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:
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
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.
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.
While our culture is being inundated with stories about romantic, supernatural males, such as vampires sweeping everyday ladies off their feet, we get a story about a supernatural girl literally eating horny high school boys.
Jennifer’s Body is a thinly veiled retelling of the age-old story based on fear of women’s sexuality. What could be scarier for boys than a woman with sexual power?
Jennifer’s Body links a girl’s assertive sexual behavior with the death of male sexuality. This concept takes form when we see Jennifer, played by Megan Fox, seduce boys in her town. Jennifer then quite literally kills their sexuality by eating her victims.
According to azcentral.com, the reason Jennifer is possessed in the first place is because of a botched human sacrifice. Azcentral.com alludes to the idea that the sacrifice goes wrong due to the fact that Jennifer, the human intended to be sacrificed, wasn’t a virgin — as if there weren’t enough slights on female sexuality, Jennifer’s Body throws virginal status in the mix. The obvious result of sexual activity for a woman is demonic possession. (Ahem, that’d be sarcasm.)
Megan Fox plays a demonic teen in Jennifer's Body
Like the movie Teeth, where a young woman goes on a rampage, killing unsuspecting men with her mutant teeth (which are in a sexually strategic place), Jennifer’s Body is helping to spread fear of women’s bodies and sexualities.
We often see sexually powerful men, such as Edward from Twilight, who are not necessarily threatening, but just plain sexy. Can you think of an example in pop culture of a sexually powerful woman who is not seen in some way as a threat to men? I’m drawing a blank.
Teeth is a gory exploration of the mythological "vagina dentata"
Movies like Jennifer’s Body and Teeth are marketed as dark comedies, but this type of label undermines the cultural impact story lines like these can have. Just because something is presented as a joke doesn’t mean it can’t still have a negative effect.
For example, racist jokes might be intended to be funny, but they still carry implications of how the joke-teller sees the world. Can you see how “comedies” like Jennifer’s Body impact the way people view women’s sexuality? Tell us what you think in the comments section for this blog.
I don’t want to tell anyone not to see the movie, but I do think it is important to think about what movies like Jennifer’s Body say about girls’ and women’s sexualities. Next time you see a movie look for the assumptions and the hidden story lines, you might be surprised by what you find.
If you see flaws in the movie and you want to do something about it, you can let Diablo Cody, the film’s writer, know what you think about Jennifer’s Body by sending a message through her myspace page.
In recent news, a former VH1 reality TV star, Ryan Jenkins, killed his model girlfriend, Jasmine Fiore, cut her up in pieces, and stuffed her in a suitcase. It’s pretty disturbing to imagine that something as horrific as cutting up a body and packing it into a suitcase could actually happen. What is even more disturbing is that I’d seen this image before.
However, it wasn’t due to a story about domestic violence — it was an advertisement I had seen (for designer Guiseppe Zanotti’s line Vicini) of a woman’s body stuffed in the trunk of a car with just her legs sticking out under the hood. [Warning: Disturbing images on the jump page.]
It’s not just the crime itself that is disturbing, but also the fact that, as a society, we take violent images, especially those against women, lightly. Such violent images are deemed as “art”, but what does such art express? What do they say about actual violence against women? How can we condemn these heinous acts and not the “art” that glorifies them?
The examples are endless.
This contestant's challenge was to pose as if she had died from being pushed down the stairs
One America’s Next Top Model challenge had contestants pose dead in grotesque crime scenes. These models depicted glamorous women who had been electrocuted, disemboweled, shot, decapitated, strangled, pushed off of a roof, drowned, poisoned, pushed down the stairs, and stabbed — all in the name of art and entertainment.
A recent window display by Barney’s in New York featured female mannequins wearing fancy dresses with blood splattered all around them. Thankfully, the people took action against the display and Barney’s was forced to take it down, but why did Barney’s have that display to begin with? Especially when one out of three women experience sexual assault and/or abuse in their life (that statistic is only based on crimes that are reported).
A recent window display at Barney's
This is not to say that perpetrators of violence are influenced to commit violent crimes against women because of what they see in advertisements or on television. However, we should take responsibility for the ways women are objectified in our society. We have to ask ourselves: are rates of sexual assault and domestic violence related to objectification and violence against women in the media?
For the past few weeks, I’ve seen this link for the 15 Sexist Vintage Ads floating around cyberspace, shared among Facebook friends and highlighted on humor and culture blogs. It takes you to a web site that showcases 15 “sexist” ads from the early and mid-twentieth century. With overtly sexist tag lines like “The harder a wife works the cuter she looks,” “Blow in her face and she’ll follow you anywhere,” and “Men are better than women,” these ads look different from what we’re used to seeing today.
Or do they?
Take a closer look.
In this first group, notice the vintage ad’s placement of the women’s lips and the lipstick. Then notice the similarities to the modern ad. Both ads portray the sexualization of women.
In this next group, notice how both ads portray women as less than human.
In this last group, notice what both ads insinuate — that women are dumb, or should strive to be so.
In both worlds, decades apart, women are portrayed the same: as unintelligent, as submissive, as sexual fiends, and as objects.
Sure, the vintage ads are a little different. Advertisements today don’t have blatant, wordy warnings, stating that if women don’t smell good or feel soft, they risk having their husbands literally not come home that night. But look around. Look at fashion magazines, billboards and TV commercials. The overall message of nearly every single ad is that we women are imperfect and need to strive to keep a man’s attention.
