Megan Fox and Dominic Monaghan get violent in Eminem's "Love the Way You Lie" video
How would you feel watching a domestic abuse victim admit her desire for more pain? What if the cycle of violence were enacted by two celebrities, alternating between scenes of fierce aggression and passionate love?
What if all these images were set to a number-one, radio-friendly rap hit? Would you call it glamorization of a serious issue or a creative public service message?
Never one to shy away from controversy, Eminem recently released the new video for his single featuring Rihanna, “Love the Way You Lie.” Starring Megan Fox and Dominic Monaghan in a (literally) fiery relationship, the video is causing a big debate among music fans and domestic abuse prevention experts.
I have to admit, I’m torn on the matter. My first instinct is to scoff at any form of media that attempts to employ Megan Fox in a meaningful way (she, of the eloquent quotes, like: “I resent having to prove that I’m not a retard — but I do.”).
It also makes me absolutely uneasy to watch Rihanna, who repeatedly spoke out about her abusive relationship with Chris Brown, coo to the camera,
Just gonna stand there and watch me burn
But that’s alright because I like the way it hurts
Just gonna stand there and hear me cry
But that’s alright because I love the way you lie.
And though I can’t deny being a fan of Eminem’s lyrical skills and serious talent, it’s no secret that he’s had his own violent past with ex-wife Kim. The song, allegedly about the couple’s roller-coaster relationship, even includes the disturbing lines, “If she ever tries to f—ing leave again/I’mma tie her to the bed and set the house on fire.”
The thought of MTV’s target audience interpreting the frightening lyrics and engaging images as sexy or glamorous is completely revolting. But to play devil’s advocate, there are some positive points to the video as well.
Though it’s easy to pick on Megan, she performed quite an admirable act by donating her fee for the video to Sojourn, a facility that helps battered women and their children.
And some experts believe that depicting the chilling realities of domestic abuse can help spread awareness. Stephanie Nilva, executive director of sexual assault and trauma resource center Day One, told MTV News, “The most important thing the video is doing is raising the topic of dating violence among young people.”
My own personal jury is still out, but feel free to form your own opinion on the video below:
Blame it on the alcohol. Or the insanely sexist media messages seen in this guy's video.
Jamie Foxx blamed it on the alcohol. About-Face fan Elizabeth Dodd blames it on pervasive sexist viewpoints in the media.
Jamie has the honor of gracing our Gallery of Offenders, and Liz thinks there are plenty of others in the spotlight who deserve to join him.
Read what the New Zealander has to say about show business chauvinism:
Hi,
I just had to say I love your site and I agree with everything you are saying. In regard to the Jamie Foxx song/video: yes, it shows such a sexist point of view.
I feel that the balance of power is always going to be weighted in only one group’s favor: heterosexual men. In videos such as this one, there is often a cross-section of men portrayed that includes types that are “ordinary,” balding, overweight, dressed in silly costumes, etc. But there is usually only one type of woman shown (i.e. a gyrating, curvy, sexy, “hot” one).
This once again gives the message to society that men are okay no matter what they look and act like, while women have to look and act like super-sexy fantasies at all times.
When do we ever see a huge cross-section of women of all ages, sizes, and levels of ordinariness surrounded by only super-hot men?
There is only one group that would want to be in this scenario, and that’s heterosexual men. Only they would desperately want to be in this mix where there is no competition and it’s just them and their goofy mates.
I see this formula everywhere in the media — a huge variety of “acceptable” and “lovable” male characters and only attractive female ones. It’s never made clear that this is only one point of view made up of male fantasy and male sexuality; not fantasy and sexuality in general.
Just had to vent.
Cheers and thanks for your site. )
Liz in New Zealand
Thanks Liz! Check out the video that got this reader riled up:
Looking for somewhere to vacation this summer? How about Charlotte, North Carolina, recently named “America’s Manliest City”?
I’m sure it’s a lovely place, but the title drives me crazy. The Manliest City Competition, created by snack company Combos, is a great example of how our society uses labels like “manliness” and “girliness” to define acceptable behavior based on gender.
