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.
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.
Hey, About-Facers! Remember that action we were planning against American Apparel’s sexist advertising campaigns? Well we did it, and it was awesome.
We assembled and performed our street theater on loop outside of the Haight St. American Apparel location for about an hour on Saturday. The police eventually came to ask us to leave (it’s not a real protest ’til someone calls the cops, you know?), but not before we handed out piles of fliers and got the American Apparel employees all riled up. Overall, it was a success!
Here’s a teaser; check out more photos after the jump! (All photos here are thanks to the awesome Anita over at Feminist Frequency!)
Our reporter asks "Dov" hard-hitting questions as his "model" looks on
Dov engages his audience and gets really excited about press
We ask the hard hitting questions; Dov gets distracted by cameras.
One of our awesome volunteers with the fliers we distributed
It's not exploitation if there's a waiver, right Dov?!
This action was a ton of fun! HUGE THANKS to everyone who helped out, in person and online! We couldn’t have done this without you!
If you couldn’t make it out but still want to show your support, you can. Join our Facebook group, sign our petition, and make your voice heard!
OK, so why did Rolling Stone find it so necessary to show Lea Michelle (Rachel)’s underwear and hint at the idea of Dianna Agron (Quinn) riding a bike’s handlebars sans panties? Oh, that’s right. It’s Rolling Stone, makers of the most sexist magazine covers I’ve ever seen. And we use women’s bodies to sell magazines. How could I have been so silly.
Have you heard of Kiely Williams? She was a flash in the pan of my adolescence as a member of girl group 3LW, and later found fame in Disney’s The Cheetah Girls, but now she’s trying to ditch her good-girl past and reinvent herself for an edgier audience. That’s fine; artists do it all the time.
What’s not fine is that for her choice of comeback anthem, Kiely has decided to release “Spectacular,” a song that attempts to be sexually liberated but instead encourages binge drinking, unprotected sex, and rape. Some choice excerpts: “woke up in the morning, couldn’t get out of there fast enough;” “I hope he used a rubber or else I’ma be in trouble;” “I can’t believe I blacked out.”
Sounds awful, right? An experience that you definitely wouldn’t want to re-live? Not in this song: “even though I don’t remember his name, he could have it again if he wanted it.” And why? “Because the sex was spectacular.”
Really, Kiely Williams? This is the message that you are putting out there? Even though you just had sex with a stranger and are maybe pregnant and might have an STD and are, by your own words, ashamed of your actions, you would do it again? Because the sex was spectacular?Really?
Other people started asking those same questions and pointing out that the events of this song sound suspiciously like date rape—you can’t consent to sex if you’ve blacked out!—which prompted Kiely to release this message:
Young women across the country get intoxicated and have unprotected sex. That’s a fact. I recorded the song to bring attention to this frighteningly prevalent activity. It is absurd to infer or suggest that I am condoning this behavior.
Are Lady Gaga and Beyoncé advocating murder with the Telephone video? Of course not. … Is Academy Award winner Mo’Nique a proponent of incest because of her portrayal of Mary in the movie Precious? Clearly, the answer is no.
I wrote Spectacular and made the video to bring attention to a serious women’s health and safety issue. Please don’t shoot the messenger.
The problem with this explanation is that it’s not true. This song and its accompanying video do nothing BUT condone unsafe sexual practices. Comparing the lyrics and images in this video to a performance like Mo’Nique’s or an obviously campy, over-the-top show like Gaga’s doesn’t make any sense. Mo’Nique is clearly the villain in Precious; her actions are framed as unquestionably negative. Gaga and Beyoncé are kitschy; they’re cartoon characters in a make-believe world.
This video, on the other hand, is real. It’s incredibly true to life, and it does nothing to show Kiely’s “character” as a criticism of culture, or even a cautionary tale, or even someone who is making poor decisions. It presents binge drinking and unprotected sex as fun, consequence-free activities.
She’s right that these things happen all the time, and she’s right when she says that they’re serious issues. But she is dead wrong when she claims that this video in any way speaks out against what is a very serious health and safety concern for young women. If anything, it’s contributing to the problem.
Dakota Fanning as Cherrie Currie and Kristen Stewart as Joan Jett in The Runaways
I confess: I didn’t know about the band The Runaways. I’d heard some of their music, but I didn’t know their story—they were finished by the time I was born. So I was grateful to be able to watch the spectacular tale of the first all-female rock band unfold on the screen in The Runaways, director Floria Sigismondi’s first feature film.
