Anne Taintor is an artist who has taken the iconic images of the 1950s era and turned them upside down with just a few words, giving the classic images new meanings.
The Anne Taintor products add interestingly witty layers to the one dimensional images of the “ideal” woman.
Images of women in 1950s and ’60s America depicted strict standards of “perfection” with their flawless hair, white faces, and red lips. This type of image can still conjure up thoughts of a Leave It to Beaver life filled with women in housewife roles baking apple pies and vacuuming in high heels.
But Taintor plays on this connection of a “wholesome” idea of a woman with the clever comments she adds to the images.
Anne Taintor products range from compacts and coasters to file folders and flasks–all with the trademark comments that are both silly and insightful.
One of my favorite products from the Anne Taintor web site is a makeup bag showing a proper looking woman with the Anne Taintor caption that reads: “maybe I want to look cheap.”
There are also items like notepads that have women’s faces smiling back at the viewer, featuring words such as “why yes, I am overqualified” pasted beside the classic image.
The few words pasted on the classic images of women point out the rigid standards women conform to in the media more generally.
In a culture where girls and women see “perfect” pictures of women almost everywhere they go, it’s refreshing to see silly products that poke fun and mock those pressures to look and be a certain way.
You can check out all the Anne Taintor products here.
If you want to let Anne Taintor know how you feel about her products and their impact on women, send an email to cs@annetaintor.com.
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.
A Heineken ad featuring a blonde, female robot serving beer
I drink beer. I’m a woman.
According to the Beer Institute, I’m not alone: women make up 25 percent of the beer market.
Hmmm. Strange. Because most beer commercials I’ve seen recently either a) don’t include any women at all;
or b) depict women solely as Barbie cheerleader types who serve men beverages.
In a 2001 USA Today article, Benj Steinmen, president of Beer Marketer’s Insights, gives a little insight into this paradox: “Brewers have been reluctant to market to women for fear of alienating their core audience: men. But beer consumption among women is growing. And they like light beer.” The USA Today article goes on to cite TV ads for Amstel Light, Miller Lite, and Bud Lite as examples of a shift towards advertising beer to women.
Well, it’s almost 9 years later, and beer advertisers are still doing just that: marketing light beer to women. But most ad campaigns for beer are still eye-rollingly, ridiculously sexist.
Heineken Commercial:
Miller Light Commercial:
Bud Light Commercial:
But who cares, right? We should celebrate. We’ve been invited into the old boys’ club–as long as we stick with light and leave the real stuff to men.
In a 2008 post on the topic, a blogger at Jezebel asked:
If women already drink beer, do brewers even need to bother directing ads toward them? Or it is high time advertisers stopping ignoring half the market? And do women drink beer despite the lack of women-centered advertising, or because it’s a “manly” choice?
I drink beer because I like the taste. I like the carbonation. I like the way it compliments certain foods. I’d like to give other female beer-drinkers the benefit of the doubt and say they drink beer because they like the taste, too. And as a female beer-drinker, I’m sick of the boys-will-be-boys crap of beer advertisements. I say it’s high time advertisers stop ignoring half the market.
As a whopping 25 percent of their customer base, women have the economic power to create change. There are many ways to take action:
1. Support brands that don’t use sexist advertising, such as Corona, which runs ads that appeal to both men and women (although their common theme of attractive white people enjoying beers on a sunny island somewhere raises another set of issues.)
2. Read and support initiatives such as Women Enjoying Beer, an organization that encourages breweries to better market to women and has a blog with posts on women-friendly breweries.
3. And last but not least, when you see beer ads that offend you, file an advertising complaint with the Beer Institute.
Will any of this actually help? I don’t know—beer advertisers seem convinced that gendering beer is the best strategy. But maybe, little by little, we can help them realize that alienating half the market just doesn’t make economic sense.
Katherine Leyton is a freelance writer and poet from Toronto, Canada. She has a B.A. in English Literature from McGill University and an MsC in Creative Writing from the University of Edinburgh. Her work focuses on the construction of gender and has appeared in The Malahat Review, The Feathertale Review, The Globe and Mail, and The South China Morning Post. She believes writing can create positive change in women’s lives and is involved with Sister Writes, a non-profit organization in Toronto that runs creative writing workshops for marginalized women.
What’s the first thing a woman wants you to notice when you meet her? Is it her smile, her eyes, or perhaps her sparkling wit or charm? Not according to Reebok–at least judging from their latest ads.
It’s no coincidence that in most of these ads, the woman herself is never seen except in bits and pieces. After all, that’s apparently how Reebok sees women: as just boobs and legs, with no pesky identity to distract from the pretty picture.
