Just a few days after my last post on the “Mad Men” star and some supposed Photoshopping shenanigans, Christina strutted down the Emmy Awards red carpet Sunday.
While it may have been tough to notice anything other than the ravishing redhead’s um, assets (which are very much real, despite whispers that her “Mad Men” alter ego, Joan is just very strategically padded), many took note of Christina’s dress.
And not in a good way.
I’ll admit, I was put off by the lavender Zac Posen number myself. But you can’t blame the girl. According to an interview with the Daily Record, designers aren’t exactly lining up to dress her curves for the red carpet.
“People have been saying some nice, wonderful things about me,” Christina told the Scottish news source. “Yet not one designer in town will loan me a dress. They only lend out a size 0 or 2. So I’m still struggling for someone to give me a darn dress.”
Seriously? Starring on a critically acclaimed television show and being voted Esquire Magazine‘s “Sexiest Woman Alive” don’t warrant a few fashion freebies?
If only modern designers could take a hint from "Mad Men" and learn to dress bodies of all sizes.
Not if your dress size comes in double-digits, apparently.
“This has always been my size,” Christina said. “I’ve worked on other shows with this same size but ‘Mad Men’ celebrates it and that is nice.”
It is nice, isn’t it? And wouldn’t it be nicer if 21st century designers shared the same enthusiasm for the female form as their 1960s predecessors and aimed to dress bodies, not clothes hangers?
Yes, there are plenty of beautiful size 0s and 2s, and we all know a good amount of them populate Hollywood. But let’s get real. Designers should be clamoring to dress stars of all sizes, especially those that come packaged as photogenically as Christina Hendricks.
And if it’s that hard to craft a beautiful garment big enough to contain Christina’s curves, then maybe it’s time to revisit fashion school.
Megan Fox and Dominic Monaghan get violent in Eminem's "Love the Way You Lie" video
How would you feel watching a domestic abuse victim admit her desire for more pain? What if the cycle of violence were enacted by two celebrities, alternating between scenes of fierce aggression and passionate love?
What if all these images were set to a number-one, radio-friendly rap hit? Would you call it glamorization of a serious issue or a creative public service message?
Never one to shy away from controversy, Eminem recently released the new video for his single featuring Rihanna, “Love the Way You Lie.” Starring Megan Fox and Dominic Monaghan in a (literally) fiery relationship, the video is causing a big debate among music fans and domestic abuse prevention experts.
I have to admit, I’m torn on the matter. My first instinct is to scoff at any form of media that attempts to employ Megan Fox in a meaningful way (she, of the eloquent quotes, like: “I resent having to prove that I’m not a retard — but I do.”).
It also makes me absolutely uneasy to watch Rihanna, who repeatedly spoke out about her abusive relationship with Chris Brown, coo to the camera,
Just gonna stand there and watch me burn
But that’s alright because I like the way it hurts
Just gonna stand there and hear me cry
But that’s alright because I love the way you lie.
And though I can’t deny being a fan of Eminem’s lyrical skills and serious talent, it’s no secret that he’s had his own violent past with ex-wife Kim. The song, allegedly about the couple’s roller-coaster relationship, even includes the disturbing lines, “If she ever tries to f—ing leave again/I’mma tie her to the bed and set the house on fire.”
The thought of MTV’s target audience interpreting the frightening lyrics and engaging images as sexy or glamorous is completely revolting. But to play devil’s advocate, there are some positive points to the video as well.
Though it’s easy to pick on Megan, she performed quite an admirable act by donating her fee for the video to Sojourn, a facility that helps battered women and their children.
And some experts believe that depicting the chilling realities of domestic abuse can help spread awareness. Stephanie Nilva, executive director of sexual assault and trauma resource center Day One, told MTV News, “The most important thing the video is doing is raising the topic of dating violence among young people.”
My own personal jury is still out, but feel free to form your own opinion on the video below:
Blame it on the alcohol. Or the insanely sexist media messages seen in this guy's video.
