When you look at today’s pop music scene, it’s easy to become discouraged. Women in song, in music videos, and on stage are expected to be oversexualized and Barbie-doll beautiful, and it seems as though talent has taken a backseat to sex appeal.
But in this gloomy musical landscape, a few bright lights stand out. One of these is the brilliant Marian Call, an Alaskan singer-songwriter who describes her style as “acoustic folk funk with a twist of jazz.”
Others, like the memorable nerd anthem “I’ll Still Be A Geek”, deal with being a female geek in a society that expects women to care more about sororities than sci-fi.
Quite a few of Marian Call’s songs express the joys and frustrations of being a woman who is passionately unique, and unwilling to conform to society’s image of what a woman “ought” to be like. The title track of her recent album, “Vanilla” is a good example.
She sings:
I’m not sexy, but I really want to be
I hear that’s normal for my demographic
I don’t look good in skirts, and even wedges hurt my feet
And I can’t keep a straight face and say ‘orgasmic’
Oh, I’m not hip, but I really want to be
All the bands I like you’ve heard of, and I watch too much TV
And I’m not cute, and I think too hard to be sweet
But not enough to get a real job or converse insightfully –
This is the part where you politely disagree.
My virtues are vanilla at best, but you can always call on me.
When asked about the meaning of the song, Call wrote, “I’m grappling with a very narrow definition of sexy here, the shallowest imaginable MTV bad girl diva dancer definition. Have no fears for my self-image; it’s just fine.”
Marian Call is a highly intelligent and talented woman, and she doesn’t have to perform in tiny leather outfits to prove it.
Support talented women in the arts! Visit www.mariancall.com to find out more about Marian’s music and lyrics; you can also follow her on Twitter at www.twitter.com/mariancall.
The other morning I was chatting with Alli, my friend and colleague at the American Association of University Women (AAUW), about a recent posting she read on Feministing about female comic book and graphic novel characters.
The post mentioned that while some argue that strides are being made for better representation of women in this particular medium, many comics and graphic novels still lag behind.
The Feministing post highlighted Power Girl, a female superhero with powers that rival Superman’s, with an alter ego who works as a female CEO. While this all sounds well and good, comments on the post discussed other issues such as the extreme sexualization of the character:
Panels from a Power Girl comic book
Alli pointed out that the author makes an interesting note at the beginning of her post about the “women in refrigerators” syndrome, which refers to the de-powering of female superheroes. Generally speaking, when a female character loses her powers or is injured or attacked, she is less likely to bounce back.
Oracle
Being a Batman comic fan, I thought of Barbara Gordon: After being paralyzed from the waist down, she gives up going out on the streets to fight crime as Batgirl and takes up the role of Oracle instead (whereas in Knightfall, Batman recovers from a broken back and continues fighting crime as Batman).
But how does this all relate to gender violence, specifically?
An image that comes immediately to my mind is the attempted rape scene in Watchmen. (It is present in both the graphic novel and the movie, but I’ll just discuss the graphic novel depiction here.) While the sequence does not glamorize rape, it does contain victim-blaming language.
The Comedian (a.k.a. the perpetrator) justifies his attack by saying,
“C’mon, baby. I know what you need. You gotta have some reason for wearin’ an outfit like this, huh?”
Of course, he is referring to the Silk Spectre’s revealing costume.
Another member of the superhero group walks in after the Silk Spectre has been beaten to the ground and stops the attack. Even though he helps her out, he says to her as she’s bleeding on the floor,
“Get up … and, for God’s sake, cover yourself.”
This solidifies the victim-blaming justification used earlier and reinforces the notion that, even though she’s a crime fighter, she can still be degraded, overpowered, and controlled by men.
Even though she is strong, her power as a superhero — and as a woman — is taken away.
What do these depictions of female superheroes and comic book characters say about our society? How do they influence how the audience perceives women in real life?
