Settle in for a long, long ride on the This Is A Thing Now Train, because male marketing and male beauty products are here to stay, along with no shortage of discussion about the same. This week in AdAge, Jack Neff explores the phenomenon of selling beauty--or anything else--to men and gives some interesting examples of products that actually started as "lady" products. Any of you girls want to fire up a Marlboro? They were originally for you!
It would almost be cute that the Chicago Tribune thinks teenaged girls are picking the paper up and checking it out for diet tips if the Chicago Tribune didn't clearly think teenaged girls are ... picking it up and checking it out for diet tips. I struggle to find something that isn't problematic about "How To Lose 10 Pounds Before Prom," least of which is my difficulty imagining a high schooler picking up a daily newspaper these days.
"And yea, though I walk through the well-lit city street, I shall fear every man, for I wear skinny jeans. My heels and my eyeshadow, they maketh me ask for it."
Repeat this to thyselves, base female sinners! For remember, if you wear the unholy clothes of whores in the VA-TN Tri-Cities area, you may be flagged down in the street and given a religious pamphlet admonishing you for your Satanic dress--and warning you that if you keep dressing like a giant slut, you are probably going to get raped, and if you do, it's your fault. Props to the local paper, the Bristol Herald Courier, covering this thoughtfully ... or at all:
We all know and loathe Carrie Prejean, the Christian beauty queen from California who, aside from being surprisingly unable to say two coherent sentences in a row, also only believes in "opposite marriage." Oh, sure, she has lots of gay friends--who in the beauty queening industry doesn't? For that matter, who in America doesn't?--but really, those gay friends shouldn't really have rights and stuff.
But because one Bible-thumping pageantess from California isn't enough, we now have Lauren Ashley, Miss Beverley Hills. Again, she has lots of gay friends. But she wants them to know that they will be mightily smote down by The Lord God for their abominations. She recently told Fox News:
Being a feminist means being able to be both saddened and amused, often within moments of each other. If that hasn't happened to you yet today, please allow me to facilitate.
The saddening part: two studies out of the UK report that people generally--and women especially--are inclined toward victim-blaming in instances of both violence and rape. First, an Edinburgh university study of 11 and 12-year-olds:
They were asked to consider whether or not a man was justified in punching his partner when he found out she had had an affair. Nearly all of the children thought that the woman deserved to be hit. In
another scenario, about 80% of the children said a man had cause to
slap his partner because she did not have the dinner ready on time.
Researcher
Nancy Lombard described the findings as "worrying" because the
youngsters had naturalised and normalised violent behaviour. She
said: "The children didn't agree with violence, but gave reasons to try
to justify it if the woman had done something 'wrong'.
And then, from an online poll unfortunately (and terrifyingly?) called Wake Up To Rape:
If you're planning on vacationing on the Indian beaches of Goa, consider sporting something a little less stylish than a bikini. Consider wearing a vintage bathing costume like the one pictured here. Otherwise, you'll probably get raped, and you'll definitely deserve it.
At least, that's the schpiel coming out of the Goa tourism department, according to GlobalPost:
Once upon a time, the beaches of Goa were known for free love. But as a string of high-profile sexual assaults on tourists culminated in the alleged rape of a 9-year-old Russian girl last week, the idyllic strip of sand along the Arabian Sea is fast gaining a fearful reputation.
The answer? According to the state's ministry of tourism, those cute pre-teens in two-pieces are asking for it.
"You can't blame the locals; they have never seen such women. Foreign tourists must maintain a certain degree of modesty in their clothing. Walking on the beaches half-naked is bound to titillate the senses," New Delhi's Mail Today newspaper quoted Pamela Mascarhenas, Goa's deputy director of tourism, as saying Friday.
That's right, if you're a 9-year-old in a swimsuit, you're responsible not only for "titillating," but by extension for being violently sexually violated. The mens, they can't help themselves!
There's a lot going on in this BBC report on a study that was comissioned to find out whether or not sexualized products ("high-heel slip-on shoes for babies, T-shirts and underwear products for girls with sexual slogans printed on them") are harmful to kids:
The report said: "The attempt to control the production and distribution of sexualised goods, or at least control children's access to them, is likely to be fraught with difficulties, not least in terms of how we define what is to be regulated in the first place.