Jamie Foxx blamed it on the alcohol. About-Face fan Elizabeth Dodd blames it on pervasive sexist viewpoints in the media.
Jamie has the honor of gracing our Gallery of Offenders, and Liz thinks there are plenty of others in the spotlight who deserve to join him.
Read what the New Zealander has to say about show business chauvinism:
Hi,
I just had to say I love your site and I agree with everything you are saying. In regard to the Jamie Foxx song/video: yes, it shows such a sexist point of view.
I feel that the balance of power is always going to be weighted in only one group’s favor: heterosexual men. In videos such as this one, there is often a cross-section of men portrayed that includes types that are “ordinary,” balding, overweight, dressed in silly costumes, etc. But there is usually only one type of woman shown (i.e. a gyrating, curvy, sexy, “hot” one).
This once again gives the message to society that men are okay no matter what they look and act like, while women have to look and act like super-sexy fantasies at all times.
When do we ever see a huge cross-section of women of all ages, sizes, and levels of ordinariness surrounded by only super-hot men?
There is only one group that would want to be in this scenario, and that’s heterosexual men. Only they would desperately want to be in this mix where there is no competition and it’s just them and their goofy mates.
I see this formula everywhere in the media — a huge variety of “acceptable” and “lovable” male characters and only attractive female ones. It’s never made clear that this is only one point of view made up of male fantasy and male sexuality; not fantasy and sexuality in general.
Just had to vent.
Cheers and thanks for your site. )
Liz in New Zealand
Thanks Liz! Check out the video that got this reader riled up:
A model shows off MAC and Rodarte's Juarez-inspired makeup collection.
Whether it’s a case of thinking way too far outside the box, or a cheap attempt to shock and awe makeup junkies,MAC Cosmetics has managed to seriously cross the line.
Collaborating with high-fashion label Rodarte, MAC recently unveiled plans to release a makeup collection in September based on life in the border town of Juarez, Mexico.
Just a little trivia about Juarez: it’s not exactly the picturesque tourist trap that typically inspires beauty trends. Besides being home to hundreds of multinational corporation-owned factories, the city is also known as a veritable murder capital.
At the center of Mexico’s drug wars, Juarez’s violence-related death toll is set to reach 6,000 by the end of the month. Hundreds of these homicide victims have been women traveling to and from their job sites.
Call me crazy, but these facts somehow don’t rouse my desire for a new shade of blush.
But let’s go back to the beginning. Last year, Sisters Kate and Laura Mulleavy, the designing duo behind Rodarte, took a road trip to the town and based their fall collection on the multitudes of female workers making their way to factory jobs in the middle of the night.
The Mulleavys slapped a sexy name on the laborers (“sleepwalkers”) and whipped up a line of ethereal garments based on their nocturnal procession.
As I previously mentioned, there’s a bit of a problem with this dreamy vision (Besides the fact that it’s grossly exploitative to produce high-end fashion designs “inspired” by workers trudging to factory jobs at midnight). Many of the thousands killed in Juarez have been the very “sleepwalkers” Rodarte claims as their muses.
To be fair, fashion is art and art can be controversial, but who in their right minds thought it would be a great idea to get MAC involved and spew out some inappropriately-named cosmetics?
The company was set to team up with Rodarte and release a collection of blush, lip gloss, eyeshadow and nail polish in such shades as “Factory,” “Juarez,” “Ghost Town,” “del Norte,” and “Quinceanera.”
Drawing artistic inspiration from a town’s aesthetic is one thing. Romanticizing an impoverished city’s laborers to market a line of department store cosmetics is another.
Attempting to associate a deceptively cheery mint-colored polish with the dark reality many women in Juarez face is insensitive and irresponsible. And several beauty bloggers agree. They were the first ones to call the cosmetics company out on their reprehensible behavior.
A sample product from the MAC/Rodarte Juarez collection.
Had MAC and Rodarte intended to draw attention to the horrific crimes in Juarez and raise money for the people living there, I’d be all for it. But it wasn’t until bloggers caused an uproar that MAC promised to donate “a portion of the proceeds from the collection to help those in need in Juarez.”