Even if these women are powerful in fighting crime and in their personal lives, they are objectified. Even when they are a contributing member of the team, they are sexually violated and abused.
When there’s room for so much growth and better representation for women in this medium, why are these recurring themes and plot devices still prevalent? Perhaps the answer is that with all the sexual violence that exists across the globe, these themes just mirror real life.
Do these American Apparel models convey similar messages despite their age difference?
When it comes to children, it can be very difficult to distinguish what is exploitative from what is innocent. If a certain pose signifies sexual provocation amongst adults, must that pose have the same meaning when created by a child? And how does this increasingly blurry territory affect how the judicial system defines child pornography?
This issue came up while I was searching for a scandalous, though not X-rated, photo on the American Apparel web site to include in our Gallery of Offenders. While there, I noticed that the web site had a children’s section, and out of curiosity, I decided to see how their children’s photos compared.
Most of the children’s photos were age-appropriate, cute, racially diverse, and positive overall, but there were a few that caused alarm. If I had seen any of the questionable photos in another context, I wouldn’t have given them a second thought. However, because they were from American Apparel, a company notorious for their pornographic advertising, I deemed them inappropriate.
Some of the children’s photos were disturbingly familiar. Here’s what I mean:
All photos were found on American Apparel's web site and pasted together.
In context, they look pretty bad. Whether the children were posed that way, mimicked the adult models, or were simply caught in a random position that we have given a sexual meaning to–does it really change the fact that these photos are the ones used to advertise clothing?
What complicates the situation is that adult women often mimic the innocence and playfulness of young girls as a way to flirt or behave in a sexual manner.
These American Apparel ads each show models in childish poses.
Basically, women are imitating girls in order to look young and innocent, and girls are in turn imitating women in order to look more adult and sexual.
This issue reaches far greater than fashion advertisements. Pedophilia and the sexual abuse of children are serious problems that are no doubt getting worse, due to the increased sexualization of little girls. But are we unable to separate the harmless from the harmful?
A photo from the parents' alleged collection of child pornography
A few months ago I ran across the San Francisco Chronicle story Are bath-time photos child pornography?, and was shocked to learn that parents faced child-abuse charges for the bathtime photos’ “sexual exploitation” of their daughters.
In more recent news, the U.S. Army charged a soldier serving in Afghanistan with child pornography possession after the soldier’s mother sent him photos of a young relative playing in her swimsuit.
Why does our culture both try to protect children from sexual abuse (sometimes without reason), yet recklessly perpetuate pedophilia by sexualizing childhood? Why can’t we just act our ages and treat and view others in an age-appropriate manner? Or is the concept of “age appropriate” too ambiguous to define?
On a normal walk down the street in a city like Sydney, anyone would expect to see bus stop advertising featuring titillating images of women. So when I recently noticed some posters of naked women in sensuous poses, I barely even bothered to see what they were for.
But I did stop and look, and right down in the bottom corner I saw that they were for Kotex–and not just any floral-boxed tampons and pads, but for luxurious “U by Kotex Platinum” ones!
U by Kotex Platinum ad
Now that’s interesting, I thought: naked, sexualized women selling intimate products to other women.
Naked women, with their long hair flowing from semi-decapitated heads and strategically covering their nipples, following the line of their airbrushed bodies. And here I was, thinking you needed to be wearing underwear for a pad to even stay put.
The U by Kotex Platinum ads are certainly a departure from what we’re used to seeing in advertising for feminine hygiene products—for example, the fantasy of a Tampax commercial, or the sporty, active images of a Playtex ad. Usually, ads for these products involve women who show us how unrestricted we can be, even when having our period.
The new Kotex Platinum ads seem to have fallen into the mindset of the cosmetics industry, where women are shown images of unattainable beauty standards to recognize what they themselves are lacking.
Is Kotex trying to be controversial with Platinum, or is this just what they think women want to see? Am I supposed to look like that when I have my period? How are these images supposed to appeal to women?
