lucas Silveira, was awarded the Chart Attack "Throw Your Underwear Award" in the male category.

While often times these sexiest person alive contests just reinforce traditional ideas of attractiveness (based on body shape, size, gender and race) it's pretty cool to see an openly trans guy make it to the top of this one.

And the best part? It was a reader-selected award. Nice work Canada.

After Ellen has more about Lucas and his band.