In addition to the $100,000 they will reportedly donate to charity, MAC will also change several names in the line. Rodarte claims that the collection was simply “intended as a celebration of the beauty of the landscape and people in the areas we traveled.”
That’s all fine and dandy, but a thirty-second Google search would have revealed that there’s plenty more to Juarez beyond the lovely scenery.
Whether it was complete ignorance or a totally tasteless publicity stunt, MAC and Rodarte owe a lot more to the people of Juarez than apology statements and a belated check to smooth things over.
The collection may have been born out of misguided creativity rather than manipulative marketing, but the result was still deplorable and thoughtless. And I prefer my makeup cruelty-free, thanks.
– Michelle
Was PETA neglected as a child? Was it deprived of attention as a young, burgeoning organization?
Why else would poor PETA feel the need to keep crying out for help by flaunting its half-naked celebrity supporters in compromising, often-sexist positions? To save the animals? Nah…
Once again, the ever-demure, painfully shy Pamela Anderson is causing a ruckus by baring her body in a controversial ad for the organization. Imagine!
Pam recently traveled to Canada and managed to piss off the world’s most notably polite population with her new poster for PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). The ad features the critically acclaimed actress (seriously, she was brilliant in Borat) in a skimpy bikini and marked up like a butcher’s diagram.
To clear up any confusion regarding where Anderson’s most prized possessions are located, her parts are clearly labeled with helpful tags like “breast,” “leg,” and “rump” while the ad declares, “All Animals Have the Same Parts.”
Truly effective advertising, right? Aren’t you flooded with inspiration to go out and treat animals ethically? (Because if you need further motivation, check out last year’s thought-provoking, compassionate plea from PETA to “Save the Whales.”After all, who says campaigns should be tasteful and intelligent? Oh, most people? Nevermind then…)
In any case, officials weren’t so touched by the new poster’s wholesome message. Authorities denied Pam a permit to unveil the ad at a Montreal event, deeming the image sexist. An official explained, “It is not so much controversial, as it goes against all principles public organizations are fighting for in the everlasting battle of equality between men and women.”
Well, snap.
You’ve gotta hand it to that eloquent, anonymous authority. There really isn’t anything contentious about a stripped-down former “Baywatch” star seeking attention (I’m looking at you, David Hasselhoff). But the absence of controversy doesn’t translate to an inoffensive result.
PETA’s senior vice president Dan Matthews proclaimed, “I think that city officials are confusing ‘sexy’ with ‘sexist.’” Touche, Mr. Matthews. Because really, who doesn’t find a woman seductively emulating a slab of meat sexy (barring frat boys, perverts and lunchmeat enthusiasts)?
Pam in another subtle PETA ad.
As for Pam, she responded, “In a city that is known for its exotic dancing and for being progressive and edgy, how sad that a woman would be banned from using her own body in a political protest over the suffering of cows and chickens. In some parts of the world, women are forced to cover their whole bodies with burqas — is that next? I didn’t think that Canada would be so puritanical.”
Perhaps envisioning the entirety of Canada’s female population clad in burqas is a teeny bit hysterical, Pam? I get what she’s saying, and I understand that censorship is a slippery slope. But no one’s telling her to put her assets away (she can go use them in Montreal’s burgeoning exotic dance scene if she likes), but is it really effective to use them in a “political protest”?
It’s not really an issue of Puritanism; it’s an issue of using sex for shock value and assuming women can only assert authority by baring their breasts.
So while I always appreciate PETA’s mission and Pam’s passion for the cause, I can’t really get behind all the attention-grabbing insanity.Here’s a thought: show me a picture of an actual animal deserving ethical treatment in one of your ads, and I might take your organization seriously.
And no, “animals” sporting bikinis and barbed wire tattoos don’t count, despite any anatomical similarities.
A few t-shirt designs from the PinkStinks online store.
Majora Carter. Janine Benyus. Maggie Aderin-Pocock. Ever heard of them?