I love the satirical newspaper The Onion. Their sharp and hilarious cultural criticism makes me laugh and makes me think. A little while back they featured this video about how People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA) uses the objectification of women in their advertising:
I’d always ignored PeTA’s sexist advertising because I agree with the vast majority of the causes they’re fighting for. We do need strong action to end cruelty to animals and promote vegetarianism for ethical and environmental reasons. The causes PeTA champions deserve urgent attention. But other organizations, like Earthsave and Mercy for Animals, don’t use these tactics–so is misogynist advertising the way to go about gaining rights for animals?
Obviously the Onion video is satirical, but there’s a lot of truth in what they say. This PeTA ad was released in 2000 and quickly made sexist advertising offenders lists everywhere:
Ms. Magazine took issue with this ad that targets women who don’t meet a beauty ideal, as much as it targets the wearers of fur.
And if feminists thought it couldn’t get much worse, it has. In addition to a bevy of ads featuring objectified nude women, PeTA has glamorized violence against women with ads like this one from 2007:
PeTA ad portrays a woman in a powerless position
Maybe we should target individuals who wear fur, but is running a series of demeaning ads (most of which were banned) called “Woman in Fur Coat Pees in a Litterbox”, and “Woman in Fur Coat Drinks from the Toilet” helping the cause?
And why do we see so few ads targeting male meat-eaters and leather-wearers from PeTA?
PeTA posts all their banned ads on their website. The one that shocked me most was one called “What if You Were Killed for Your Coat?” where, in PeTA’s own words ,“a man clubs a woman unconscious and then rips her fur coat off her body”.
Maybe the women who pose nude for PeTA in advertising and public demonstrations find it empowering. I won’t argue against that, but the message the public receives seems to be more about reinforcing unrealistic ideals of female beauty rather than promoting the ethical treatment of animals.
Some feminists argue that PeTA is making a clever link, showing how both women and animals are exploited in a tongue-in-cheek way. But I doubt the average audience member would get that message even if that’s the intent. Even the Huffington Post had a poll earlier this year encouraging readers to vote on the “Sexiest PeTA Ad of All Time”. The winner of the poll was this naked picture of NYPD Blue star Charlotte Ross:
Is it feminist if the audience doesn’t know it?
Is treating women like meat ever justified if the cause is important enough? I’m open to discussion, but it seems to me like PeTA could get more people on-side if they worked to make feminists allies instead of enemies.
While trying to figure out how to top my costume from last year (I dressed up as M.I.A., and yes, I did look pretty fly), I’m reminded of Halloween’s uniform for young women: the “slut”. The 2004 movie Mean Girls said it best:
Mean Girls describes, but doesn’t explain, this Halloween phenomenon. Why do girls care so much about looking sexy? What do they hope to achieve by dressing provocatively? And why do they feel the need to conform to such a narrow model of expressing their sexuality? After doing some critical research and cultural analysis, I decided to attempt to explain just why girls are so gung-ho on dressing up like “hos” on Halloween.
Our culture simultaneously shames and rewards female sexuality, so it makes sense that girls grow up having very conflicted feelings and ideas. Nothing is inherently wrong with a young woman wanting to feel sexy. However, looking like a Playboy Bunny is only one of an infinite number of ways to achieve that feeling. We can dress up as anything on Halloween (or any other day) to express our unique talents, interests, personalities, senses of humor, strengths, etc.—so why do so many of us just choose to be “sexy” for Halloween?
Typical army costumes for women, teens, and girls. I'm pretty sure none of these was designed for combat.
Dressing as stereotypical eye candy has strong cultural implications, and enough young women do so on Halloween that it has become expected. However, when a female chooses to present herself in this stereotypically sexy way, she’s also making an important statement that she might not have considered before going out dressed in what is essentially lingerie: “I am content to be seen as just an object—not a full human being.”
We would like to believe we have achieved sexual liberation and gender equality; we have not. But maybe by focusing on our abilities to dress provocatively, it’s easier to forget the opportunities and rights that we still lack, the violence and discrimination we constantly face.