Let’s take a look at the Manliest City Competition criteria. Cities were ranked more manly based on such factors as:
1. The number of home improvement stores
2. The number of steak houses and power tools per capita, and
3. Manly occupations, including firefighters, construction workers, police officers, and EMT personnel.
A model shows off MAC and Rodarte's Juarez-inspired makeup collection.
Whether it’s a case of thinking way too far outside the box, or a cheap attempt to shock and awe makeup junkies,MAC Cosmetics has managed to seriously cross the line.
Collaborating with high-fashion label Rodarte, MAC recently unveiled plans to release a makeup collection in September based on life in the border town of Juarez, Mexico.
Just a little trivia about Juarez: it’s not exactly the picturesque tourist trap that typically inspires beauty trends. Besides being home to hundreds of multinational corporation-owned factories, the city is also known as a veritable murder capital.
At the center of Mexico’s drug wars, Juarez’s violence-related death toll is set to reach 6,000 by the end of the month. Hundreds of these homicide victims have been women traveling to and from their job sites.
Call me crazy, but these facts somehow don’t rouse my desire for a new shade of blush.
But let’s go back to the beginning. Last year, Sisters Kate and Laura Mulleavy, the designing duo behind Rodarte, took a road trip to the town and based their fall collection on the multitudes of female workers making their way to factory jobs in the middle of the night.
The Mulleavys slapped a sexy name on the laborers (“sleepwalkers”) and whipped up a line of ethereal garments based on their nocturnal procession.
As I previously mentioned, there’s a bit of a problem with this dreamy vision (Besides the fact that it’s grossly exploitative to produce high-end fashion designs “inspired” by workers trudging to factory jobs at midnight). Many of the thousands killed in Juarez have been the very “sleepwalkers” Rodarte claims as their muses.
To be fair, fashion is art and art can be controversial, but who in their right minds thought it would be a great idea to get MAC involved and spew out some inappropriately-named cosmetics?
The company was set to team up with Rodarte and release a collection of blush, lip gloss, eyeshadow and nail polish in such shades as “Factory,” “Juarez,” “Ghost Town,” “del Norte,” and “Quinceanera.”
Drawing artistic inspiration from a town’s aesthetic is one thing. Romanticizing an impoverished city’s laborers to market a line of department store cosmetics is another.
Attempting to associate a deceptively cheery mint-colored polish with the dark reality many women in Juarez face is insensitive and irresponsible. And several beauty bloggers agree. They were the first ones to call the cosmetics company out on their reprehensible behavior.
A sample product from the MAC/Rodarte Juarez collection.
Had MAC and Rodarte intended to draw attention to the horrific crimes in Juarez and raise money for the people living there, I’d be all for it. But it wasn’t until bloggers caused an uproar that MAC promised to donate “a portion of the proceeds from the collection to help those in need in Juarez.”
In addition to the $100,000 they will reportedly donate to charity, MAC will also change several names in the line. Rodarte claims that the collection was simply “intended as a celebration of the beauty of the landscape and people in the areas we traveled.”
That’s all fine and dandy, but a thirty-second Google search would have revealed that there’s plenty more to Juarez beyond the lovely scenery.
Whether it was complete ignorance or a totally tasteless publicity stunt, MAC and Rodarte owe a lot more to the people of Juarez than apology statements and a belated check to smooth things over.
The collection may have been born out of misguided creativity rather than manipulative marketing, but the result was still deplorable and thoughtless. And I prefer my makeup cruelty-free, thanks.
– Michelle
Was PETA neglected as a child? Was it deprived of attention as a young, burgeoning organization?
Why else would poor PETA feel the need to keep crying out for help by flaunting its half-naked celebrity supporters in compromising, often-sexist positions? To save the animals? Nah…
Once again, the ever-demure, painfully shy Pamela Anderson is causing a ruckus by baring her body in a controversial ad for the organization. Imagine!
Pam recently traveled to Canada and managed to piss off the world’s most notably polite population with her new poster for PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). The ad features the critically acclaimed actress (seriously, she was brilliant in Borat) in a skimpy bikini and marked up like a butcher’s diagram.
To clear up any confusion regarding where Anderson’s most prized possessions are located, her parts are clearly labeled with helpful tags like “breast,” “leg,” and “rump” while the ad declares, “All Animals Have the Same Parts.”
