Target Women: You’re Old
Sarah Haskins turned 30 earlier this month, August 3 to be exact, and in celebration of her officially being “old,” she did a special Target Women on what it’s like to be a woman who is old and all of those special little problems that arise as soon as you turn old. Like feeling like a water balloon that’s about to pop and spill very unladylike fluid everywhere or suddenly being made of pipe.
PETA Continues Unethical Treatment of Women
PETA, as an organization who claims to be working to end the unethical treatment of animals has absolutely no problem at all treating women unethically–as we’ve known for a while now. PETA has a very extensive history of using sexist, woman-shaming, fat-shaming, racist, violent, hurtful, and downright disturbing tactics in the way they choose to present their organization and in turn, their message. And their most recent Florida billboard campaign is no different.
PETA has put out numerous ads picturing naked women with taglines like ‘I’d rather go naked than wear fur’ and most notably ‘be comfortable in your own skin.’ However, their most recently Florida billboard campaign that features a woman with “blubber” in a bikini and the tagline ’save the whales’ really drives home another message they’re trying to spread–that you should be comfortable in your own skin as long as you’re an “acceptable” society-approved size.
As if the billboard wasn’t enough, PETA’s press release for the billboard goes on to use even more fat-shaming, degrading, and insulting language:
Jacksonville, Fla. — A new PETA billboard campaign that was just launched in Jacksonville reminds people who are struggling to lose weight — and who want to have enough energy to chase a beach ball — that going vegetarian can be an effective way to shed those extra pounds that keep them from looking good in a bikini. The ad shows a woman whose “blubber” is spilling over the sides of her swimsuit bottom and features the tagline “Save the Whales. Lose the Blubber: Go Vegetarian. PETA.”
Anyone wishing to achieve a hot “beach bod” is reminded that studies show that vegetarians are, on average, about 10 to 20 pounds lighter than meat-eaters. The meat habit can ruin the fun in other ways too. Consuming meat and dairy products is conclusively linked to heart disease, diabetes, and several kinds of cancer — not to mention higher rates of infertility in women and impotence in men. And not only is following a healthy plant-based diet good for the environment, it is also the best thing that anyone can do to help stop the routine abuse of animals raised and killed for food. Animals on factory farms are subjected to mutilations like debeaking, tail-docking, and branding (without any painkillers) and are often slaughtered and dismembered while still conscious.
“Trying to hide your thunder thighs and balloon belly is no day at the beach,” says PETA Executive Vice President Tracy Reiman. “PETA has a free ‘Vegetarian Starter Kit’ for people who want to lose pounds while eating as much as they like.
*emphasis mine
One grave mistake that PETA continues to make with every new campaign they launch is that they are unapologetically alienating people who are vegetarian and vegan who they could inspire to become vegetarian and vegan if they weren’t mocked, ridiculed, insulted, and objectified in every other PETA campaign. Case in point: many feminists happen to be vegetarian/vegan and if PETA wasn’t such a fan of attacking and using women, each one of those feminists could be a person who would support PETA and their organization. However, PETA has made it abundantly clear that they aren’t going to stop using misogyny, racism, and violence as a marketing tool so the Portland Feminist Action League organized a peaceful protest at the Powell’s book store in Portland when hearing news that PETA co-founder Ingrid Newkirk was doing a book signing at the location. They held signs that said things like “PETA can kiss my big fat vegetarian ass!” and “Animals for ethical treatment of women.”
Here’s a video from the protest:
Sotomayor Racism Watch: Piñata Cartoon Edition
It took no time at all for racist and sexist cartoons to hit the internet. This horrendous and disgusting cartoon went up on The Oklahoman on June 2nd, the day after the first cartoon published on the website mocking the overly exaggerated words the GOP had mindlessly flung around as a herd of barbaric frat boys.
Showing Sotomayor as a piñata while elephants line up to hit her as President Obama facilitates (of course, wearing a sombraro because sombraros and piñatas are the only ways to present Latino culture) is not funny. No matter which way you look at it, depicting racism, sexism, and violence against women is never funny, under any circumstances whatsoever.