Ariel Levy discusses this idea, as well as what she refers to as “the rise of raunch culture”, in her book Female Chauvinist Pigs (which I highly recommend). Levy argues:
The proposition that having the most simplistic, plastic stereotypes of female sexuality constantly reiterated throughout our culture somehow proves that we are sexually liberated and personally empowered has been offered to us, and we have accepted it. But if we think about it, we know this just doesn’t make any sense. It’s time to stop nodding and smiling uncomfortably as we ignore the crazy feeling in our heads and admit that the emperor has no clothes. (p197)
Levy also asserts that, these days, women have three options:
1. To act “like a man” (a male chauvinist, in particular)
2. To embody “the most simplistic, plastic stereotypes of female sexuality constantly reiterated throughout our culture” (p197)
3. Do neither 1 nor 2, and be considered a prude or an uptight feminist
None of these options seem too appealing, but only the last one can really get us out of this bind. While the first two options might grant a woman shorter-term, individual success, they also perpetuate sexism and misogyny in our culture (hence the term “Female Chauvinist Pigs”).
Girls learn early that their looks count, often much more than their intelligence, personality, or talents. Cultural messages reinforce the idea that, to be successful, we need to be a particular type of sexy and attractive. I want young women, when they are mature enough, to really own their unique sexualities. But I don’t want our sex appeal to be our sole means of getting attention, status, or money, because ultimately, it doesn’t lead to gaining respect or better rights.
Do what makes you feel happy and confident, but ask yourself who you are being sexy for, why, and if you need to look like a Maxim model to feel that way. And remember that your sexuality is part of you, but it’s not the only part.
If you can dress up any way you want to on this holiday, do you really want to hit the default button and look like just another clone? Or do you want to express yourself (and your sexiness) in a more unique, authentic way?
From Kanye to Serena Williams, it seems like everyone has been apologizing for inappropriate comments recently. But one apology you may have missed was that of Orange County Register columnist Mark Whicker.
Phillip Garrido’s backyard, where Jaycee Dugard was held captive for 18 years.
Whicker wrote a seriously offensive column on September 7th that attempted to use the rescue of Jaycee Dugard as a hook for a story on a series of sports highlights.
Dugard’s rescue earlier this year after being kidnapped at age 11 was big news. She had spent 18 years held captive in her abductor’s backyard, where he repeatedly raped her and forced her to give birth to two children.
Apparently Whicker thought a totally appropriate response would be this:
[Dugard] never saw a highlight. Never got to the ballpark for Beach Towel Night. Probably hasn’t high-fived in a while. She was not allowed to spike a volleyball… Now, that’s deprivation.
By turning her story into an intro for sports trivia, Whicker downplayed the violence Dugard suffered. After a reaction by angry readers, Whicker and the OCR’s Deputy Editor of Sports were forced to apologize. Unfortunately, neither actually seemed to understand why.
The same day as his apology, Whicker defended himself to Michael David Smith of AOL Fanhouse, saying: “I am quite surprised by the angry tone of the reaction. I think the intent of the column was still valid.” After Smith said Whicker shouldn’t have been surprised at the backlash, Whicker responded, “Thanks for ripping me. I’m really happy I devoted part of this very hectic day responding to someone who had as little interest in my viewpoint as the crazies out there.”
Likewise, Whicker’s apology comes across as audience-blaming, implying he’s mostly apologetic that “this column appears to have disconnected that bond with at least part of our readers.”
This video game involves "using poison gas on the victim, sexually assaulting her and using psychological abuse against her in efforts to make her 'love' you."
Even the deputy editor’s apology seems to apologize more to Whicker — for “depriv[ing] Mark of what every writer needs: an attentive editor” — than to the audience.
The OCR’s handling of the situation is symptomatic of a society that is so desensitized by the media sensationalizing violence against women that the representation is dissociated from reality.