Truly effective advertising, right? Aren’t you flooded with inspiration to go out and treat animals ethically? (Because if you need further motivation, check out last year’s thought-provoking, compassionate plea from PETA to “Save the Whales.”After all, who says campaigns should be tasteful and intelligent? Oh, most people? Nevermind then…)
In any case, officials weren’t so touched by the new poster’s wholesome message. Authorities denied Pam a permit to unveil the ad at a Montreal event, deeming the image sexist. An official explained, “It is not so much controversial, as it goes against all principles public organizations are fighting for in the everlasting battle of equality between men and women.”
Well, snap.
You’ve gotta hand it to that eloquent, anonymous authority. There really isn’t anything contentious about a stripped-down former “Baywatch” star seeking attention (I’m looking at you, David Hasselhoff). But the absence of controversy doesn’t translate to an inoffensive result.
PETA’s senior vice president Dan Matthews proclaimed, “I think that city officials are confusing ‘sexy’ with ‘sexist.’” Touche, Mr. Matthews. Because really, who doesn’t find a woman seductively emulating a slab of meat sexy (barring frat boys, perverts and lunchmeat enthusiasts)?
Pam in another subtle PETA ad.
As for Pam, she responded, “In a city that is known for its exotic dancing and for being progressive and edgy, how sad that a woman would be banned from using her own body in a political protest over the suffering of cows and chickens. In some parts of the world, women are forced to cover their whole bodies with burqas — is that next? I didn’t think that Canada would be so puritanical.”
Perhaps envisioning the entirety of Canada’s female population clad in burqas is a teeny bit hysterical, Pam? I get what she’s saying, and I understand that censorship is a slippery slope. But no one’s telling her to put her assets away (she can go use them in Montreal’s burgeoning exotic dance scene if she likes), but is it really effective to use them in a “political protest”?
It’s not really an issue of Puritanism; it’s an issue of using sex for shock value and assuming women can only assert authority by baring their breasts.
So while I always appreciate PETA’s mission and Pam’s passion for the cause, I can’t really get behind all the attention-grabbing insanity.Here’s a thought: show me a picture of an actual animal deserving ethical treatment in one of your ads, and I might take your organization seriously.
And no, “animals” sporting bikinis and barbed wire tattoos don’t count, despite any anatomical similarities.
A few t-shirt designs from the PinkStinks online store.
Majora Carter. Janine Benyus. Maggie Aderin-Pocock. Ever heard of them?
Probably not. But besides embodying change and breaking down gender barriers, these women all have one thing in common: they’ve been featured as role models by PinkStinks, a British organization that provides young girls with alternatives to media messages.
By promoting real role models, Ema and Abi Moore–the sisters and founders of PinkStinks–encourage girls to feel good about themselves without needing to being rich, famous, beautiful, and fake. To the Moore siblings, the culture of “pink” is more than the color: it is a message that puts girls in boxes and limits them from reaching their full potential.
As for the role models they pick, women like Carter, Benyus and Aderin-Pocock move beyond the “pink” message.
Carter is an environmentalist who founded the Sustainable South Bronx Organization, Benyus is a science writer and president of the Biomimicry Institute, while Dr. Aderin-Pocock has a doctorate in mechanical engineering and makes handheld mine detectors and optical systems for the James Webb Space Telescope. Slightly more inspiring than the female role models the celebrity-obsessed world typically glorifies, right?
PinkStinks not only lauds women like this, but critiques the messages aimed at girls on a daily basis. For example, the organization analyzed a message on a Scrabble game box for girls that was colored in pink and displayed the game tiles spelling the word “fashion.” To revolt against the stereotypical images like this, PinkStinks also has an “Approved” section on their website, which applauds products that are not gender-biased.
Some creepy T- Shirts for 8 year olds, courtesy of the Zara Fashion Store.
And it doesn’t stop there. Aware of unethical advertising strategies aimed at young girls, PinkStinks actively campaigns against alarming commercial messages in the U.K. A recent one was against the Sainsbury Company’s sexist dress-up clothing for children which labeled doctors and pilots as boys’ items, and princesses, beauticians and 1950s nurses as girls‘. Thanks to PinkStinks, the company responded and changed their approach to dress-up clothing!