Probably not. But besides embodying change and breaking down gender barriers, these women all have one thing in common: they’ve been featured as role models by PinkStinks, a British organization that provides young girls with alternatives to media messages.
By promoting real role models, Ema and Abi Moore–the sisters and founders of PinkStinks–encourage girls to feel good about themselves without needing to being rich, famous, beautiful, and fake. To the Moore siblings, the culture of “pink” is more than the color: it is a message that puts girls in boxes and limits them from reaching their full potential.
As for the role models they pick, women like Carter, Benyus and Aderin-Pocock move beyond the “pink” message.
Carter is an environmentalist who founded the Sustainable South Bronx Organization, Benyus is a science writer and president of the Biomimicry Institute, while Dr. Aderin-Pocock has a doctorate in mechanical engineering and makes handheld mine detectors and optical systems for the James Webb Space Telescope. Slightly more inspiring than the female role models the celebrity-obsessed world typically glorifies, right?
PinkStinks not only lauds women like this, but critiques the messages aimed at girls on a daily basis. For example, the organization analyzed a message on a Scrabble game box for girls that was colored in pink and displayed the game tiles spelling the word “fashion.” To revolt against the stereotypical images like this, PinkStinks also has an “Approved” section on their website, which applauds products that are not gender-biased.
Some creepy T- Shirts for 8 year olds, courtesy of the Zara Fashion Store.
And it doesn’t stop there. Aware of unethical advertising strategies aimed at young girls, PinkStinks actively campaigns against alarming commercial messages in the U.K. A recent one was against the Sainsbury Company’s sexist dress-up clothing for children which labeled doctors and pilots as boys’ items, and princesses, beauticians and 1950s nurses as girls‘. Thanks to PinkStinks, the company responded and changed their approach to dress-up clothing!
In addition to the campaign, PinkStinks also maintains a blog and a “Name and Shame” section to keep its U.K. audience aware of many of the outrageous commercial tactics that they are surrounded by.
While the Moore sisters are busy countering the culture of pink, their online store enables us to keep the revolution public. T-shirts titled “Future Role Model” and “I am no princess” can be found on their site.
It looks like the women behind the U.K.’s PinkStinks are making some major, global changes.
- Sheena
While the Moore sisters are busy countering the culture of PINK, their E store enables us to keep the revolution public. T-shirts titled “ Future Role Model” and “ I AM NO PRINCESS”can be found on their site http://pinkstinks.spreadshirt.co.uk/. In addition, during the Soccer World Cup Season this month, you can resist the media obsession with wives and girlfriends of soccer players (WAGS), by wearing a PINKSTINKS shirt titled “ WAGS:Women against gender stereotyping”.
WORLD CHANGERS IN ACTION, is all I can say about PINKSTINKS!
ABC Family will surely be stirring up controversy next week (this is nothing new to the network; have you seen “The Secret Life of the American Teenager“?!) when it premieres the new comedy/drama “Huge” starring Hairspray‘s Nikki Blonsky.
The show centers on Blonsky’s character, Willamena, a rebellious teen banished to weight-loss camp by her parents.
Based on Sasha Paley’s book of the same name, “Huge” follows the lives of the campers and staff as they (according to the official ABC web site), “look beneath the surface to discover their true selves and the truth about each other.”
Though my schmaltz detector tends to go off any time a show explores teens exploring themselves (in the spiritual sense, not in the American Pie sense), “Huge” has some great things going for it.
For one, the series is written by Winnie Holzman and her daughter Savannah Dooley. Holzman is one of the mega-geniuses behind ’90s cult phenomenon “My So-Called Life,” and that earns her some serious points. Not to mention, she also penned the book for the Tony Award-winning Broadway musical Wicked, based on the novel by Gregory Maguire.
Blonsky has already proven she can hold her own, taking on the role of Hairspray‘s Tracy Turnblad, originally made famous by Ricki Lake. Plus, Hayley Hasselhoff stars alongside Blonsky, and who doesn’t want to see The Hoff‘s daughter in action?