"This is not to suggest that it should not be attempted, although it is to imply that such a process might well have costs and counter productive consequences, as well as benefits." The report also said it may be valuable to discuss the issues around sexual imagery and products aimed at children in schools.
While the study seems to want to ask interesting and important questions about what it means that 11-year-olds are buying Playboy-branded makeup bags, it doesn't seem to say much about the parents who consent to the purchase and ownership of such items. These products, in and of themselves, regardless of who they're supposedly marketed to, surely aren't the (only) problem, and really not the source of the issue.
Ostensibly more damaging than a pair of Juicy booty shorts is the parent who is ignorant, willfully or otherwise, of the implications of allowing kids to own sexualized products. (And if you're not on board with finding this disturbing from the very get-go, consider reading Female Chauvinist Pigs, a fine exploration of the ways in which porn- and raunch-culture negatively affects girls from an extremely young age. And the fact that it is always girls, almost always and only girls, who are encouraged toward this sexuality, is not something we should forget.)
Ah, but indeed, the Juicy-Playboy-Britney-Pageant-WhatHaveYou rabbit hole goes deep.
Hoarding of food and supplies best wishes are in order: MySpace celebrity Tila Tequila and Girls Gone Wild czar Joe Francis are supposedly incubating the antichristhaving a child. Like, together. Like, Joe Francis was like, hey Tila Tequila, this is my penis, howsabout I put it inside you all hard-like? And Tila was like yeah, Joe Francis, you get drunk 18-year-olds to show their tits on television, you should totally put that penis inside me even though my lesbian lover just died TEEEHEEEEE.
Not long after Tequila's fiancée Casey Johnson passed away, it was revealed that Girls Gone Wild's Joe Francis may have been "the secret architect" behind the now infamous engagement announcement video as a way to hype Tequila's recently launched web site, which is financed by Francis. Additionally, Tequila says that Francis was the one who informed her of Johnson's death, and that she "hid" at his house afterward. Could this latest development be another--and decidedly more desperate and "bad idea jeans"--machination to gain publicity for Tequila and Francis' business?
But what shall the hellspawn be named? I polled my fellow Dolls, and we have some ideas. Are you reading this, Tila and Joe? Wait, can you read, Tila and Joe?
Most of my college football news centers around the Texas Longhorns, so in order to educate myself on this whole Tebow situation, I read up on his career. Turns out, it's sometimes hard to figure out if Tebow is talking about abortion, or if he's talking about football.
So I decided to make a match game. I'll list here four Tim Tebow quotes, and you can round up your office or school mates and guess which ones are about which subject:
This Rick dude on CNN is obviously so ignorant as to be laughable, but what's not funny is, 30 seconds or so into this video, his use of the word "punchline" to describe the rape of a woman on a city street:
Babies in bars were also in the news this week, with their benipped bottles full of Stella or rosé whatever it is the cool kids are doing these days. Wait, what? Okay, fine, the babes aren't imbibing, but their parents are, and one New York Times columnist is not having it:
No matter what breeders might think, bars are not family-friendly. If I am out drinking and sobbing about a bad breakup, I don't want my cries to compete with those of an infant sitting next to me. If I go to the bathroom to correct my wayward mascara at the end of a long weekend night, I don't want to watch a baby being wiped down on the soggy sink counter.
And since I hate children with the burning fire of a thousand packages of Plan B, I tend to agree also with Julieanne at Lemondrop, who is more diplomatic than I might be, saying:
Even if you're just there to have a club soda and catch up with Fun Cathy from your old office, if you can afford to drink in public, you can afford to leave little Braidyn or McFayden at home with a responsible teenager.
Thoughtful. Logical. But here is the thing:
WHY DOES ANYONE HAVE TO TELL ANYONE TO LEAVE THEIR BABY AT THEIR DAMNED HOUSE WHEN THEY GO TO THE BAR, JESUS EFFING?
I know complaining about your rampant idiocy and general misogyny is like trying to talk Ann Coulter into going brunette or saying a coherent sentence. But staying silent in the face of all youratrociouscrimes against women just doesn't feel right.
While I know it was no doubt painful for reporter Peter Allen to write about recent events in France, where large companies are now required to reserve boardroom seats for women, surely someone at your newspaper could have written a headline that didn't practically writhe in whiny, lady-hating pain on the page:
"French companies forced to reserve 40% of boardroom posts for women (just don't tell Harriet Harman)"
The horrific tyranny of gender equality and the stereotyping of women as catty bitches, all in one headline! You have outdone yourself, Daily Mail.