The movie focuses on lead Singer Cherie Currie, played by a grown-up Dakota Fanning, and guitarist and vocalist Joan Jett, played by a very un-Bella-like Kristen Stewart. (Stewart’s performance in this film, by the way, is fantastic.)
It’s 1975 and girls don’t play electric guitar, or, as The Runaway’s manager Kim Fowley puts it later in the movie, it’s a time when men only want to see women “on their knees or in the kitchen.” Then all of a sudden there’s a group of talented, kick-ass girls on the music scene—rebelling, experimenting, and rocking crowds.
One of the film’s most interesting focuses is the way Currie and Jett deal with the pressure to exploit their sexuality for the sake of success—an issue still very relevant in the music industry today.The movie opens with a drop of blood splattering on the sidewalk. It’s Currie’s. She’s fifteen, she’s just gotten her first period and apparently, she wasn’t wearing any underwear. Two minutes later she is in her sister’s boyfriend’s car and the boyfriend has just found out that Currie is now a “woman”; this revelation prompts the boyfriend to put a hand on Currie’s knee and make a sexual comment. Currie looks disgusted and sort of shocked but doesn’t seem to know how to react.
Cut to the first time we see Jett. She’s in the men’s section of a vintage clothing store. After the clerk points out her “mistake,” Jett points to a guy in a black leather jacket and says, “I want what he’s wearing.”
The real Runaways in 1975
And as different as their characters begin, so do they end up.
From the very creation of the group, band manager Kim Fowley, played by Michael Shannon, asserts that The Runaways are selling sex: The music is just a bonus. He picks Currie out of a crowd at a bar after deciding a blonde is just what the band is missing. She is only fifteen and he is thrilled: “jail-f*&^ing-bait!” he exlaims. And it goes on from there, with Fowley teaching the entire band of teenage girls how to exploit their sexuality for the sake of the audience’s desire. This, he tells them, is the only way they’ll become successful.
Sound familiar?
Jett and Currie react to the commodification of their sexuality in very different ways. Currie buys into it, deciding that the best strategy is to use this sexual “power” to her advantage.
Jett, on the other hand, refuses. She doesn’t conform to set standards of female sexuality, does her best to focus on the music and sees Fowley for what he is–a salesman out to market his product in the most effective way possible. In the end, Jett’s story is one of empowerment and Currie’s is one of caution.
Although I doubt Jett and Currie’s realities were so black and white, I think the contrast in the film pushes the viewer to reconsider how she herself deals with the pressure to exploit her own sexuality.
It also reminds us that we haven’t come very far.
There are still more Cherrie Curries than there are Joan Jetts. And young girls, maybe now more than ever, are enthustiastically buying into the idea that sexual exploitation equals self-empowerment.
Someone in Portland, OR gets me, man. Photo via flickr.
In a move that comes as a surprise to absolutely nobody, American Apparel has set a new standard for sexually objectifying women everywhere via their “World’s Best Bottom” contest. You’ve probably heard about it: CEO Dov Charney and company encouraged American Apparel customers around the world to send in photos of their butts clad in American Apparel underwear. Visitors to American Apparel’s web site would then vote for their favorite behinds, and the winner would become the new “face” of the company’s latest advertising campaign. The winners were announced recently, which means it’s time to do one of my favorite things: rage against Dov Charney’s machine.
Let’s run through what we already definitely know about American Apparel: their advertising is demeaning, at times straight-up pornographic, and often has undertones of sexual violence. [We linked so we don't assault you with these ads. Click to see them.-Ed.] Their hipster following and too-cool-for-school aesthetic shroud American Apparel’s objectification of women in a language of sexual choice and freedom: these girls want to take off their clothes, right? So who cares? No one was forced to enter this contest, so whatever, and those of us who have a problem with it are just uber-PC party crashers out to ruin everyone’s fun!
In a pre-emptive response to those objections, I say this: I’m not out to shame anyone who submitted a photo to this contest. I’m not saying women shouldn’t think their butts are fly, or that we shouldn’t find bodies (or even specific body parts) attractive. What I am saying is that objectification is objectification with or without the consent of those being objectified, and that when one woman’s body is objectified in the media at large, it becomes much, much easier for other women’s bodies to be objectified in a similar manner.
When American Apparel invites people to vote on “ideal” bodies, it is contributing to a culture where women constantly evaluate themselves in terms of other people. Not only are we expected to compare our bodies to the bodies of other women, but we’re actually being encouraged to ask others to join us in making that judgment.