The first of these ads shows a perky young brunette who seems determined to explain the scientific basis for the benefit the shoes claim to provide, yet is constantly distracted by the cameraman focusing on her well-toned butt. Does this bother the young lady? Of course not, she is properly flattered by the objectifying gaze of the camera! After all, what woman doesn’t want to have men more focused on her butt than on a single word she is saying?
But wait–it gets worse!
Another ad shows a pair of toned legs, writhing sensuously on a bed, while the announcer recites the benefits of the new toning technology of the shoes. “88% of men will be speechless, 76% of women jealous, and 0% will know the reason is on your feet…Better legs and a better butt with every step.”
This ad simply focuses on the age-old idea of women’s self-improvement being simply another way to catch a man’s eye. Disgusting, of course, but nothing new.
But wait–it gets even worse!
The final ad in the new series doesn’t settle for encouraging objectification from men, or even jealousy from other women. No, now it’s time to make a woman’s body jealous of itself! The final ad shows a close up of a woman’s breasts, with a voiceover claiming to be the voice of the breasts. The breasts, the voice claims, are jealous of the attention that the butt is now receiving, after the unseen woman in the ad began using the new Reebok shoes:
It’s no coincidence that in most of these ads, the woman herself is never seen except in bits and pieces. After all, that’s apparently how Reebok sees women: just boobs and legs, with no pesky intelligence or career to distract from the pretty picture.
Reebok may have silenced the women in their advertisements, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t speak up! Let Reebok know what you think by contacting them:
Mauritanian girls forced to gain large amounts of weight so they will be more appealing to men
Some things simply exhaust me. An article in the October 2009 issue of Marie Claire magazine, titled “Forced to be Fat”, is one of them. It also made me sad, angry and horrified. And you know what? It made me a little bit jealous.
In the country of Mauritania, girls and young women are often force-fed up to 16,000 calories a day to make them fat. The article states:
Now big women are back in vogue, and the custom of funneling rich food into young girls like geese farmed for foie gras is once again thriving unchecked…Government figures from before the 2008 coup put the rate at 50 to 60 percent in rural areas and 20 to 30 percent in cities. “The practice is re-emerging because men still find mounds of female flesh comforting and erotic,” explains Seyid Ould Seyid, a Mauritanian male journalist. “The attraction is ingrained from birth.”
Let me be clear: The practice of force-feeding is barbaric and abusive. It’s an invasion of your body no less violent than rape. Picture a young girl in Mauritania sent by her parents to a remote hut where she is force fed gruel and animal fat. She feels sick, scared and alone.
But while you’re at it, also picture a young girl in the United States, laying alone on the bathroom floor after binging on so much food she vomits it all up. She feels sick, scared, and alone. Both are equally painful and unfair. Neither girl is able to have a healthy relationship with their own body.
Here is my disclaimer: I am a fat woman. I weight over 250 pounds and wear a size 22. And I have wrestled the eating disorder monsters most of my life. I have binged to the point of vomiting. I have starved myself dizzy on lemonade and maple syrup fad diets.
This Mauritanian women fits her cultural beauty standards.
Can you blame me for fantasizing about living in a country where men would flock to my “mounds of female flesh”? Ironically, I think I even experienced this cultural difference when I took a cab and was actually proposed to by the Somali cab driver who, upon finding out I was single, replied that he would marry me because I was the “perfect size”.
I am struck by the realization that women’s bodies are considered beautiful only in how they appeal to men. As the article states, Mauritania’s view of beauty is the United State’s obsession with super-thinness in reverse. We are valued in a way that makes our bodies nothing more than fetishes.
What is missing in Mauritania as well as the United States is the idea of choice — the choice we are all entitled to regarding our own bodies. Do any of us really feel we are able to choose what we would like to look like and be okay with our bodies? How much does each of us prescribe to what society is telling us we should look like?
I believe in my own worth and my own beauty whether I’m a size 22 or a size 2; it’s been a hard-fought battle, and I have to renew my commitment every day. I keep thinking about how every time I watch the evening news there is a story about the obesity epidemic. It is drummed into us on a daily basis accompanied by those infamous anonymous headless photos of fat people walking down the street.
Now I can picture the same news story in Mauritania, only the headless photos depict skinny idealized Western images of physical attractiveness. In the end it feels like none of us win and quite frankly, that exhausts me.
Comedy Central’s new show Secret Girlfriend portrays men as immature, sex-crazed idiots and documents their adventures in douchebaggery. It basically functions as training wheels for harder-core fare; the plot is weak, and the women exist only to look and act stereotypically sexy for the men.
What’s new, right? Well, there’s a twist: Secret Girlfriend gives us a literal interpretation of the misogynistic male gaze. The camera serves as the eyes of the main character, inviting the viewer to take on his perspective and jump into the story. The other characters talk to “you”, and you send texts back and forth, but you never actually speak.
