Juice Box, Pencil Case, Mascara...?

A recent piece in the New York Times examines the culture of cosmetic consumption among tweenaged girls, and how when the media message of "buy, buy, buy" hits young girls, it's usually glued to beauty products.

Referring to actual use and not just swiping a lick of grandmother's coral-colored Chanel, the article cites, "55 percent of 6- to 9-year-old girls said they used lip gloss or lipstick, and nearly two-thirds said they used nail polish...in 2003, 49 percent of 6- to 9-year-old girls said they used lip gloss or lipstick."

Rosalind Wiseman, author of Queen Bees and Wannabees (re: Mean Girls' inspiration), is admittedly not my favorite apple on the tree when it comes to her commentary of teenaged girls. She says "hyper-sexualization" is the result of this trend of kid cosmetics. And to some extent, I agree, but I think giving a 10-year-old a swipe of Lip Smackers is hardly a sign of the apocalypse.

Rather, I think the key is balance. I wouldn't push makeup on a young girl, but if she wants to experiment with it in a non-Pussycat Dolls way, I wouldn't stop her. But, like interviewed mom Lucy Corrigan, I'd rather "girls try it and decide they don’t need all these products to be beautiful, and then do something more vital with their time and money and efforts, like write a poem or take a walk or save the world.”

6 Grams of Absurdity

In a TV ad campaign for the Subway sandwich franchise, people unperturbedly refer to hamburgers and fries using the effects that eating these foods frequently may cause, such as "thunder thighs" and "blubber".



In one ad [not the one above], a 30-something woman asks what toppings are included with her hamburger. On the list? "Loss of self esteem" and "loss of boyfriend". The pound-packing effects of eating copious amounts of fast food do exist, and eating burger after burger will no doubt expand this woman's waistline.

The implied message, however, is not so tasty: if this woman becomes fat, her boyfriend will dump her because she is now ugly and undesirable. Someone's got a bad case of fatphobia. Many large girls are beautiful, just as many skinnier girls aren't (and vise versa). And to say all big girls are such because they pig out on fast food is a rude, sweeping generalization. The other suggestion, that this woman's boyfriend dated her purely because of her physique, and that her physique is her only desirable attribute, is, while possible, equally absurd.

Psychology Today, "Scientifically"-Condoned Patriarchal Domination Tomorrow

Now, I wouldn't consider myself a very politically correct or incorrect person, I'm pretty neutral. But I can call BS out when I see it, and this article from Psychology Today, "Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature," clearly constitutes as such. The piece justifies the (largely false) claims "...women want to look like [blond, blue-eyed, busty, blonds]" and that "men sexually harass women because they are not sexist," using "human nature," which here means thinly-veiled misogyny and racism disguised as legitimate psychology.

Quoth the piece, "First, our thoughts, feelings, and behavior are produced not only by our individual experiences and environment in our own lifetime but also by what happened to our ancestors millions of years ago." Which is why, you know, I have a burning desire to go make fire out of two sticks and draw on my bedroom wall with buffalo blood. 

The article goes on to say that "women's desire to look like Barbie—young with small waist, large breasts, long blond hair, and blue eyes—is a direct, realistic, and sensible response to the desire of men to mate with women who look like her." 

First off, why is this sensible? Far be it from such an honest publication to condone chauvinism! While I understand that many men do prefer said women, a good portion are fairly indifferent to a women's appearance at all. PT not only offends women by telling them they're bound to comply to these standards (and abnormal if they don't), it offends men calling them shallow and superficial. A double whammy!

The articles tenth and final "truth" infuriated me the most: "...men are not treating women differently from men—the definition of discrimination, under which sexual harassment legally falls—but the opposite: Men harass women precisely because they are not discriminating between men and women."

If that's the case, then why aren't men sexually-harassed and why aren't women getting the equal paychecks and cushy office chairs? Apparently, Psychology Today has replaced science with sexism.  

Movie Review: Enchanted

The story is that a sweet forest girl named Giselle (Amy Adams) meets her true love, Prince Edward (James Marsden), while he is taking down a giant. Edward's evil mother, in the form of an old hag, pushes Giselle down a well into "a place of no love and no happy endings." Once in New York City, Giselle is greeted by sarcasm and hate until Robert (Dr. McDreamy) allows her to stay in his house for a night. I'll end my summary here, so I don't spoil the predictable plot.

Enchanted is cleverly written and beautifully animated. Obnoxious songs pepper the film, but since the premise is "Disney making fun of Disney," the soundtrack works. Amy Adams plays the role of a ditzy and naive princess-to-be flawlessly and James Marsden executes the part of a dumber than dirt prince without a hitch. Patrick Dempsey...well he's gorgeous as always. It's from the feminist standpoint that this movie begins to fail.

Disney has a long tradition of giving twisted ideals of women. All the Disney Princesses have a waist size of about 4 inches and a cup size of D, D for Disney, and most Princesses were either trapped in some situation and could only be freed by a prince, loved to clean, or sewed in their free time. Their newest movie is no exception since the women are either entirely clueless or evil and ugly, while the men are all hunk-a-licious and brave. While Disney puts in a few clever pro-women twists (like having Giselle attempt to save Robert at the end, or making the heroic Prince Edwards have an IQ of 80), overall, Enchanted fails the feminist test, making Enchanted just another notch in Disney's patronizing belt.