Just because the bodily ideal being promoted by American Apparel is more “raw” or “edgy” or “authentic” than other idealized bodies in media—American Apparel ads don’t look anything like Calvin Klein ads, for example—doesn’t mean it’s OK. It’s just a dressed-up version of the same old advertising trickery, where we’re made to feel like we’re just not hot enough or cool enough or sexy enough–and now, not “cool” enough because we’re not ok with being objectified.
And how do we get sexy? How do we get cool? By sending pictures of our butts to Dov Charney? By buying a $12 pair of underpants and walking around in them and only them all day? By “ironically” putting our bodies on display and thinking we’ve outsmarted the system because we’ve chosen to adorn ourselves in this way? By asking people: Hey, am I sexy now?
Those things don’t work. Objectification isn’t cancelled out by irony or intent. If you need proof, just look at the way the voting worked: both men and women entered the contest, but the top 10 winners were all female. In order to “balance” the results, American Apparel (in conjunction with BUTT, a Europe-based magazine for gay males) selected two male winners. If this were a contest about celebrating bodies or celebrating underwear or celebrating bodies in underwear, then there would have been at least one male winner in the top 10, right? But there wasn’t, because men’s bodies are not objects like women’s bodies are–and all the slick pseudo-liberation in the world isn’t going to change that.
I cringe every year when Sports Illustrated releases its swimsuit edition—it’s page after page of half-naked women in a sports magazine that rarely features females otherwise. So, in early February, when this perennial athletic publication decided to include women winter Olympians in this particular edition, there was no lack of sexism. The women athletes, like all the other models, are photographed in overly sexualized positions and in skimpy swimsuits (even though they’re not swimmers).
Four American women in the 2010 Winter Olympics—snowboarders Claire Bidez and Hannah Teter and skiers Lindsey Vonn and Lacy Schnoor—appear in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition. In doing so, the women seem to be showing off their hot bods for a male audience that already values women’s sports less than men’s. These talented women have dozens of reasons to be admired, and none of them should have to do with their physiques in bikinis.
Check out these photos of Vonn, Bidez, and Schnoor and really think about what these images are saying about women athletes to a readership that is dominantly male.
Notice how the women’s sports equipment is secondary. Vonn is in bed, wrapped around her ski jacket—in a swimsuit. Bidez walks in the snow with her boots, snowboard and even goggles—in a swimsuit. With her skis strategically crossing in between her legs and donned in a bikini, Schnoor seems to be saying, “Yes, this is my body, which you can ogle. Oh, these skis? I use them for winning medals. But really, check out these legs!” What are these images telling male readers? And what are they telling young girls who look up to these Olympians?
As a young woman who has been athletic her whole life, I hate that female athletes live in a world where the message is that you may make it to the Olympics, and you may be one of the best athletes on this planet, and you’ll get tons of press for your accomplishments, but you probably should still go ahead and pose in a bathing suit. Then you’ll be legitimate. Even one of my best male friends, someone who is perfectly conscious of media inequality between the genders, exclaimed, “Wow, Hannah Teter is hot!” as I was talking about writing this blog. “See?!” I exclaimed back. “You only comment on her looks! That’s the only thing you equate her with!”
Days before the special swimsuit issue was released, skier and medalist Lindsay Vonn was featured on a February SI cover. Awesome, right? Well, here’s the image:
Lindsay Vonn's SI cover
What position is she in? Even though this may be a common ski position, does it look like she’s actually moving? And what images of males are you used to seeing on SI covers, and how does this one differ? Dr. Nicole LaVoi, who studies the roles of women in sports, told the Vancouver Sun, “When females are featured on the cover of SI, they are more likely than not to be in sexualized poses and not in action.” Over the last 60 years, LaVoi pointed out, only four percent of SI covers have showcased women.
Tryce Czyczynska of the San Diego News Network recently wrote in anarticle,
In her shot, Vonn is displayed with more than a models’ full make-up, yet on the slopes in skis and gear. The angle of her stance and the mountainous skyline suggests motion, while her falling forward hair remains impeccably groomed and studio ready. Even her lipstick suggests soirées instead of snow, and her smoky eyes bait the cameraman for more than a high-five for her skill in sports.
After decades of these images, on the cover or on the inside pages, it’s clear that Sports Illustrated values women athletes not for their contributions to sports but for their physiques, and it continues to perpetuate the idea of women as inferior athletes.