For example, many commentators argued George Sodini’s shooting of 12 women at a Pennsylvania gym wasn’t motivated by a hatred of women. New York Times columnist Bob Herbert responded to this incident and discussed our perception of violence against women:
“We profess to being shocked at one or another of these outlandish crimes, but the shock wears off quickly in an environment in which the rape, murder and humiliation of females is not only a staple of the news, but an important cornerstone of the nation’s entertainment.”
With rape simulations in video games becoming more common, crime dramas depicting violence against women with increasing explicitness, and mainstream “comedy” movies like Observe and Reporttreating rape as a joke, violence against women is glamorized and packaged for public consumption.
Observe and Report treats date rape as comedy
Whicker isn’t the only one in the media trivializing misogynist acts of violence and ignoring real women’s trauma, but he should definitely own up to his contribution.
–Jarrah
Jarrah Hodge is a freelance writer and blogger from Vancouver, BC. Jarrah has a degree in Women’s Studies and Sociology and her writing takes an anti-racist, feminist look at pop culture, gender in the news, and politics. Currently Jarrah writes a column called Gender Files for the Vancouver Observer, and also runs her own blog at www.jarrahhodge.wordpress.com. When she’s not working or writing, Jarrah can usually be found playing board games.
Helen Keller is an American icon who is best known for learning to communicate in spite of the fact that she was deaf and blind, but she also was a writer and had a strong political voice. 3OH!3 references Keller in the song “Don’t Trust Me”, but the lyrics in the song’s hook show no respect for this brilliant female icon: “Shush girl, shut your lips / Do the Helen Keller and talk with your hips”.
A frame from 3OH!3's "Don't Trust Me" music video
The two 3OH!3 group members are goofy and are
not meant to be taken seriously. However, it can be more damaging to the view of women in general when the song is seen as a joke. Because of 3OH!3′s poppy beats and lurid comedy, young people sing along to “Don’t Trust Me” without really listening to the distressing lyrics.
Take a look for yourself:
The “Don’t Trust Me” music video shows women bumping and grinding suggestively around the 3OH!3 singers, but the song’s lyrics take the cake with their truly disturbing implications.
Like other popular songs, women are repeatedly called “hoes” in “Don’t Trust Me.” First of all, calling a woman a “ho” in this context dismisses her humanity, bringing her value down lower than a man’s. Also, the song tells us not to trust women. Why? Simply becausethey are women. Yeah, it would be hard to trust women with your heart when you don’t see them as thinking, feeling persons, but as sexy things there for men’s gratification
The lyrics go way downhill from here, telling us that the woman in the song (you) wants to drink with the band. Then, the song’s story goes:
“Bruises cover your arms
Shaking in the fingers with the bottle in your palm
And the best is, no one knows who you are
Just another girl at the bar…
Shush girl, shut your lips
Do the Helen Keller and talk with your hips”
Also, why would the woman in the song have bruises on her arms? Why is she alone at the bar? Why are they telling her to not to speak but to “talk with [her] hips”?
The woman in the song sounds like she is depressed and physically beaten, or has perhaps been usingintravenous drugs. The singers tell us all they really want from her is sex. The 3OH!3 singers tell her not to talk about the problems but to essentially be a body by talking with her hips.
More frames from the "Don't Trust Me" video. What role do these women play?
Singing along to music like this makes it seem normal to joke about and see women as things and not people. When you don’t see women as people, hurting them can become a more digestible idea. Degrading a group of people and calling it a joke does not make it okay. 3OH!3′s “Don’t Trust Me” is a demeaning piece of work disguised as a funny pop song.
If you want to let 3OH!3 know how this song makes you feel, you can send them a message through their MySpace page. Remember that is it is important to talk about songs like this with the people around you so they don’t repeat these lyrics without knowing their true meaning.