As Renee over at Womanist Musings put it:
If the racism where not enough the incitement of violence is certainly the coup de grace. In a country in which women suffer violence at the hands of men on a daily basis to have them line up to take their “best shot” at her is not innocent political commentary.
If you are horrified about not just an established, professional woman being portrayed in such a manner, but any woman, do not hesitate to contact The Oklahoman. If they are perfectly fine with publishing discriminatory filth, they need to hear from us.
You can email them at yourviews@oklahoman.com or write to them at the following address:
Your Views
The Oklahoman
P.O. Box 25125
Oklahoma City, OK 73125
But you are not able to simply tell them your views, you need to follow some guidelines:
1. Letters of 250 words or less.
2. A full name and complete postal address, including zip code, must accompany your letter. (This is needed for verification. Your address won’t be published.)
3. “Name withheld” letters are not accepted. Nor are letters signed only with initials or a first initial and last name.
4. E-mailed letters cannot be sent as attachments.
5. Authors are limited to one letter every 28-42 days, depending on volume.
6. When referring to a news story or previous letter published in Your Views, cite the headline or letter writer’s name and the date of publication.
h/t Womanist Musings
The GOP’s Campaign Against Sonia Sotomayor
Sonia Sotomayor was originally nominated to federal court by George Herbert Bush; a fact that Obama mentioned in his speech to nominate Sotomayor for the US Supreme Court and a fact that the entire GOP and its supporters have conveniently ignored for the sake of having something else to bitch and complain about.
The Guardian’s Scott Lemieux has put together an article on Sotomayor’s qualifications for the job she has been nominated for and has discovered that Sotomayor’s qualifications mirror those of current Justice Samuel Alito; a man who the GOP has fawned over and that John McCain wholeheartedly supports and name-dropped all over the place during the last presidential election. But given the fact that Sotomayor is obviously qualified and possesses the same qualifications of a man supported at large by the GOP, they aren’t going to let her confirmation go without a fight… And the only reason why several smear campaigns have already started against her is because she is not a white, privileged male.
Did you know that all Latina women are named Maria? Well according to Mike Huckabee, the nomination of Maria Sotomayor “will likely leave us with something akin to the “Extreme Court” that could mark a major shift” because she is so “far left.”
The appointment of Maria Sotomayor for the Supreme Court is the clearest indication yet that President Obama’s campaign promises to be a centrist and think in a bipartisan way were mere rhetoric. Sotomayor comes from the far left and will likely leave us with something akin to the “Extreme Court” that could mark a major shift. The notion that appellate court decisions are to be interpreted by the “feelings” of the judge is a direct affront of the basic premise of our judicial system that is supposed to apply the law without personal emotion. If she is confirmed, then we need to take the blindfold off Lady Justice.—
I’m sure Maria Sotomayor will be displeased to learn that Mike Huckabee is not a fan of her, but I wonder how he feels about Sonia Sotomayor… And um, Lady Justice!? I don’t think so. Does the GOP refer to Justice Alito as Mr. Justice Alito? No, I don’t think they do.
Newt Gingrich, who apparently took Meghan McCain’s advice to start Twittering, joined his fellow fraternity brothers Republican colleagues Sen. James Inhofe and Rep. Lamar Smith in calling Sotomayor racist for claiming that judicial diversity is important when determining “race and sex discrimination cases.”
So apparently Gingrich believes that an out of context remark made during a speech on race and sex discrimination cases that appeared in print in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal in 2002 is proof that Sotomayor is a racist… Because no one knows what it’s like to be a woman of color more than a white male, right?
Karl Rove jumped on board calling Sotomayor an “intellectual lightweight,” obviously encouraged by Jeffrey Rosen’s New Republic article which allowed unnamed sources to attack Sotomayor as “not that smart” and lacking “penetrating” questions on the bench.
Because nothing shows someone’s lack of intellect than graduating summa cum laude from Princeton University as well as attending Yale Law School and holding the job of editor of the Yale Law Journal.