Advertisements — those from 1949 and 2009 — never let us forget that a woman is judged only on the basis of her appeal to men.
And even though we don’t see sexism spelled out, as in the vintage ad that reads, “Men ask ‘is she pretty?’ not ‘is she clever?’ ” we see that sexism when ads continually warn us to slim down, whiten teeth, curl hair, smell better, shave, primp, yet never to — get this — be strong, brave, intelligent, and powerful. In the twenty-first century, women are absolutely still being told to be pretty. Forget clever.
Also, notice the disconnect in the ad on the left: How is spanking a woman at all related to selling coffee?, you might be asking. But I would ask the same thing today of the ad on the right: How is a naked, faceless woman at all related to electronics?!
Furthermore, these vintage ads are nowhere near as sexually explicit as ones today. These ads don’t feature extreme closeups of women’s breasts, butts, and unrealistic and unattainable body images, all to sell a product and make girls feel ashamed. Ads back then may have been sexist, but ads now are sexist and sexually explicit.
So before you pass the 15 Sexist Vintage Ads link onto your friends, laughing at how much things have changed, think again. Have they?
Let us know what you think, About-Face blog readers. Go through the vintage ad web site and About-Face’s Gallery of Offenders to find similarities and differences yourself. Leave your findings and thoughts in the comments.
Designer Marc Jacobs is really rubbing we About-Facers the wrong way lately. Following on the heels of his ad showing Dakota Fanning as a Hollywood tartlet and some other ads with dead-looking women and nubile girls laying in the grass, we’ve got the newest in the series: Victoria Beckham in a shopping bag.
In this ad, Victoria Beckham (aka Posh Spice) literally becomes a product to purchase. Never mind the disembodied legs and suggestion of violence. Has she been killed and then put in the bag? or is she about to be taken home and put in the closet?
According to a recent New York Times article, the photographer asked Victoria, “You’re kind of a product yourself, aren’t you?” He reports that “She was, like, ‘Uh, yeah.’ “
We will give Marc Jacobs one little point for putting the fabulous M.I.A. on display so all can see her greatness. But that’s all. Just one point.
Thanks to Feministing.com (which you should be reading every day!) for the tip.
TAKE ACTION: Tell Marc Jacobs that you think this ad shows women’s bodies, and women, as products, and that you will not be buying his goods any time soon. Go ahead and e-mail these people: Asa Larsson at a.larsson@marcjacobs.com and Renee Barletta at barletta@kcdworldwide.com, and fax 212-966-0782.
And then remember, don’t buy any Marc Jacobs stuff.
For more bad ads and ways to talk back, check out our Gallery of Offenders (brand new update coming soon).
WARNING: Hey kids! This piece includes details that may give you some bad nightmares. And we definitely don’t want to give you nightmares.
Hostel: Part II, the latest installment from Quentin Tarantino and his merry band of all-male producers, is coming out tomorrow. The main characters in the first Hostel were male backpackers, but this time, they are women — young, beautiful female actors.
Somehow, someone got the idea that women as victims would be extra-edgy. Torturing women! Cool! Then we can see their hot bodies get mutilated in a bloody pool while bound and gagged! I’m a movie fan, but c’mon, people!
According to an anonymous review written on IMDB, when you enter the theater, you’ll be treated to “3 beautiful college students … tricked into entering a hostel where the ‘hosts’ like to torture, rape and murder. … three women are lured into a hostel by a handsome young man who sells them to the twisted masters, who tie them up and bring upon an unthinkable world of pain… ”
Yes, that was “torture, rape and murder” and yes, he *sells* the women to the masters.
Some of the insanely bad movie posters for Hostel II.
Especially in the poster on the far left, we have a woman’s naked body mixed with violence (the decapitated head) to produce maximum arousal for adolescent boys.
Eli Roth, writer and director of Hostel II, and two of his leading actresses. They must love him.
“Here’s the thing: I just want to create a story, and make it scary and interesting. I want everything to be about the next level. The movie is really about the next level of depravity — that sex doesn’t get you off, that violence is a substitute for that.”
We’ve been watching girls get killed in horror movies for years, but Hostel II seems to take it right over the edge into pure misogyny. Some writers are calling these realistic films featuring women or men “torture porn.” The very term says a lot about how our culture interweaves sex (i.e. sexual acts being done to women) and violence and why we can’t seem to separate the two.
Some super-scary shots from Hostel II.
But here’s my thing: Women and girls are being tortured for real, every day, around the world, because they are women. And it’s because they are seen as less than men, less than human.
I hear the horror-film buffs now: “C’mon, the hot chicks always die in horror movies. It’s just a director pushing the envelope. And it’s just a movie. It’s not real.”
You know what, um, no. It’s not “just a movie.” Art imitates life, or at least a dreamlike, skewed version of life. And in Hostel II, we’re seeing the acting-out of a culture that is still trying to maintain women’s roles as the objects of sex or violence. It’s the fantasy world of unaware boys and men — so, my woman friends, watch your backs.
Tips for taking action: Phone up your local theaters that are showing Hostel II this weekend and tell them you won’t be going to see this misogynistic film at their theater. Write a letter/e-mail or make a phone call to Lionsgate films, the studio that produced Hostel II, and tell them what you think:
Lionsgate / 2700 Colorado Ave. / Santa Monica, CA 90404
Phone: (310) 449-9200 / Fax: (310) 255-3870 / general-inquiries@lgf.com