Your bros—Do we ever see women this size starring in fun, confident roles?
You check out every woman in the show, as the camera pans from ass to breasts—after all, you’re a guy, so you don’t have the power to resist sizing up women in this way.
Of course, only conventionally hot, thin girls can be on this show, but the men are average-looking and overweight.
Women’s only valuable characteristic is their sex appeal; if they’re not Maxim centerfold material, they might as well be invisible. In contrast, leading roles for men seem to go to whoever can execute lame jokes about genitalia and sound really pumped at all times.
I watched the first episode of Secret Girlfriend, and that was more than enough for me. I’ll detail the main events and save you the pain of actually watching it.
During this episode, we learn about two main women in your life: 1) Mandy: your psycho, sexy, brunette ex-girlfriend, and 2) Jessica: a new, blonde girl-next-door (in a Budweiser commercial kind of way).
You meet Jessica (your secret girlfriend) while buying alcohol. When she catches you staring at her butt, she says "Excuse me--my tits are up here!"
Jessica says that she doesn’t mind when you choose to play video games and have pizza and beer on your first date instead of going somewhere nice. Totally possible—some girls like that stuff too.
But to show that she can really be “one of the guys”—although remaining very hot and looking feminine, of course—while playing the game (likely Grand Theft Auto), she yells, “Yeah, shoot the hooker in the face! Yeah bitch, eat it, eat it!”
This scene proves she really is cool and knows what chillin’ and being a dude is all about: drinking brewskies, eating greasy pizza, and playing a game where you get to perform acts of violence against women while verbally degrading them!
Another time, when you’re out eating sushi with Jessica and seemingly having a great time, you get a call from your bros, telling you to get to the strip club ASAP! You’re with this amazing girl on a date that is going wonderfully, but you’ve gotta follow the golden rule: bros before hos.
Plus, the ho you’re with is fully clothed and hasn’t put out yet, while there will be many hos at the strip club who are scantily clad or naked and eager to sell you lapdances. It’s a pretty clear choice for you. Factoring your date’s feelings into the equation would be waaaaay too hard.
Luckily, Jessica answers right after you hang up with a playful “you don’t even need to explain, just go!” response, because she’s more than happy to let you ditch her—she knows that she’s not that important to you, and accepts that your priority is to be at the most sexually enticing scene at all times.
Mandy, your psycho ex, is still desperately obsessed with you. Can you say "cliché"?
You’re having a great time at the strip club—until Mandy comes in! She was doing some snooping because she expected that you were going there behind her back. Mandy tells you that she’s hurt that you’re at the strip club because it makes her feel like she isn’t enough for you.
That is an understandable feeling, though in this case it is coming from an ex-girlfriend with obvious issues, so the overall sentiment is really: “Chicks shouldn’t trip about you looking at other chicks take their clothes off, even if you are in an intimate relationship with them.”
Because your ex is not only crazy, but also sexy, her rational course of action is to remove her trench coat to reveal that she is wearing nothing but lingerie! As your “punishment” for going to the strip clubs behind her back, she is going to dance on stage in front of everyone, to show you what you can’t have anymore.
That’ll really put you in your place. I guess in guy dream world it would make perfect sense that women perform a striptease whenever they get mad at you. Therefore, the more of a jerk you are, the sexier she will act!
After her dance, Mandy approaches you and suddenly wants you again because she noticed you watching her when she was dancing on stage! You check out every woman, and that’s all that you have to do to get a woman to stop being mad at you: ogle her—no special attention, care, or conversation necessary.
So what have we learned from this episode? Secret Girlfriend delivers entertainment in the form of lowest common denominator humor, sexism, tired stereotypes, and overall stupidity. Is the show simply satire? Not likely–the tone is off. Is it the generic fantasy of the stereotypical, sexist frat boy? Perhaps. Does it reflect ideas that are marketable to a sizable portion of our population (young, heterosexual males)? Yes—the fact that it’s airing on Comedy Central tells me that it does.
It also tells me that there’s a whole new generation of prepubescent boys who don’t have quite the same grasp on reality as adults, and are learning to view and treat women as objects—worthless unless they look “hot”, and disposable even if they do—through watching this show.
Have you seen Secret Girlfriend? What do you think?
Take action! Let Comedy Central know how you feel about Secret Girlfriend:
Jenni Runyan Director
2049 Century Park East, Ste. 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
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.
Anne Taintor is an artist who has taken the iconic images of the 1950s era and turned them upside down with just a few words, giving the classic images new meanings.
But Taintor plays on this connection of a “wholesome” idea of a woman with the clever comments she adds to the images.