The attacks against Sonia Sotomayor are in bad taste and fueled by nothing less than racism and sexism… Pot calling the kettle black, anyone?
Disney is Robbing Your Daughters
The princess mentality has become nothing less than a rite of passage for many young girls today and at the front of the line for whom to blame, is Disney.
Disney’s international (and internationally accepted) multi-billion dollar Disney Princess brand has been around for many generations of young girls. I remember my childhood days, planted in front of the television while I watched Belle fall in love the Beast and because of her love, he turned into an oh so dreamy prince; I watched Ariel lose her voice in return for a pair of legs in order to appeal to the oh so dreamy prince; I watched Cinderella watch her two evil stepsisters try to force their fat feet into the beautiful glass slipper Cinderella had lost while fleeing from the ball and from the oh so dreamy prince. Are we noticing a trend here?
Today, young girls are still living in the land of Disney Princess make believe and while we encourage young children to explore their imaginations, they are but taking the imaginations and age old gender stereotypes from the many Disney animators that we have given permission to parent our young daughters in what really matters in life, as truth. We all know that to a certain degree, the media will do their part in raising young children, but not only has the princess phenomenon withheld the test of time, it is continuously growing, and due to our own childhood memories attached to these stories that we are now sharing with our children, it has proven to be a bit harder to ween ourselves away from the princess phenomenon, and thus Princess Parenting was born.
While it is natural to a certain degree to place your kid up on a pedestal and tell them that they can be anything that they want to be and do whatever they wish to do with their lives as long as they are safe and happy, coupled with the princess phenomenon, you can very well have a bigger problem on your hands than you may have initially thought. Because of the extravagant lifestyles that the princess roles play in Disney’s imagination, if your daughter plays into these stories enough, you may see an increase in an instilled sense of self entitlement that may very well last longer than acceptable princess-believing age.
When young girls are carrying your living room rug to the top of the staircase and banking on the fact that instead of plummeting to the bottom of the stairs wrapped in a rug, the rug will suddenly take on a pseudo-human identity and bring them on a magical tour of the royal surroundings they will one day reign over while at the side of “the bad boy” that she can’t help but fall for, I think it’s about time that we stop letting a multi-billion dollar brand tell our children what their futures hold.
Last May I posted a book review of a children’s book, Princess Bubble, that put a refreshing spin on the princess fairy tale story. Princess Bubble lives in a castle of her own, decorated just the way she likes it; she has friends that she loves and a career as a flight attendant. Already Princess Bubble has more true-to-life features than many of the princesses Disney is forcing into the mainstream! As she watches her friends find their princes and move into castles to live happily ever after, Princess Bubble realizes that she likes her life just the way it is and by the end, she decides not to marry a prince and live happily ever after because happily ever after can be attained all by herself. Now there’s a fairy tale story that I can get behind!
I think the time has come where we need to stop feeding our children stories that embrace gender stereotypes and glorify the princess brand to such a degree where girls approach adulthood and still maintain that self entitlement that will ultimately hurt them and hold them back from what they can truly accomplish in their lives. Girls can do and become whatever they want and what they want to become does not have to include stifling gender roles.
Laundry, the Woman’s Drug of Choice
Notice how there are never men in any commercials or advertisements for laundry; or in that case any household chores? Well that’s because women love doing household chores, but our favorite is most definitely laundry! It’s the woman’s drug of choice; we just can’t help ourselves!
Sex(ist) Columns Turn a Woman’s Intelligence into Blathering Pieces on the Bedroom
DailyMail has published two separate articles in the past two days on one topic–Intelligent women are better in the bedroom. Both articles were written by different people, mentioning the same study conducted by Professor Tim Spector at King’s College in London, which leads me to think that they couldn’t merge the two stories that basically say the exact, same thing. Both articles use Spector’s so-called study to turn a woman’s intelligence into a “selling point” for better sex lives and to my disappointment, both articles were written by women.