Movie Rating: ♀♀♀
Feminist Rating: ♀

Heart of Glass

The glasses of John Lennon and Buddy Holly have become iconic style symbols. Drew Carrey rocks his frames even after receiving correctional eye treatment. But when it’s time for the young Stephanie Tanner to get her glasses, she, like many other little girls, balks at the proposition.

Woody Allen has often joked that his thick-rimmed glasses make him look like an intellectual. "Nerds" (I define the term as the smart and socially-awkward) in TV or film often sport glasses, creating a trademark look consisting of suspenders, braces, and said spectacles.

If glasses are associated with intelligence, then why do many young girls today avoid them? When society tells girls they look ugly in glasses, it also says that they, metaphorically speaking, look ugly in intelligence. When Diana Prince tears off her glasses, she becomes the sexy, strong Wonder Woman. Why can't she be just as hot when she wears the frames?

Girls are shunning necessary eyewear for the sake of beauty. This young generation needs to be reminded that not only is it “OK” to be smart, it’s fantastic, glasses or not.

And yes, I do wear glasses.

Kick off your heels!

Anyone woman who has ever come home from a formal party with aching, swelling feet knows that high-heels hurt. Patriarchal society may scoff at ancient Chinese foot-binding traditions, saying that high-heels are a different ball game entirely and surely not oppressive to such an extreme degree. Back here in the real world, women are dying from restricting trends like these.

The stereotypical Carrie-Bradshaw-of-a-woman, the young urban professional, appears to be carefree and confident. Behind the closed doors of her apartment, she coats herself in cosmetics, heightens herself in heels, slims herself in Spanx, and douses her hair in dyes. Why does this naturally beautiful and successful woman hide behind a mask? She herself is not even sure.

To attract men? To please herself? To fit in?

She may never even come up with an explanation, but as she thinks, she’ll be mindlessly applying a layer of Chanel lipstick. Why? The answer is habit. She may or may not want to stop, but either way she cannot. The beauty industry is an addictive drug—women need their “fix” of shoes or purses. By the time women decide that it’s no longer “in vogue” to condone these limiting behaviors, it may be too late. The best way to stop being a slave to fashion is to never become one in the first place.

(Writer's Note: Happy Bonfire Day, everyone!)

Ann Coulter's Ideas are Uglier than Her Body

Conservative pundit Ann Coulter may not be the beacon for female empowerment. The politically-involved woman who believes woman shouldn't be involved in politics, Coulter is rarely logical and always shocking. Saying Jews need to be perfected and calling Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards a “faggot” is one thing. Using Seinfeld (which, by the way, is by-in-large a Jewish comedy) to support her outlandish views on interracial couples? That’s just ludicrous. Ann Coulter may be an enigma, but we can’t simply ignore her and hope that one day she wakes up and realizes she’s wrong about pretty much everything.

This being said, criticizing Coulter’s physical appearance is not the answer. She may be suspiciously thin, but eating disorders are no joke. She may slightly resemble a man to some, but being transgender should not be a diss. When Ann Coulter says “liberals love America like O.J. loved Nicole”, we merely reply, “You have ugly arms, Ann Coulter!”

As Coulter once said, “I love to engage in repartee with people who are stupider than I am.” Luckily, that is a very small portion of people, so Ann Coulter must not be getting any action. Let’s not stoop to Coulter's level and let's start laughing at her “ideas” and not her clothes.

A picture says a thousand words

The zenith of female empowerment, the age of feminism at its best, fashion in all its glory during the hippie age. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the best photo of womenkind I've ever seen.

Take a minute to study the placement of the models and the poses they are in. It really speaks for itself.

*photo from 1977 JCPenney ad

Naomi Wolf's Beauty Myth

I first discovered Naomi Wolf’s The Beauty Myth when my eighth grade science teacher handed me a copy to stick under a plank of wood for a project. At the time, I was mildly intrigued, and several weeks ago, I finally bought my own copy and began to read it.

The book is divided into chapters with general titles such as Sex or Violence, and with these chapters as her guide, Wolf carefully examines the major issues facing women today. These issues, according to Wolf, all lead back to the culture of beauty where women are forced into belonging.

The Beauty Myth (published in the 90's, but still relevant) is written rather dryly, with small tokens of wit and wisdom inserted. It's not meant to be a humorous book, but Wolf’s little jokes got my through the endless statistics. In addition, the book seemed only to focus on how these issues affect heterosexual whites. I would have liked to see how the “the beauty myth” affects other groups of people. Overall, however, the book was fascinating, dealing with many topics in a straightforward, immediate, way.

A Form of Ugliness so Intolerable

Although the beauty standard du jour has only recently become blond hair, red lips, big breasts, small waist, shaven va-jay-jay, patriarchal society has long pressured women into giving up time, money, and sanity to conform to bizaire, unhealthy standards.

