So, there are a few obvious things that can be discussed. The painfully blatant masculine-feminine binary is probably the best place to start. The portrayals were essentially that men would obviously be into athletic and other high intensity games, whereas women are obviously suited for knitting, ironing, and of course, oral sex.

This brings to mind the critiques of Judith Lorber and her theories about gender as a social construction. These kinds of videos may be intended as humorous, but the messages only satirize real gender scripts.

Video after the Jump.

Upon my daily perusal of The Daily Beast, I was appalled to find THIS gallery on the front page. It is titled “How Stars Slim Down” and in eleven slides manages to offend even my male feminist sensibilities.

The problem, of course, is that the gallery depicts the “before-and-after” photos of female celebrities who have recently lost significant weight. It then discusses the circumstances of their dieting, which helps to provide context and meaning to the photos. However, there is another element that I found particularly striking and is most worth mention: each “before” photo — the one in which they were significantly heavier — had basic unattractive photo composition. Not only were the producers of this gallery comparing weight as a symbol of beauty, but they intentionally juxtaposed a poor photo with one which is much more flattering to the “star.”

This gallery instantly reminded me of the Dove Campaign and the work some have been doing to change popular perception and expectations about beauty. Given that the media has so much influence on popular culture, it would be encouraging if well respected media outlets — like the Daily Beast — were to consider the connotations of these images.

If anything, I am offended by the pageant in general, and saddened by the fact that Prejean has been repeatedly objectified and forced into models of beauty which are unrealistic by any standards. The fact that so many are upset by her photos just demonstrates how backwards American popular culture is.

Considering that McCain is the daughter of the most recent Republican candidate for President (not to mention being a political daughter for all her father’s Senate years), many are surprised to find that McCain is actually a relative moderate politically. In this column she essentially outlines the problem with the traditional Republican response to sex, essentially that:

Daughters of Republican politicians aren’t expected to have sex, let alone enjoy it—as if there were some strange chastity belt automatically attached to us female offspring.

Now, while parents have every right to teach their children about sex however they want, trying to then implement legislation or dictate to the public those same things is not only overstepping but also socially irresponsible. Abstinence-only education is ineffective not because it is bad education but because it leaves children and teens unprepared for the realities of sex that they will eventually face. This naturally brings up questions of what society ought to do in regards to reproductive health and education, as well as how this push for abstinence-only education might be the product of patriarchalism’s oppressive sexual narratives for women.

Though Steinem’s musings are markedly tongue-in-cheek, they also illustrate a critical point — which is the subject of this entry.

On Easter Sunday several friends and I had a long conversation about the networking website Twitter, and decided to brainstorm some ideas for our own possible websites. One of the ideas was for a website called queefmyquiver.org, and would allow you to virtually queef your friends.

I understand that this is a rather vulgar concept, but when we consider a similar bodily function — farting — and swap the two, it begins to make sense. Given Steinem’s critique, it is likely that if men could queef, it would become simply another symbol of superiority. Luckily for them, they don’t have to: they can simply fart, and it is cool. Men handle unfortunate passage of air by making jokes and amplifying. It would be no surprise to find a website devoted to virtually farting on your friends — such a thing is socially (patriarchally) acceptable.

Yet an identical website about queefing would elicit vehement protestations due to its profane nature. It is a clear example of exactly Steinem’s critique — that which is masculine, is good; feminine, therefore, is bad.

The article describes a conflict between a California federal appeals court — which recently ruled that employers must provide benefits equally to same-sex couples and “traditional” married couples — and set precedents at the federal level which do not protect homosexual unions.

“Now, Mr. Obama is in a tough spot. If he supports the personnel office on denying benefits to the San Francisco court employees, he risks agitating liberal groups that helped him win election. If he supports the judges and challenges the marriage act, he risks alienating Republicans with whom he is seeking to work on economic, health care and numerous other matters.”

Given Obama’s promises to the gay community throughout his campaign, he ought to support the new ruling in favor of gay rights. Though I understand the pressures being put upon him, we can in some ways compare this struggle with the ongoing struggle for women’s rights.

Just as women fought and fought and fought against those forces which sought to keep them from having equal representation and rights, so now the gay community and allies are seeking fair treatment in accordance with existing laws for heterosexual couples. It is not too far of a stretch to see how these are interconnected concepts, despite the protestations of conservatives.

It is likely that Friedan would declaim against those opponents to gay rights in the same way. For feminist ideologies to progress, it is in every group’s best interest to combine the motives and ideas of one group with another. Injustice and inequality are not exclusive to one group or another. We must combat racism, sexism and other forms of religious or sexual discrimination in tandem. Otherwise we simply replace one problem with another. When the first wave of feminism had ended, many rights were given to women. The problem came when minority women protested that they had not received equal representation in the movement. The same could be said for today.

While I have no definite solution to how we might address that problem, it is certain that failure to do so means failure of the whole feminist movement. Rights must be won together, and not at the expense of others.

Here’s another discussion regarding the fashion industry. I stumbled upon this article in the Guardian and thought it was a rather insightful discussion of advertising and what is ultimately effective and responsive.