The first article I read concerning this study smacked me in the face with sexism, starting with the title. ‘Bad luck bimbos: Intelligent women have better sex, study reveals’ In the second article, the caption under the article images reads ‘Bad news bimbos! Intelligent women have twice as many orgasms, a study shows’ I take my previous comment back, apparently both writers knew they were both covering this study and perhaps they did merge their stories, since the same, woman shaming, sexist wordage appears in both.
Bimbos!? Seriously!? For an article whose purpose it was to, I’m assuming, highlight a study that excited the women who wrote about it and perhaps even made them feel sexually liberated themselves, knowing that they are indeed intelligent women and all, why is it acceptable to treat ‘intelligent women’ as some sort of club; as if intelligence in women is something you just don’t see every day? This mentality undoubtedly exists, as I have been acquainted with men who, after reading my website, just could not believe how intelligent I was because I am a well-read woman who writes about politics and social issues. While I have experienced this ignorance myself–several times–and have also seen it dripping from newspapers and magazines targeted towards women, but written by men, it deeply concerns me when I see a woman who has let society dictate to her that some women are just not as good; which I took from just the title of this article. The word ‘bimbo’ is an extremely sexist and derogatory term to call any woman.
As I was expecting, adorning both of these articles were also pictures of “intelligent, sexy” women (pictured to the left) since when talking about intelligence and sex appeal, the two cannot be combined without an image of the oh so cliche ’sexy librarian,’ including black framed glasses. Must be more of that ’sexy nerd’ fanaticism society is so fond of.
The way the articles are presented and Professor Tim Spector’s study itself differ greatly, if you can look past the sexist, woman shaming title and cliche images. While the word ‘intelligent’ and ‘intelligence’ comes up repeatedly, the intelligence Spector references in his study refers to ‘emotional intelligence.’ Women who are able to express their feelings apparently have a better time in the bedroom than those who are unable to express emotion. Am I the only one a little sick of the ‘emotional woman’ aspect? I mean, sure, women are emotional, as are men. The only reason that this particular study has made it into the media is because the ‘emotional woman’ is still a sexist society staple and we use that staple time and again for publicity in magazines and newspapers that are targeted at women and used to shame women even more. If a woman isn’t afraid to speak up for herself when no one else wants to, whether it be to her acquaintances or in the workplace, she is deemed as being overly emotional or hysterical and a hindrance to those around her.
But now all of those stereotypes can be put to rest since our emotional states can now be used to spice up our sex lives, right? There really is nothing like taking woman shaming to the next level and attaching it directly to being looked at as merely nothing more than a sexual object. Way to go, Professor Spector!
Always A Tramp: Lil Kim On Dancing With The Stars
“You’re trying to be a lady but you’re more comfortable being a tramp,” were the words of Bruno Tonioli. The audience and her partner laughed along while the shock and embarrassment registered on the face of Lil Kim.
DWTS has a patriarchal foundation to begin with because it never challenges gender roles or sexuality. Though clearly Lance Bass is gay, the idea of him competing with a man was never given serious consideration outside of the gay and lesbian community as ultimately DWTS is about reminding others that performing the roles encoded to their bodies is of paramount performance.
Since the show has been on the air there have been plenty of dances that were highly sexual and yet it is the black woman that is called a tramp when she does a dance that is not in the least bit sexualized. What is this but the articulation of the jezebel construction? Tonoli felt safe making the commentary that he did because black female bodies are deemed always sexually available.
When white female dancers perform what is considered a sexy dance, the judges comment about how hot the dance was and rarely to never is it personalized in the manner that it was with Lil Kim. When Tonioli looked at her he did not see a woman, he saw a black woman and all of the negative behaviours that have been inscribed to our bodies for the purposes of exploitation. The eternal jezebel construct exists so that our bodies can be violated at will and this is why black female bodies are often deemed “unrapeable”.
It is quite easy to declare Lil Kim unladylike because that is a term restricted for white females. This is projected as complementary, however it serves to control the behaviour of white women. The conflation of “purity and goodness” and our continual capitulation to a gender performance based on submissiveness, is a direct result of viewing the world through a coercive male lens. This approach further divides white women and WOC, in that we learn to view each other as binary opposites even though we both share in gender based oppression.