In addition to the campaign, PinkStinks also maintains a blog and a “Name and Shame” section to keep its U.K. audience aware of many of the outrageous commercial tactics that they are surrounded by.
While the Moore sisters are busy countering the culture of pink, their online store enables us to keep the revolution public. T-shirts titled “Future Role Model” and “I am no princess” can be found on their site.
It looks like the women behind the U.K.’s PinkStinks are making some major, global changes.
- Sheena
While the Moore sisters are busy countering the culture of PINK, their E store enables us to keep the revolution public. T-shirts titled “ Future Role Model” and “ I AM NO PRINCESS”can be found on their site http://pinkstinks.spreadshirt.co.uk/. In addition, during the Soccer World Cup Season this month, you can resist the media obsession with wives and girlfriends of soccer players (WAGS), by wearing a PINKSTINKS shirt titled “ WAGS:Women against gender stereotyping”.
WORLD CHANGERS IN ACTION, is all I can say about PINKSTINKS!
Edward and Jacob continue to romantically woo/tyrannically control Bella
Fans swoon as Robert Pattinson sparkles! Hearts thump as Taylor Lautner shuns superfluous garments! And I was right there in the thick of it all at Eclipse‘s opening night, lining up to watch sexy vampires and six-packed werewolves battle it out for the love of one inexplicably lucky human girl (you’d think that would be enough to get Kristen Stewart smiling once in a while).
In the interest of brevity, let’s try to disregard the fact that I’m a theoretical adult and still fangirling over Twilight. Instead, let’s take a look at this mythical love triangle between Edward, Bella, and Jacob, shall we?
As a true fan (or freak, whatever), I diligently read all four books in Stephenie Meyer’s vampire series, so I was fully aware of what was to unfold onscreen in Eclipse. But seeing the action come to life reminded me of how disturbingly disconcerting some of the story’s romantic details really are.
Now remember, I’m saying all this as the most dedicated Twilight addict this side of the quarter-century age mark. I love the ridiculously contrived dialogue and the debatably unreadable prose. But let’s be honest here: Edward is kind of a possessive jerk and Jacob is pretty much a creepy perv. Now hold up! Don’t throw blunt objects at my head yet! Let’s break it down.
Edward wants to keep Bella very, very (VERY) close.
Jacob flashes his biceps before putting the moves on Bella.
Subject A: Edward is so intent on “protecting” Bella that he dismantles her truck’s engine so she can’t escape his watchful eye. Um, perhaps a bit dramatic?
Subject B: Convinced that he is, in fact, Bella’s true love, Jacob forcefully kisses her against her will, insisting, “You love me too.“ Sure, she (unsuccessfully) punches him, but in real life, behavior like that invites a swift kick to the groin and a healthy mist of pepper spray.
The guys commit a long list of other moderately offensive/borderline abusive acts throughout Eclipse, and I’m certainly not the first one to take note of their testosterone-fueled antics (seriously, Google “Twilight, abusive relationship” and see what comes up).
But I want to know what other Twilighters have to say. Are Edward and Jacob overbearing, macho losers, or just fools in love? And is Bella really a 21st century female role model, or just another lame damsel in distress (our blog contributor, Ashley, has already shared her thoughts)?
Talk it over in the comments section. Just be aware that however compelling your arguments are, my inner fangirl will continue to squeal as soon as Breaking Dawn comes out.
Just when I thought they couldn’t get worse, something new and insidious surfaced.
Gawker wrote recently about AA’s looks-based hiring policies, leaking internal documents that discuss AA’s “New Standard”: “Classy-Vintage-Chic-Late 80s-Early 90s- Ralph Lauren-Vogue-Nautical-High end brand.” Their employees are the front line of the brand’s new image, and should represent the company accordingly.
So who are they looking for to help represent the new look? The more important question is (and always should be in cases like this), who aren’t they looking for?
“None of those trashy [black girls],” said one e-mail from corporate. “We’re not trying to sell our clothes to them. Try to find some of those classy black girls, with the nice hair, you know?”
Let me just repeat that for you for a second: “some of those classy black girls with the nice hair.”