Corsets may seem like a glamorous undergarment of the Victorian era and cabarets, but the phenomenon of tight lacing, or lacing a corset very tightly as to achieve the smallest waistline possible, is hardly attractive to a modern audience when the internal organs start to squish together and realign.

Oscar Wilde (his feelings on fashion grace this post's title) may be our favorite elaborately dressed, “indecent,” quick-witted gay guy, but his half-sisters weren’t so lucky. After using copious amounts of crinoline to give them those 19th century Bootylicious behinds, their underskirts caught aflame, and their burned killed them, thus illustrating the importance of being burn-less… (I never said I was as witty or tactful as Oscar.).

The media portrays Queen Elizabeth as a strong willed woman with fiery red hair and shocking white skin. Her paleness, however, was far from natural. A sick child, the grown-up Virgin Queen coated her face in white powder to cover up the marks. Empress Josephine, the go-to-gal of Napoleon, was similarly self-conscious of her hands, and constantly wore opera gloves.

When entertainment is watching women endure harsh and unsafe beauty treatments (with glue on their heads, fun!) for the mere goal of contorting their way to fame, we need to be reminded that beauty, or at least beauty as defined by society, truly can lead to pain.

Book Review: Female Chauvinist Pigs (Ariel Levy)

Sex sells, and the vast majority of female celebrities (the charming young generation who can't take a few cents out of their extensive paychecks to buy some undies) know; they follow this unwritten creed of the adverstising and beauty industry as a mantra. In a culture where females as young as ten twirl a stripper pole as a baton of empowerment, how thin is the line between women’s liberation and carefully-disguised exploitation? Ariel Levy explores this and other issues in her first book, Female Chauvinist Pigs. In Levy’s study to determine whether porn stars, strippers, and swingers really are unshackled from the binds of culture, or just creating a new, equally limiting, culture, she examines everything from lesbian sex parties to ‘Girls Gone Wild’ casting ploys. In her interviews with everyone from self-proclaimed liberated ‘bois’ to Christie Hefner herself, Levy quickly uncovers the destructive irony hidden in raunch culture, where women aren’t pushed around by men anymore, they’re pushing each other themselves. Female Chauvinist Pigs is as darkly humorous as it is terrifying, an essential read for any female (or any man) who dares to call herself empowered in this sex-saturated world.

prəˈmiskyoōəs girl.

Emily's latest post got me thinking, as she describes a woman who wears sexy, revealing clothing as a "slut."

"Slut" is a negative term for a sexually promiscuous woman. In my virginal opinion, there's nothing wrong with having numerous partners as long as one takes the proper precautions against pregnancy and STDs, and accepts the consequences when she is responsible.

I also don't think there's anything wrong with wearing "sexy" clothes once the girl becomes a teenager. Why does the
"my body, my choice" reproductive rights mantra not apply to an Abercrombie denim miniskirt?

It's interesting how the word "slut" has morphed into such an ugly term. I think it's time for women, sluts or not, to reclaim these "bad" words and turn into positives.

SlutWear Brand Clothing Inc.

The American mall is any teenage guy's paradise. All he has to do is pick a spot to sit and he can see all the boobs, butts, and belly button rings he wants.

SlutWear is the latest fashion trend. Every American alive who has stepped into any well trafficked public place can recognize it. It is most well known for its wide necklines that swoop from the tip of the shoulder to the lowest point right between the breasts and low riding pants that show the top of their trademark thong. I'm going to hazard a guess and say that the average girl's closet is over 60% purchased from SlutWear Brand Clothing Inc. Mine included. So what's the problem? So what if girls want to show off their budding features that they have so recently acquired? It's fashion! Fashion is about moving forward an leaving prudish and "old" ideas behind, right?

Well, the answer to that is yes and no. Fashion is about moving forward and leaving prudish ideas behind. If we didn't, American women would still be wearing prairie dresses and bonnets. Thanks to changes in fashion, women now have a wide array of choices and can make decisions for themselves about what they want to wear each day and for whatever purpose. ...Sort of. It's the part about "making decisions for themselves" that we start to get in trouble with this definition of fashion. Fashion is also about conforming to the widely accepted idea of what is "supposed" to be worn and why the average girl "needs" to dress that way. Common thinking that has been birthed from the loins of fashion is "I need to get that because if I don't wear THAT, what everyone else is wearing, then I'm not pretty or sexy." Do you see the skewed thinking in this? There's no real need to dress in such clothing or to apply to societies standards. One of the critical parts of feminism (in my mind anyway) is being who you are and thinking for yourself! The only need in regards to fashion is dressing the way that expresses your individuality and personal sexuality, not to express impersonal and overt sex like everyone else.

At this point in most commentaries about slutty clothing, you'd expect me to go on about how it's the media twisting the minds of women, how men are making us dress this way to satisfy their sex crazed minds, blah blah blah... But it is the WOMEN OF OUR OWN SOCIETY who are fueling this trend, WOMEN who are the CEOs of SlutWear Brand, WOMEN who are behind the counters selling SlutWear by the bags. So I ask: Women, why?