The lesson learned from this is that sexism hurts all women, even when we are attacked differently. DWTS has become quite popular and projects itself as entertainment based model of the ways in which men and women are meant to interact with each other. The problem is that this version specifically supports a patriarchal view of the world and this necessarily means the disciplining of women. Just because it is wrapped in foot tapping music and a glittery costume does not mean that it is not riddled with rot.
h/t EUR This N That
Cross Posted from Womanist Musings
Are you sick? Don’t go to the Doctor, Just Watch TV
Do you suffer from “achey face?” “Bear head?” Well, you may be sick. Or do you wear sweatpants too often? Yeah, that means you are depressed and need to sit in front of the television, go down your list of symptoms with commercials for medication and find out which one you need. Like, really, really need. Right now.
AmazonFAIL
If you have a Twitter account and have logged in at any time during the last 24 hours or so, chances are you’re already familiar with #amazonfail, the current number one trending topic on Twitter, but just in case, here’s the deal—Amazon.com is and has been stripping sales rankings from LGBT, sexuality, and feminist books because of its “adult” content as part of Amazon’s new discriminatory censorship policy.
First of all, if Amazon wants to remove the sales rankings from products containing adult content throughout their site then they should not be selling books, as people tend to have minds of their own and the right to write and read books of their choosing. It is also not okay to go on a witch hunt specifically targeting content that only the religious right has had a vocal problem with. Some titles that have had their Amazon Sales Rankings revoked include Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity, Full Frontal Feminism, Gay Life And Culture: A World History, Lady Chatterley’s Lover, Queer Theory, Gender Theory: An Instant Primer, Men Who Rape: The Psychology Of The Offender, one of my favorite books of all time, Little Birds by Anais Nin, and quite a few others that can be seen here, as well as books as harmless as Heather Has Two Mommies, a children’s book, Ellen DeGeneres: A Biography, and The Truth Is…My Life In Love And Music by Melissa Etheridge. However, some titles that have not has their Amazon Sales Rankings removed include The Complete A**hole’s Guide To Handling Chicks, Ron Jeremy: The Hardest Working Man In Showbiz, Playboy: The Complete Centerfolds, and generally any book spreading the hetero love. In fact, the first search result that appears on Amazon for ‘homosexuality’ is A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality followed by a series of other hateful, discriminatory titles written with the purpose of “curing” homosexuality in mind.
Amazon’s director of corporate communications, Patty Smith, has made a statement saying that there has been a “glitch” in their systems and it is being fixed, but as many people have been pointing out over the last day, it does not take a technical glitch to pick and choose through a list of books on queer, gender, and women’s studies and remove their sales rankings and turning into yet another corporation catering to the homophobic religious right; that takes a human touch. As Renee of Womanist Musings points out:
Glitches usually happen randomly and this seems far to calculating to just be some sort of error. When we consider the fact that two states approved gay marriage last week, does the timing of this whole fiasco not seem to be just a little be too convenient? I think the fundies are trying to sell us their special brand of kool aid again.
But this “glitch” hasn’t just been affecting titles this past weekend; as Craig Seymour, the author of All I Could Bare: My Life in the Strip Clubs of Gay Washington, D.C., this discrimination has been happening since February.
It is about time that the word about Amazon’s hateful behavior has spread like wildfire throughout the weekend and there is sure to be more press on this topic in the morning. In the meantime, please enjoy this video by YA author Jackson Pearce:
Read more about AmazonFAIL at Womanist Musings, Feministe, Shameless, Daily Kos, and Smart Bitches, Trashy Books. You can also sign a protest regarding Amazon’s new “adult” policy here.
If you’re looking for a replacement for your Amazon needs, check out Powells Books, who also have a Partners Program for those of you with affiliate accounts.
Get Social
Flickr
Out Campaign
The OUT Campaign allows individuals to let others know they are not alone. It can also be a nice way of opening a conversation and help to demolish the negative stereotypes of atheists. Let the world know that we are not about to go away and that we are not going to allow those that would condemn us to push us into the shadows.