Women have a hard enough time as it is getting the respect they deserve from men who prefer to watch men’s basketball, men’s hockey, men’s snowboarding. Why, when a woman is featured in a sports magazine, must she be in her bikini?
What are your thoughts? Have you seen other overly sexualized images of women Olympians during the winter games? What publications or programs have praised women athletes? Leave your thoughts in the comments.
I recently saw Alien at a local cinema. I hadn’t seen it since I was a little girl (and I’m not sure why my parents let me watch Alien when I was a little girl). Anyway, I had forgotten about Ellen Ripley. Ellen Ripley seems impossible: a female lead in a sci-fi film with a mullet, loose-fitting clothes and no noticeable makeup. A human being! A strong, rational (yet also feeling), ass-kicking woman who we follow in awe not for her body, but because she is the hero of our movie. As Zoe Saldana put it at a recent Comic-Con conference, “Ellen Ripley could have been a man. … Objectives would have been the same. … but [she] happened to be a woman, thank God.”
Sigourney Weaver as Ellen Ripley in "Alien"
Much has been written about the importance of Ellen Ripley to female characters in sci-fi. As John Scalzi put it on the AMC SciFi-Scanner blog, “In a nutshell—Before Ripley: Barbarella. After Ripley: Sarah Connor.” As Scalzi also notes, Ripley only gets better in Aliens (although I disagree wih his view that Ripley is “unsympathetic and unlikeable” in Alien and doesn’t actually become that “pivotal, iconic” character until Aliens). Point is, in James Cameron’s 1986 sequel, Ripley is extremely competent, kicks even more alien ass, and isn’t sexualized at all (in the first film, there is a gratuitous nude scene).
So, Ripley made Sarah Connor possible. And Sarah Connor, at least in Terminator 2, would have made Ripley proud. But after that? Let’s take a look at where we are today. We’ve maintained the tradition of interesting, strong and intelligent female sci-fi leads. However, in the majority of cases, the character’s body is equally or more important than her strength, skills and intelligence combined.
Linda Hamilton as Sarah Connor in "Terminator 2"
Think about it. Aeon Flux: Charlize Theron in tight leather. Underworld: Kate Beckinsale in tight latex. Catwoman: Halle Berry in tight leather.Ultraviolet: Milla Jovovich in midriffless tops. The Fifth Element: Milla Jovovich in strips of white cloth. Star Trek: Zoe Saldana in a tight skirt and knee-high boots. Watchmen: Malin Akerman in lingerie-esque latex. And on and on. Plus, some of these films don’t even have actual female leads. Leads yes, but THE lead, no. But the lack of sci-fi films with a female character as THE driving force is an issue for another day. Natalie Portman’s character in V for Vendetta is the only example of a female lead that is not overly sexualized that I came across in my research. Can you think of others?
Is it tempting to say “Who cares”? During a discussion at Comic-Con about why Hollywood has failed to create female archetypes that were “as varied and distinct as the ones created for men” in sci-fi, Zoe Saldana said she didn’t see it as a battle worth fighting anymore: why convince a room full of men that “I should wear pants to do an action scene, when they think I can do it in a skirt and hoochie boots?”
Why indeed? Well, because of Ripley. Ripley reminded me of how exhilarating it is to watch a woman simply be a hero. How it is to believe—even if only for two hours in a dark cinema—that our bodies are not the most important and most powerful aspect of ourselves. It’s so easy to forget that. It’s so easy to forget that the constant focus on our bodies in the media is not just a celebration of our sexual power (and in the media, women are almost always body first and human being second), but harmful exploitation.
Aeon Flux poster
And because it is a world of archetypes—of extremes—I believe sci-fi has a revolutionary capacity to change that equation. In a real-world context, it might be more difficult to believe in a Sarah Connor or Ellen Ripley, but in sci-fi, anything’s possible. Real-world rules are forgotten and the hero is the hero.
Hollywood, of course, isn’t going to give us another Ripley if we don’t demand one. And it is too risky to wait for another Cameron or Scott to offer us one. In fact, Cameron seems to have temporarily abandoned his Ripleys. In Avatar, his Na’vi princess doesn’t save the day in the end, and there’s a very strong emphasis on her traditional female sexuality (Cameron even admitted in a Playboy interview that although it wasn’t anatomically correct for female Na’vi to have breasts, he just felt of his lead: “she’s got to have tits.”)