We’ll be tuning in to ABC Family on Monday night at 9pm to catch the series premiere. If you do too, let us know what you think. I’ll be posting a recap next week, as well as an interview with Blonsky, so make sure to check back!
Recently at the Women in Film Vancouver Film Festival, I caught a short documentary called “LoliGirls: The Story Behind the Frills and Bows”. LoliGirls is a precursor to an upcoming feature film and it follows three girls who “wear Lolita”.
For those of you who aren’t familiar with it, Lolita fashion came out of Japan in the 1980s and draws its general aesthetics from Victorian and Rococo-era influences. Now Lolita style has followers all over the world, including the 3 American subjects of the film. Check out the trailer:
But to some of the subjects of the movie, wearing Lolita is more than just fashion; it’s a lifestyle.
Lolitafashion.org says that those who live Lolita as a lifestyle “may try and live like a princess, surrounding themselves with things of beauty, and taking part in a number of ‘proper’ feminine activities such as baking, embroidery, sewing and other old-fashioned ‘women’s’ activities.”
So the movie really struck me at one point when one of the girls said that she considers Lolita lifestyle an expression of feminism because it’s a rejection of wearing “sexy” and revealing things that men want to see. The other girls avoided the feminist label, yet agreed that Lolita fashion is about rejecting sexiness and choosing to feel beautiful.
I’m not really sure how I feel about this. On principle I believe women should be able to express themselves by wearing pretty much what they want. But what we wear also sends a message, and I’m not sure the message Lolita fashion sends is about empowerment.
For one thing, although some Lolitas sew their own clothes, buying the new outfits costs a lot. One of the big Japanese designers mentioned in the movie, Angelic Pretty, sells Lolita dresses for over $250 US. Their hats go for over $100 US, and then there are still shoes and accessories to attend to.
A Lolita-style dress by Angelic Pretty
That’s because there are rules for dressing Lolita, which the film’s subjects acknowledge are stricter in the US than in Japan. Lolitafashion.org is one of the sites that lays out the guidelines for dressing Lolita. Here’s what they say about legs:
“Though a lolita’s skirt may scandalously reveal her knees, a lolita tends not to expose her legs too often, as this would be improper. It is generally good practice to cover one’s legs at least up to the knee, which means wearing knee-length socks.”
It certainly seems like some Lolita girls are investing a lot of time and money into a fashion/lifestyle that regulates not only clothing, but also behavior, if indirectly.
I’d encourage you check out the film’s website and let me know what you think. Is it possible to borrow fashion and lifestyle elements (for some) from the Victorian and Rococo periods without bringing along that time period’s attitudes about women, like the idea that the ideal woman must hide her sexuality and only engage in “feminine” activities?
THIS JUST IN: men need to drive Dodge Chargers because they are constantly emasculated in their daily lives by having to do the following things:
cleaning up after themselves
going to work
talking to their girlfriends
watching True Blood
shaving
putting their underwear in the hamper
Sorry, all men everywhere, I didn’t realize I was cramping your style by expecting you to be a reasonably neat person who helps with household duties and works a job and stuff. I know cleaning is for ladies and all but I don’t think it’s really killing you to have to clean out the sink after you shave. I can’t even imagine what driving a Hyundai might to do your manhood. Or worse…a Yaris. Good thing Dodge is there to help you figure out your sexual identity. I mean, thank god.
The new Dove ad for men’s products runs through all the various rites of passage in the white, heterosexual male world, including having a girlfriend, getting married, having a bunch of kids, succeeding in your career. And then the guy ends up washing himself with Dove body wash in the shower.
At first I started yelling at the screen about how it was reinforcing so strongly the masculine stereotype, but then the awesome Jason, our Education Into Action intern, said “I liked it. It acknowledges that it’s hard to be a guy, with so many pressures.” Melissa thinks that only if you fulfill all the other manly expectations of your life can you reward yourself by using Dove body wash. And Sara thinks that you should remember to use the body wash if you’re going to accomplish all the other typical male rites of passage. What did you think?
)
