I’ve been scrutinizing and collecting advertisements for over a decade thanks to the work of Jean Kilbourne and my studies in media literacy. I’ve seen some terrible ones over the years.
But, this one…Via Feministing.com, this one is one of the most revolting advertisements I have ever seen.
Valenti takes on the many ways that a woman’s morality and personal worth are tied to her sexual purity — from abstinence-only education to blaming rape victims, honor killings to finger-wagging over hookup culture. She points the finger of blame back at conservatives and argues that it’s the myth of virginity, not “Girls Gone Wild,” that’s hurting this generation of young women. Those two competing influences have more in common than some might think: Both teach women that their most valuable commodity is their sexuality.
Here’s an interesting piece on the changing definitions of masculinity and the increasingly complicated ways in which men navigate this gendered terrain.
This pressure paradox creates difficulties for today’s men. On the one hand, they face new expectations from women who are now achieving financial independence and are seeking attractive and sensitive, rather than rich and stoic, partners. On the other hand, men also must face their buddies, who may label sensitivity and careful grooming as homosexuality.
The “interview” does not ask her one intelligent question about her latest film or her career. The first topic revolves around her impending wedding and notes that she is too busy to make proper wedding plans. The second topic is no surprise. What else? Her body!
For her stroll down the Night at the Museum red carpet at the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum, the starlet wore a flowing lavender dress, a far more demure look than the sexy fitted riding pants she wore for her role in the film as aviation pioneer Amelia Earhart.
“It’s going to be a little shocking to see everything in IMAX,” she admitted, adding that to get her body in top form for the big screen, she did pilates “as often as she could.”
China’s sex-themed park was squashed before construction was complete. The giant mannequin legs and pelvis with red g-string is removed from what would have been the entrance. It’s no surprise that the entry did not feature a pair of legs with a penis and banana sling. While objectification has increased for men, rates do not compare to the level of female exploitation, nudity and objectification that run rampant.
We know the beauty industry pulls in billions of dollars. According to the Economist via this latest post @ Sociological Images:
…beauty spending–on make-up, diet and exercise, fragrances, skin care, hair products, and cosmetic surgery–adds up to a $160 billion-a-year worldwide.
But, how often do we personally think about what we spend and the amount of time it takes us to get ready? I’m not considered “high-maintenance” and, even so, I spend a tremendous amount of time and energy on my physical appearance:
I shave my legs, armpits and bikini area, I get my eyebrows waxed, I use body lotion, facial moisturizer and eye cream, toner for my face, facial serum, SPF, get manicures and pedicures, use deodorant, shampoo, conditioner, hair oil and shine, nail polish, mascara, liquid eye liner and eye shadow.
Wow!
It’s sobering to write it out. As I said, it doesn’t take me hours to get ready, I don’t look like a woman that takes hours to get ready, my hair is not perfectly coiffed and groomed, I am not “flawless,” and don’t look like anyone featured in the media.
Sociological Images provides the link to a slide show of women photographed during their monthly beauty routine and calculates the costs associated with it.
How much do you spend each month on diet, exercise, make-up, hair, scents and oils, and/or plastic surgery or various enhancements such as Botox, teeth whitening, photofacials and/or laser treatments? How many products do you have in your bathroom that you haven’t used completely before buying another brand name?
Pretty Pushers (the name says it all) is “modernizing” your labor by making it “fashionable” with designer delivery gowns and a “dressed up delivery kit.”
I swear!
This is fucking crazy. In order to primp up “that unrecognizable monster” (YES! This advertisement actually says MONSTER) in the hospital for post delivery photos (what are they sending in the paparazzi, I mean, really!?), the kit offers sheer gloss, lemon-water towlettes and a headband for those damn fly aways that birthing a human being brings about.
As if we didn’t have enough pressure in general…and I though the relentless focus on post baby weight loss was horrendous! This takes it to another level entirely.
And “moderninzing” labor? Labor is labor. What, throwing in consumer goods and imposed beauty standards and voila! we have a “modern” birth?
As Radical Doula says:
Perpetuating screwed up ideas about women’s beauty is already infuriating enough, but now we need to mix it in with childbirth. If you’ve ever actually been with a woman after she’s given birth, I’d say she looks pretty damn beautiful, sweat and all.
Check out her article on women on reality TV. Why do they all have to be “hot, desperate and dumb?”
Seriously, check out some of the one dimensional representations of women on Rock of Love or The Tool Academy. I just cringe. The cultural messages about what it means to be a woman is enough to make me scream.
When the ads for the new film started running, I should have been suspicious. “Not your father’s Star Trek?” What was wrong with my father’s Star Trek? I liked my father’s Star Trek! But still, there I was, on opening day, with a bucket of popcorn, surrounded by what looked like the entire staff of several area comic-book stores.
There was much to love about the movie. Kirk was hot, and Spock was cool, and their relationship felt just right, at once edgy and familiar. Unlike the earlier outings, where a shaken camera connoted a collision, danger, and/or black holes and time warps, the special effects were, indeed, special.
I’m not so much of a nerd that I couldn’t handle the way the film chucked continuity and ignored some of the original show’s rules of the road (although, note to J.J. Abrams: if a Vulcan is bonded and his spouse suddenly dies, he either dies, too, or ends up in mortal agony, and should not be depicted just calmly hanging out on a transporter pad. Okay, fine, maybe I am that much of a nerd).
I was even okay with the way the plot recycled Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (in “Khan,” the villain deploys a Doomsday weapon because he believes Kirk was responsible for the death of his wife. In “Trek,” the villain deploys a Doomsday weapon because he believes Spock was responsible for the death of his wife….and let me just add that, in the all-important categories of “pecs,” and “scenery chewing,” Eric Bana is no Ricardo Montalban.)
Honestly, I didn’t have a problem until about midway through the film…at which point I realized that every single lady on screen was either a mother, a ho, or an intergalactic hood ornament.
That sounds like more of the same and exactly like your father’s Star Trek.