Neytiri in Avatar
But how to demand better female sci-fi leads? It’s a tricky question.
Our best bet would probably be to support, as much as possible, smart movies created, written, or directed by women. The more influential female players there are in Hollywood, and the more power they have, the more freedom they will have with their content, and the more possibilities to create admirable female characters.
And when a Ripley does show up in cinemas, for god’s sake, go see her. Go see her twice.
What does an ideal girl look like? Is she blonde, with a perfect figure and a Chihuahua in her purse? Or is she the brunette with the looks of Megan Fox? Is her favorite physical activity shopping? Media outlets are busy promoting such stereotypes about girlhood. The logic is simple: when girlhood is mainly about looking good, companies that cater to such a “need” will profit.
For instance, toy companies seem to be selling social identities rather than just toys. Girl toys in the Toys R Us online catalog for 2-year-olds include play houses, oven makers and newborn doll strollers–but boy toys include trains, walker pianos and fire engines. Neurobiologist and author of the book Pink Brain, Blue Brain Lise Eliot argues that the brains of boys and girls are not different at birth. Yet, Toys R Us and the plethora of toy companies would rather defy science and create such gender differences in an attempt to maximize sales. The message they give to our girls is that decorative and homemaking skills must become a priority very early on in life.
It all started in the 1980s when marketing expert James McNeal suggested that targeting products to children at birth would improve customer loyalty. Basically, the idea was that a consumer at birth would be a consumer for life. Companies have faithfully taken his advice. Juliet Schor, author of the book Born to Buy, explains that marketers are eager to target children under age 8 because they cannot spot the commercial intent of advertisements. Instead, kids consider ads information outlets!
To make matters worse, marketers persuade girls by manipulating their developmental patterns. Schor suggests that children learn to behave age-appropriately by observing and emulating adults around them and they are especially drawn to the freedom and style exhibited by teenagers. Thus, by creating a tween market that targets 8- to 12-year-old girls with products that promote them as sexy, popular and overly obsessed with their looks and what guys think of them, companies have maximized sales. A case in point is the retailer Sweet George Brown, which opened a line of body oil for 6 year old girls, called “Follow Me, Boy!” Even more troubling is the use of 10-year-old models for designer bikinis.
Designer Ashley Paige introduces a new line of bikinis for 10 year olds!
Companies use a myriad of techniques to target girls to shop. Susan Linn, author of Consuming Kids, explains that marketers hire child psychologists to measure how much their products make children pester their parents to buy it. Corporations even make their way into slumber parties: organizations such as Girls Intelligence Agency recruits girls as young as 6, and give them “slumber party boxes” containing fashion and glamor product samples for distribution to their friends.Here’s the link to their site and a list of their “faithful” sponsors.
If you thought young girls could be protected in the boundaries of their school environment, think again! Linn points out that corporate sponsors of public schools set up cameras in lunch rooms to understand what 8-year-old kids want, so that these companies can then market new products accordingly! Moreover, outraged teachers are petitioning against the famous school book club Scholastics, whose booklists have more to do with lip gloss, jewelery and key chains than books. Check out this petition link for more information.
Perhaps the most effective of all marketing techniques used by corporations would be the use of celebrities. A Girl Guide poll from 2008 showed that 42 percent of girls mainly looked to celebrities for inspiration. But, female celebrities in the media are mainly worshiped only for their looks, their hairdos, what they wear and who they date.
The message they embody is “your success in life depends on how you look”. They represent an “ideal girlhood” that can only be attained by seeking the right products. Girlhood becomes commodified: it becomes a mold that companies stamp onto girls. It becomes something that can be bought from a store, rather than something requiring inner reflection and the pursuit of individual standards of beauty or success.
I can’t help but notice the similarities in commodified girlhood and cosmetic surgery: marketers tell girls that in order to be successful they should be: cool, sexy and brainless, which is similar to a plastic surgeon who attempts to create the ideal body part by getting rid of the deviations. Anything that strays from these standards is simply unacceptable and needs to be cut out. The end result is a very generic girl, an identity that can be bought. But, isn’t it the “not so ideal” parts of us that make us truly unique?
What are your thoughts about the commodification of girlhood? Should there be a boundary for corporations to adhere to when it comes to maximizing sales at the cost of our children’s mental health? How do your purchases support or oppose the “ideal girl” image? Why not make a lasting resolution and choose to help girls reach their full potential in life, instead of fitting into a commercial mold?