Essentially the author, Natasha Walter, is talking about how advertising agencies have in many ways co-opted feminist language and even feminist thinking as advertising gimmicks, simply to make a buck or two.

“Next to its pretty pictures of Ms Freckly or Ms Plump (I’m sorry, Leah Sheehan and Tabatha Roman, but that is what you are for Dove) are quasi-feminist slogans: “Real beauty comes in many shapes, sizes, colours and ages. It’s why we started the campaign for real beauty. And why we hope you’ll take part. Join the beauty debate.”

Campaign. Take part. Join. Debate. The suggestion is that this is about action, this is about a change in consciousness, this is something that you should do for the sake of other women. When such rhetoric is used as an advertising gimmick to sell more soap, then the rhetoric itself becomes meaningless.”

While the change in perspective from objectification to some level of respect for the female body, there are deeper implications which Walter addresses. Primarily she mentions how much of the modern feminist movement has been focused on the idea that if women feel comfortable in their own bodies, then that is the highest feminist ideal. Perhaps this comes from some kind of complacency with the status quo or from the white women unaffected by the racialized elements of inequality. Regardless, real social change will take more than women becoming comfortable in their own skin (though that does have value, to be fair). Walter specifically mentions Eve Ensler and her additions to this modern dialogue of seeking comfort with the vagina, with the flabby tummy, with all the natural idiosyncrasies of the human body.

Ultimately, while I can see the points Ensler is trying to make, I think Walter’s evaluation is accurate. Focusing solely on the physical elements of feminism is insufficient. It will take much more than simply becoming comfortable with the body for women to overcome the system of discrimination that is currently faced in our society.

Granted, it is a relatively new phenomenon — females attaining positions of leadership in our country — but this may go too far:

Apparently there have been a series of comic books titled “Female Force” produced about Gov. Sarah Palin, Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, and First Lady Michelle Obama. While the comics are relatively harmless, it is a kind of unique social commentary particularly in light of the name of the series. To restate the first question, why isn’t it relatively ordinary for a woman to lead? We don’t see “Male Force” as the name of a comic series, because ALL (or nearly all) comic books are about powerful men who save the world. Even the female figures we see depicted in the comic book world tend to be significantly more dependent than their male counterparts.

This distinction makes me think of Judith Lorber’s sentiments in The Social Construction of Gender. She argues that gender truly is a socialized reality and by no means a biological one. Furthermore, she asserts that gender construction leads to stratification of classes and statuses, where typically a non-white female ends up doing the hardest and filthiest work.

It is encouraging to see Michelle Obama, the only African-American in the bunch, represented as a Female Force. Even so, she has walked a path very few women like her will ever be provided the opportunity to experience. Palin as a feminist figure is extremely murk, and Clinton is herself simply a story of white privilege and empowerment by men. Ultimately whatever sentiment these comics were intended to evoke failed as far as I am concerned. While it is true that women, young and old, need heroes, it seems that these caricature women are not the kind needed. Much like the difference between consciousness-raising as a grassroots movement contrasted to the spectacle of today (Bellafante’s critique), the heroes needed are normal women seeking to push against those barriers of sexual stratification and empower women.

The title of this post is intentionally humorous, as I mostly intend to pose a question regarding the male conception of beauty. I found two articles today which I think are closely related. One of them is an opinion piece by a columnist at The Daily Beast and the other by a columnist at Bitch Magazine. In the first article, the author Casey Schwartz discusses an apparent shift in thinking among men regarding the ideal woman.

What immediately strikes me about the article is the way it is structured. Despite the fact that it is written by a woman, the article is based around the pretense that men, not women themselves, determine what makes a woman beautiful. It is as though there is some overarching rubric which men will eternally determine for how women should act, where they should work, what they should wear, etc.

This article and the one in Bitch magazine both brought to mind the article “Designer Vaginas” by Simone Weil. In the article Weil discusses constructions of gender and beauty which seem applicable here.

In the Bitch article, Kelsey Wallace discusses the website “askmen.com” and an article which was hosted there called “Subtle Ways to Tell Her She’s Getting Fat.” While I won’t go into detail with this post, it is worth sharing both articles simply due to how oppositional they are to each other.

The article which prompted critique was also found on The Daily Beast and was linked from Portfolio.

Apparently, Coulter’s fan base has been slipping a bit. Her most recent book sales have lacked the luster of her previous attempts. Could it be that the rabid conservative base has finally begun backing off from their attack dogs? Not likely, considering the immense current influence of Limbaugh on the Republican party and the recent denouncement of Michael Steele (RNC Chairman — discussed at length in the previous post).

Again, it seems that Ginia Bellafante’s critiques are most pertinent here, and I would argue Coulter in many ways represents the modern voice of women that is so discomforting to traditional feminists (by traditional I am referring to idealogical claims). Coulter is an outspoken critic of feminism and has actively fought the propagation of feminist perspectives — including suppression of The Vagina Monologues among others.

My curiosity is regarding Coulter’s motives: what about the existing system draws her attention so strongly? Why does she use her body as a selling point? What about the eradication of systemic sexism (and I imagine racism as well, though this is more implied than overt) does Coulter find so offensive?