Anyone who listens to the radio or is remotely up to date with today’s music has unfortunately grown accustomed to lyrics that offend, degrade, or sexualize women. Nonetheless, nothing prepared me for Katy Perry’s “I Kissed a Girl” when I heard it on the radio last summer. It’s been nearly a year since I first heard the song, but when it came onto the radio a few days ago, it disgusted me just as much as it had the first time it unhappily met my ears, and I felt compelled to speak out.
Wow, where to begin?
Is it enough that Perry created an entire song about the deplorable commonality of lesbian action for the sake of male enjoyment? This alone makes me sad for the women and girls who hear this song and who, like others, think that female sexuality is not something to be owned by the woman herself, but that is at the disposal and for the benefit of male viewers.
Kissing a girl — like kissing boy — ought to be a shared experience amongst the individuals involved. Yet for many women of all sexual orientations, kissing a girl is done for the pleasure and excitement of the heterosexual gaze.
It is common knowledge — or common myth? — that all men drool over the idea of watching lipstick lesbians touching each other or viewing the highly coveted threesome. Visual creatures or not, a song in which a girl gushes over her illicit kiss with another girl is undoubtedly designed to alter some male blood flow. Perry sings “I hope my boyfriend don’t mind it.” The implication is that her boyfriend only minded if he wasn’t there to witness it.
Not only am I incensed over the way in which this girl-on-girl kiss is promoted as an object of straight male lust, it also sends a powerful message about lesbian relationships in general. “It felt so wrong” Perry coos, “It’s not what/Good girls do/Not how they should behave.” Good girls don’t kiss other girls or when they do it’s wrong? Yikes.
This song celebrates female sexuality only in so far as it is experienced by the male outsider. It is only okay that she kissed a girl because she expressly calls it experimentation. Perry describes it to avid male listeners and sends the message that it’s “so wrong,” which is meant to add to the excitement anyway.
The video takes this message even further. Just a few seconds of the three-minute video makes it clear that Perry is selling sex to a male audience. It’s hard to think how much more you can objectify women than by making them faceless lingerie-clad bodies moving mindlessly in the background.
Perry does not acknowledge her fellow females nor interact with them in any way. Meanwhile, her lyrics describe her female sexual interaction; an interesting contrast, the meaning of which is far from transparent. Is Perry provocative enough to lip sync about kissing a girl but not quite bold enough to take that on screen? Or does this just add to the tease to hear her describe a girl’s “soft lips” while touching her own body and not another’s?
With a video that basically just shows Perry dancing provocatively surrounded by anonymous women (and a “pussy” cat on her lap?) combined with appalling lyrics, “I Kissed a Girl” is an over-the-top insult to and infantilization of the gay community as well as a despicably direct message to men and women alike that female sexuality is a plaything of men.
When are women finally going to be told, “Your sexuality and your body belong to you and you alone and nothing about that is wrong?”
As Nikki reported yesterday, Calvin Klein had posted a “sex orgy” ad in New York’s SoHo neighborhood. Was I irked? Yes, of course, but I wasn’t as concerned by the sexual content as I was by the sexualization (the using of sexual objects) of ALL of the models, not just the woman. So when they decided to put this one
Calvin Klein, this isn’t better. It’s a sexualized image of a woman, drawn large on a billboard and meant for us to lust over or envy. The idea is that this will pacify the angry masses while still keeping it slightly provocative, which is Calvin Klein’s brand history. But why aren’t we all up in arms about this one? Because we are so used to this type of image — hypnotized into thinking it’s normal — of a woman in a bikini. “Sex sells” after all, and “sex” always refers to women’s sexuality, cheapened up and used for a male-dominated culture’s titillation. But post a huge image of half-nude, sexualized women with men, and everyone loses it.
By “everyone,” I mean the news media reporting on it like crack fiends and the Christian right (who may have been responsible for getting this ad taken down) getting their panties in a twist because their children are being corrupted.
So now, I’m going to call LOUDLY for the removal of this ad too. And all the ads like it. Because women deserve better.