My fellow Doll Susan and I are vacationing in Washington, D.C. this week, staying within a stone's throw of the Pentagon. Don't worry--the Department of Defense does not suddenly want to hear the thoughts of a couple of peace-lovin' liberal-ass ladies on its policies, it was just the cheapest place to stay. The fun part is that we spent yesterday evening getting into heated political discussions at the local pub. Truly, we are a joy to be around.
It's all in good fun--except maybe for the dude in the flight suit whose unwavering defense of 'Murka and capitalism riled Susan up from 0 to 10 in a matter of milliseconds--and seeing as how we live in the liberal-ass enclave of Austin, Texas, Susan and I rather enjoyed hanging with people with whom we could have spirited conversations about bombing shit.
However, one military-related debate I can't be bothered to get angry about revolves around the care packages the USO recently sent to female soldiers. The pink camo bags were filled with lipstick, tampons, facial bars and issues of Cosmo. A number of ladybloggers were dismayed by the "lady soldiers are feminine too!" message. Wrote Kate Harding in Salon: "It's about time somebody thought of servicewomen's needs like that! I mean, really, can you imagine living in a war zone without mascara?"
My thinking: well, maybe some lady soldiers are feminine too. If they want lipstick, send them lipstick. Which is pretty much the response the USO itself issued today on its blog:
True story: in high school, I was fired from Sonic because I can't count change. Get me in a parking lot with a burger and a belt of coins, and I start sweating like a whore in wherever whores go to sweat. But maybe I'm using the wrong term here. It's not so much that I "can't" count change, as it is that I am afraid of doing it, especially in front of other people. Why? Because it involves math. Stupid, simple math.
And I am a smart person. Even in math. I've been a non-stop A student for my entire life, with the exception of one B+ in college in, of all things, reporting. Now, I don't like math, but I am completely capable of doing it. Still, when asked to actually perform mathematical what-have-you's in anywhere other than the vacuum of a classroom test that will be seen only by an instructor, I lose my composure. I have no confidence in my own obvious abilities.
I'm sure I'm not the first gal to feel this way. In fact, girls' lack of confidence in their mathematical and scientific abilities is well-documented and has led to the ridiculous idea that somehow girls are biologically worse at math and science.
Which has now been proven wrong thanks to a new study from the American Psychological Association. Oh, god. I hope you didn't need someone to actually prove this wrong for you with science. Because if that is so, you are an asshole. Here's the gist of the thing:
A few years ago, after I made a few choice donations to a few choice non-profits, I received a sticker in the mail. It was from NOW, and in bright blue and white, it read--nay, practically shouted--KEEP ABORTION LEGAL. I was fresh out of college, and in the midst of a Bush White House, I knew that my right to control my own reproductive functions was in no way safe and guaranteed. Any young woman with access to a newspaper--I think us kids maybe still read them at that point-- or the internet knew that reproductive choice was and had been under attack by the religious right, conservatives and most Republicans for some time.
Don't tell the Associated Press, though. They seem to think that the recent health care debate has prompted all the twentysomething feminists to feel shock and amazement that our reproductive health rights have suddenly become challenged. The broad brush strokes are worthy of a New York Times style piece:
Among many younger feminists, the matter of abortion rights, so central to the women's movement of the 1970s, does not confer the urgency it once did. For them, abortion is now part of a "reproductive justice" portfolio that also includes access to birth control and improving health care for poor and minority women.
Just as second wave feminism was hardly a one-issue movement, third-wave and post-feminism are not one-issue movements, nor are they movements so scattered in focus that they forgot that women have wombs that people like to tell them what to do with. Forgive me, but activists in the 1960's cared passionately about increasing access to newly available contraception and women's health care, did they not? This is a new thing?
The article's biggest sin, however, is its bizarre assertion that only just now did women start to become ambivalent about the actual practice of abortion. Apparently every 1970s feminist was a heartless babykiller:
The Heartless Dolls are Andrea, Kathleen, Kiala, Merritt, Nicki and a hifalutin array of notable guest contributors from around the web. We dig pop culture and ladythings.