Women of color have long been victims of a white beauty standard that others them. Black women in particular are generally represented as animalistic and hypersexualized. AA’s policy plays directly into those stereotypes, defining black women as either “trashy” (good) or “classy” (bad) based on outer appearance, as though a woman’s hair reveals all about her personality, politics, and ability to be a fashionable employee.
We’ve blogged about this before, but hair has always been a huge point of cultural contention, especially when it comes to a white-male-defined standard of beauty. Natural black hair has been seen in the past as ugly, lower-class, and even threatening. Other employee comments on Gawker suggest that when AA says “nice hair,” they mean “natural hair”—two employees were told to stop straightening their locks.
I’m sure American Apparel is patting itself on the back for this, like encouraging black women to wear their hair “naturally” is some kind of slap in the face to oppressive beauty standards. But really, all it’s doing is continuing a long history of white men telling black women how to look and act, lest they be deemed undesirable.
Why does anyone still support this cesspool of a company? Yeah, ethical manufacturing and no slave labor, blah blah blah, but at this point it’s clear that anything AA does for workers is coming not from a place of respect, but of pseudo-liberal principles that allow the company to earn cred with upper middle class white youth who think of themselves as so damn progressive.
AA can print “legalize LA” on as many pairs of brightly-covered briefs as they want, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that people of color, women, and especially women of color are nothing to this company but objects to be played with and adorned as the company desires.
P.S. CEO Dov Charney seems to be none too happy about the buzz this news is generating: employees are now bound by a confidentiality agreement regarding the hiring process. Any employee found giving information to media will be sued for—wait for it—ONE MILLION DOLLARS.
New T-shirt from Urban Outfitters: publicity stunt?
Urban Outfitters’ latest gasp-inducing product is a form-fitting v-neck tee that screams “Eat Less” across the front. It’s another example of clothing corporations trying to be hip and edgy without realizing the influence their clothing has on impressionable young girls, especially when it comes to body image. [Note: As of 10:55pm PDT, the shirt photo did not appear on the Urban Outfitters web site, but the page was still posted. Does this mean Urban Outfitters just did this as a publicity stunt? --Editor]
What is Urban Outfitters trying to say? Eat less to look like this model? Skinniness is cool? If you want to buy our clothes, you should really consider slimming down?
The clothing industry already promotes sometimes-unattainable body images, what with skinny runway models and size 00 clothing. Now those messages are blazoned across a $30 t-shirt. What happens when this girl sees this shirt or when her friends wear it at school? What happens when she puts it on? Urban Outfitters promotes itself as being a cutting-edge store breaking the molds of other big, traditional clothing retailers. But Urban Outfitters needs to be aware of the influence they have on youth.
Just as American Apparel, in the name of edgy fashion, overly sexualizes their models, Urban Outfitters has had its share of controversies. Along a similar “pro-ana” vein, as some bloggers are saying, pop-culture blogger Perez Hilton was under fire just days ago for promoting a t-shirt that read, “Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels.”
In a Huffington Post poll, a little over half of readers actually say the t-shirt is tasteful. Some commenters claim a shirt is just a shirt, and that if anything, the t-shirt is meant to comment on our country’s over-consumption and obesity issues. But that totally negates the millions of people who suffer from equally destructive body image diseases that focus on thinness as an ideal. Urban Outfitters must realize that promoting eating disorders is not hip. It is not hip to under-eat and it is not hip to be malnourished. There’s hardly a doubt that simply seeing this t-shirt on a thin model will cause some young girls to equate eating less and being skinny to being hip, leading to major emotional and physical problems.
A note to Urban Outfitters: There’s edgy, and then there’s disrespect for the dread and self consciousness millions of girls feel every day, merely by thinking about entering your dressing room.
About-Face readers: What do you think? Can a t-shirt be just a t-shirt? Do you think Urban Outfitters intentionally means to promote losing weight by unhealthy means? How do you feel that stores like American Apparel and Urban Outfitters equate being skinny with being hip? Leave your thoughts in the comments.
Beyoncé’s new video for her track, “Why Don’t You Love Me?” has been a hot topic of debate recently on a bunch of blogs we read.
The clip features Beyoncé as “BB Homemaker,” a character that pokes fun at stereotypical depictions of both the pin-up model and the seemingly-happy-but-secretly-unhappy 1950s/1960s housewife.
Beyoncé prances around in the video doing all the activities a housewife or pin-up model might do. Except, as a housewife she is quite inept. At one point she is doing some dusting in a sexy dress, but when you look closer, you realize she is dusting off a row of gleaming Grammy Awards. Then she’s trying to bake some cookies, but she’s actually just throwing flour around in her underwear. She also burns some kind of roast she’s cooking. And gardening seems to be more about looking fabulous than anything else.
It’s hard to criticize this video. My first instinct is to just enjoy and not analyze. But there are a few interesting issues that arise, whether Beyoncé intended to address them or not.
We're used to seeing white representations of 1960s housewives, such as Betty Draper
Over at Feministing, Ann argues that the video is transgressive because it depicts a black woman in two roles typically associated with white women.
Latoya at Jezebel, who responds to the post, claims Ann’s logic is flawed:
If these images are associated solely with whiteness, it’s because the history of women of color has been systematically erased, deemed unworthy of inclusion in the general framework of ‘the way we were.’ There were upper middle class black women in the 50s and 60s, even entire enclaves like Striver’s Row in Harlem. However, one did not have to be upper class, or even upper middle class, to be a housewife.
Although Latoya has an excellent point, Ann’s argument that a woman of color playing these roles is transgressive is still valid; the history of women of color has been systematically erased to the point that women of color are not typically associated with these roles in the mainstream media, so Beyoncé’s portrayal is therefore still challenging stereotypes. Here’s a black woman poking fun at roles the media has typically shut her out of, and doing it gleefully.
Plus, these are roles for women intended largely to please men, and Beyoncé is mocking the hell out of them. Set against the lyrics, this satire becomes even more meaningful.
Let’s take a look:
Now, now, now, honey
You better sit down and look around
Cause you must’ve bumped yo’ head
And I love you enough to talk some sense back into you, baby
I’d hate to see you come home, me the kids
And the dog is gone
Check my credentials…
I give you everything you want everything you need
Even your friends say I’m a good woman
All I need to know is why?
Why don’t you love me?
Tell me, baby, why don’t you love me
When I make me so damn easy to love?
And why don’t you need me?
Tell me, baby, why don’t you need me
When I make me so damn easy to need?
I got beauty, I got class
I got style, and I got ass
And you don’t even care to care
Looka here
I even put money in the bank account
Don’t have to ask no one to help me out
You don’t even notice that
…
I got beauty, I got heart
Keep my head in them books, I’m sharp
But you don’t care to know I’m smart
Now, now now now now now now
I got moves in your bedroom
Keep you happy with the nasty things I do
But you don’t seem to be in tune
Ooh…
…
There’s nothing not to love about me
No, no, there’s nothing not to love about me
I’m lovely
There’s nothing not to need about me
No, no, there’s nothing not to need about me
Maybe you’re just not the one
Or maybe you’re just plain… DUMB
Beyoncé is saying that she “makes” herself easy to love, but the guy doesn’t love her anyway. In the end however, she realizes she is worth loving for all her qualities—smarts, ass, class, etc., and that he is “dumb” for not loving her. In combination with the video, in which the character of BB Homemaker makes fun of all the things she is supposed to do to make her man happy, the message seems to be that the idea of trying to make yourself lovable for a man’s sake is ridiculous.
Of course, the delivery of the message isn’t perfect. There are some mixed signals in the video and in the lyrics. At times, Beyoncé is playing the role of the pin-up quite straight, gyrating in sexy outfits to prove she is a desirable sex object for other, wiser hetero men. Latoya at Jezebel really gets to the core of the issue when she quotes a post on Beyoncé she previously wrote for Racialicious:
“…the woman Beyoncé portrays always defines herself against a man, and any empowerment she receives is from severing herself from one man and into the arms of another or attracting more male attention.”
This is exactly what’s happening in “Why Don’t You Love Me.” Nevertheless, I have to admit that I loved this video and I think that as long as we watch it without expecting Feminism with a capital “F” from Beyoncé, it’s worth admiring for its comedy, its camp and Beyoncés bomb body. Not to mention, of course, her wicked voice.
)
